Transmission types for JD 40 series.

[AKfish]

The reverser and hi low are hydraulic and didn't hold up well.

Hmm.. not reliable? Any particular reason that either the reverser or the hi-low were prone to failure?

Thanks.

AKfish

 

[RickB]

Hmm.. not reliable? Any particular reason that either the reverser or the hi-low were prone to failure?

Thanks.

AKfish

Too many opportunities for internal leaks, low lockup pressures, and clutchpack failures.

 

[AKfish]

Too many opportunities for internal leaks, low lockup pressures, and clutchpack failures.

RickB,

Under "normal operating conditions" how many hours before tranny problems would likely occur?

Thanks.

AKfish

 

[RickB]

It was not unusual to see & hear of problems with these tractors at not much over 2000 hours. At this point, one needs to think about the age and possible condition of o-rings & seals in addition to the hours of use.

 

[Dill]

When they work the reverser is a great option. If you can factor in the cost of possibly fixing it in the couple years or ask the seller if anything has been worked on that helps. One funny thing about the reverser is you have just as many reverse gears as forward. Backing up at 18mph is an experience. I was playing with one at an auction last month. It surprising how fast it is. That was a 2940 with 7700 hours, and it brought 6k, and I think if it was the straight gear it might have brought more. The CaseIh reversers of the time period you had to clutch, and they have held up better.

 

[Brimstone10x]

The reverser is locked out in hi range, unless someone has modifed it. Also its the same trans as used in the loader backhoes of the same period. I love my 1520 with the reverser.

 

[Dill]

That makes sense, this one was messed with then. :laughing:
I just thought I'd pull the lever and suddenly I was flying backwards. Seems like that would really put some stress on a driveline.

 

[jenkinsph]

AKfish,
I think you are going thru what I did a year or so back. I can tell you that for my uses keeping the 110 and buying the 4520 was the best decision. Being able to share implements was a big plus, I couldn't justify changing all my implements to move up one series.

IIRC you purchased the 110 about the time I joined TBN, that thing should be paid off soon, I would wait a little longer and get the 4520 afterwards. Keep them both.:thumbsup:

 

[AKfish]

Steve;

Yep.. almost payed off - 6 months to go. My wife says I'll regret it if I sell the 110. (She's gettin' to know me pretty good after nearly 29 years!! )

The CAT I vs CAT II question is a big one for me. I'm gettin' a fair number of implements and it would be a hit to change.

I think I'm gonna go for a 4720, though. I want all the extra HP I can get to run a small round baler and a larger disc mower.

AKfish

 

[jenkinsph]

Steve;

Yep.. almost payed off - 6 months to go. My wife says I'll regret it if I sell the 110. (She's gettin' to know me pretty good after nearly 29 years!! )

The CAT I vs CAT II question is a big one for me. I'm gettin' a fair number of implements and it would be a hit to change.

I think I'm gonna go for a 4720, though. I want all the extra HP I can get to run a small round baler and a larger disc mower.

AKfish

I thought about it but don't have to bale hay, in your case I would agree and would go with the premium air seat too. The economy pto is worthwhile especially when looking at the 4720. At 1740 rpm you can have a good groundspeed with these tractors and still utilize lighter pto loads while saving fuel.

Are you thinking to go with a fel? I didn't because I suspected the 110 fel is better anyway and I have all three hydraulic outlets plumbed to the rear on mine. This allows me to get in tight spaces the 110 does not fit.

 

[AKfish]

The 400X and CX aren't in the same league as the 110 loader. But, I want to get a bale grapple and the self-leveling CX would fit the bill very nicely for loading wagons and trailers with small square bales.

Very interesting discussion regarding the hydraulic option changes that might be on the 2011 models. I do like the possibility of having dedicated rear mount SCV's that don't require the electric diverter option that current 3000-4000 tractors have.

AKfish

 

[jenkinsph]

The 400X and CX aren't in the same league as the 110 loader. But, I want to get a bale grapple and the self-leveling CX would fit the bill very nicely for loading wagons and trailers with small square bales.

Very interesting discussion regarding the hydraulic option changes that might be on the 2011 models. I do like the possibility of having dedicated rear mount SCV's that don't require the electric diverter option that current 3000-4000 tractors have.

AKfish

Actually I had four 48" hoses made to replace the steel lines and routed them over the rear end in a space (cavity) that exists on the 4x20 machines. That works better than having the couplers mounted further to the rear because the top and tilt hoses are easier to deal with this way.

On the 110 I am going to tee into the valve for the front auxillary couplers and install a set on the rear. While I can't use these for front and rear at the same time I rarely use the front anyway so this would give me four sets of rear couplers for a fully hydraulic rear blade. That is the only implement I wan't that would need that many circuits.

If I had really thought about it I would have ordered the 4520 with the diverter and plumbed all the quick connects to the rear for things like the rearblade.

If I could afford to buy a new 210LJ landscape loader this would solve all of these problems.

 

[AKfish]

On the 110 I am going to tee into the valve for the front auxillary couplers and install a set on the rear. While I can't use these for front and rear at the same time I rarely use the front anyway so this would give me four sets of rear couplers for a fully hydraulic rear blade. That is the only implement I wan't that would need that many circuits.

If I had really thought about it I would have ordered the 4520 with the diverter and plumbed all the quick connects to the rear for things like the rearblade.

If I could afford to buy a new 210LJ landscape loader this would solve all of these problems.

Regarding your 110 - I don't want to get in the way of "creative solutions"... but, I just bought a $56 rear tail light flasher for my 110. 'Cause I forgot that the diverter was switched to the rear SCV's and I wanted to raise the FEL - well, after I lowered the disc mower OFF OF the canopy... and picked up the pieces of the tail light... it's just too easy to mess things up with "switching this and toggling that" - IMO.

I'd think it would be easier to mount a single valve body off of your PB circuit (you're not gonna have the hoe mounted with a rear blade) and work the 4th cylinder that way. And, you won't have to switch the diverter back and forth - just leave it on the rear position and work the other 3 cylinders.

"If I could afford to buy a new 210LJ landscape loader this would solve all of these problems." Yep... I hear ya! Like my 'ol man used to say - if wishes was horses.. we'd all ride!!

AKfish