STILL steers like a barge

[Soundguy]

quality does not mean something won't break. misuse of a 'quality' tool can damage it. I've had rent-a-drunks ruin the clutch in a brand new 'quality' piece of equipment within a few hours use.

soundguy

 

[Bob Rooks]

I've had rent-a-drunks........

Ha ha, I like that one, that's great! Now I now the correct phrase to use next time.

 

[lakespirit]

Good post Ron , i wonder how many hours an owner can expect to get out of the Dog and pump shaft ? They should have put a bigger blade on the shaft to utilize ALL of the surface area on the Dogs groove . It's not hard to imagine how much torque is applied to that small blade when the hydraulics are at relief . Just like using a small screwdriver in a large screw , it's inevitable the slot will tear out .

I **** near welded a piece of 1/2" plate to the tang to do just that. I still may do that. If I do, I'll post a couple pics.

 

[lakespirit]

I **** near welded a piece of 1/2" plate to the tang to do just that. I still may do that. If I do, I'll post a couple pics.

Correction: "I darn near"......

 

[Eagleview]

Good work , i would have liked to see a couple of pics though .

I have also seen this setup before on automobiles as previously stated , but every one that Ive ever seen have been equal sized i.e the tang was the same size as the slot . Engine oil pump drives , distributor shaft drives etc . And i would guarantee that the material used was better quality than what has been used here . But the good news is that you found the problem and fixed it , so well done .

 

[Soundguy]

And i would guarantee that the material used was better quality than what has been used here .

From looking at that picture.. the pop-top on my soda bottle had better metal in it... that drive tang did just 'look' quite soft...

soundguy

 

[Bob Rooks]

From looking at that picture.. the pop-top on my soda bottle had better metal in it... that drive tang did just 'look' quite soft...

Engine oil pump drives , distributor shaft drives etc . And i would guarantee that the material used was better quality than what has been used here.

It's obvious to me now that both of you gentlemen own Chinese tractors........with concurrent advanced degrees in metallurgy, so I will heretofore honor you with the respect you deserve.

 

[Soundguy]

It's obvious to me now that both of you gentlemen own Chinese tractors........with concurrent advanced degrees in metallurgy, so I will heretofore honor you with the respect you deserve.

don't need either to call out obvious under-engineering.

you don't have to be a firefighter to know your house is on fire when you wake up in the middle of the night, smell smoke, see flames, and it's darn hot, and you hear sirens coming down the street, and there's a lil white thing stuck to your ceiling beeping like crazy.

Lets just say I've cracked open near 70yr old tractors and seen better 'metalurgy'.. IE.. fit / finish of parts made to engage..

soundguy

 

[Rich Waugh]

I'm sure not a metallurgist, just a simple country blacksmith, but I have spent more than just a couple of decades working with widely diverse alloys and metals, and I still can't tell by just looking what a particular piece of steel is or how it has been heat treated. I would submit that no one else can, either.

I've seen a lot of poor designs on equipment ranging from Chinese pull toys to spacecraft, and I've also seen good design on the same range of stuff. None of that makes me an expert, by any means. But that won't stop me from venturing the opinion that the coupling design in question isn't the real problem, nor is the quality of the steel used. Looks more to me like the problem stems from insufficient engagement depth to distribute the load adequately. Someone noted, I believe, that the part in question comes in two different lengths and the wrong one might have been installed, causing the failure. Seems reasonable to me.

It also seems reasonable and likely to me that with tens of thousands of those assemblies in use, a fundamental design or material flaw would have resulted in a specification change at the factory. Easy enough to change, and unprofitable to stick with a system that results in a high percentage of warranty claims or bad customer reviews. Say what you want, but these tractors have been successful worldwide for decades and that doesn't happen if you steadfastly put out crap.

I'm sure that if you have an overwhelmingly better design and can make it for a reasonable price that you might find a place in the market for your product. Heck, I 'd probably even consider getting one from you, myself. Until then, though, I'll keep right on running my Jinma as it is, enjoying its robust performance that didn't break my bank account or my back.

Rich

 

[Eagleview]

It's a no brainer to know how these tractors are manufactured , shipped and resold , all at a mark up at such a low price . I wonder how they do it .

I have a new 23 tonne Chinese excavator , two new generators , 3 new water pumps and a new trail bike . They are all junk , but they are cheap , that is why we all buy them , no ?

 

[Rich Waugh]

It's a no brainer to know how these tractors are manufactured , shipped and resold , all at a mark up at such a low price . I wonder how they do it .

I have a new 23 tonne Chinese excavator , two new generators , 3 new water pumps and a new trail bike . They are all junk , but they are cheap , that is why we all buy them , no ?

Nope, not me. I bought mine because it represented a solid value for the money and would do what I needed done. I could certainly have afforded to purchase a new JD, NH or Kubota, but I chose the Jinma for its value. It is certainly not a piece of crap, unlike the Ford New Hollands the local government has been purchasing but can't keep running. Unlike our government, I don't knowingly buy crap, no matter how cheap it might be. I depend on my equipment and tools to do what they're supposed to and I haven't been disappointed with the Jinma at all.

 

[Bob Rooks]

Iron Horse and Soundguy,
You both personally knowing full well that Chinese equipment is junk, continue to purchase it, and yet condemn it. That makes a very strong statement of your intelligence and skewed perspectives. I refuse to do a battle of wits with obviously unarmed men. I will leave this discussion.

 

[stevem5215]

It's really not whether chinese manufacturered products are junk.
It's all about good, fast, cheap. Which two do you choose ? It's very hard for a company to balance all three and get a winner (which they occasionally do). But IMO with chinese we have cheap, and fast. They have some good in there but it's the lesser of the three.

Steve

 

[Eagleview]

Iron Horse and Soundguy,
You both personally knowing full well that Chinese equipment is junk, continue to purchase it, and yet condemn it. That makes a very strong statement of your intelligence and skewed perspectives. I refuse to do a battle of wits with obviously unarmed men. I will leave this discussion.

Now with the personal attacks and character assassination . You crack me up , you'd swear your honour had been attacked . Someone says something about Chinese gear being cheap and nasty and you take it personally . Not even a word said about your tractor . Buy what you like , i could care less .

Anyone passing up on Japanese , European and American equipment and buying Chinese looking for quality is truly lost .

I buy Chinese because it's "(cheap)" , if i can get a few years out of my excavator and still be able to trade it in for a jet ski when I'm finished i will be happy . After some work on modifying it to do the work it was supposed to do in the first place it seems to work OK now . The radio was the first modification .

 

[Soundguy]

the opinion that the coupling design in question isn't the real problem

Looks more to me like the problem stems from insufficient engagement depth to distribute the load adequately.

The pic shows the 2 parts.. I agree.. insufficient contact area.. BY DESIGN.. thus a 'bad design'... ( or it's an accident )

If it's a true parts mismatch.. then its HORRIBLE procedure and or QC.. which is just as bad as bad design.. Don't sound like this was an isolated incedent.

soundguy

 

[greg_g]

Well, what one of the dealers said earlier makes sense. If I extrapolate accurately, the drive assembly is part of the engine. All drive slots would then logically be the same depth. But a number of different pumps are installed, quite possibly from more than one manufacturer. Not all have drive tangs of identical (or sufficient) depth.

One would think the solution would be for the tractor manufacturer to spec the various pumps with a common tang, consistent with the depth of the common drive slot. Apparently there are other forces here at work that I'm not seeing from afar

//greg//

 

[Soundguy]

Well, what one of the dealers said earlier makes sense. If I extrapolate accurately, the drive assembly is part of the engine. All drive slots would then logically be the same depth. But a number of different pumps are installed, quite possibly from more than one manufacturer. Not all have drive tangs of identical (or sufficient) depth.

One would think the solution would be for the tractor manufacturer to spec the various pumps with a common tang, consistent with the depth of the common drive slot. Apparently there are other forces here at work that I'm not seeing from afar

//greg//

I agree a common spec drive tang to go along with that common spec reciever would be the real ticket.

soundguy