WD45 Wide Front End and Loader Questions

I'm reading and finding that later year models of the WD45 wide front ends were 4 vs 3 bolt configurations. Anyone know the model years the 4 bolt wide front end was offered?

With the 3 or 4 bolt wide front end, how sturdy were these loaders? Light duty, very light duty, heavy duty? Are they to light to pick up a round bale and move it around? Round bale being 4x4 for sure and possibly a 4x5.

I could see myself buying a late model 4 bolt wide front end WD45 without a front end loader - just so I know the front end isn't trashed from using a loader for some 50 years and then adding a loader to it. I think that would be a handy tractor for light loader chores. I'm skeptical that the front end and loader on the WD45 could handle lifting/moving round bales, but if it could, it would be one less loader to buy.

Any advice on the WD45 wide front end and loader is much appreciated.

Thanks!
Bill

Bill Va! I have a 55 WD45, and it has the 4 bolt plate on the center of the WFE, I thought that was normal, till I bought a 52 WD45 for scrap price, and noticed that it had a 3 bolt plate on it, and It had one bolt missing, and was welded in place. Actually the steering on the 52 is smoother, and tighter than my 4 bolt 1955. I don't know when they changed the bolt configuration! I have a large DuAl loader that I use on my 55 WD45, with PTO pump, and hydraulic dump, I welded pad eyes in my bucket, to accept a 3 pt bale spear. and have used it ok on big rounds, reputed by the hay seller, to exceed 1000 pounds. I have also carried them on my 3 pt, and prefer that method. I don't feel comfortable with a heavy bale up in the air, and the front wheels, subject to dropping in an unseen low spot. I have also heard of round bales, rolling backwards, down the uplifted loader arms, and taking out the operator. Breaking the tractor front end is the least, of my bale handeling worries.

Been moving round and large squares with my WD and 3 bolt for several years now. Even made a spear for it to make things easier. Never been a problem. Go slow and keep it low.
AaronSEIA

"Armstrong Steering" and handling round bales will get old real quick.Plus the hydraulics
and the way they operate on a WD45 in my opinion are not loader friendly.We had a loader for our WD45 years ago and it beat a scoop or shovel but there are numerous reasonably priced tractors around these days that are a whole lot better to put a loader on for sure.

(quoted from post at 10:17:12 05/02/15) I'm reading and finding that later year models of the WD45 wide front ends were 4 vs 3 bolt configurations. Anyone know the model years the 4 bolt wide front end was offered?

With the 3 or 4 bolt wide front end, how sturdy were these loaders? Light duty, very light duty, heavy duty? Are they to light to pick up a round bale and move it around? Round bale being 4x4 for sure and possibly a 4x5.

I could see myself buying a late model 4 bolt wide front end WD45 without a front end loader - just so I know the front end isn't trashed from using a loader for some 50 years and then adding a loader to it. I think that would be a handy tractor for light loader chores. I'm skeptical that the front end and loader on the WD45 could handle lifting/moving round bales, but if it could, it would be one less loader to buy.

Any advice on the WD45 wide front end and loader is much appreciated.

Thanks!
Bill

Click to expand...

The stronger 4 bolt design was incorporated in late 1954 production and newer. The front axle and steering box were the same, just a more rugged retention of the front pivot mounting plate. As old as these tractors are getting, you might even find a 4-bolt design on an old WD, installed many years after the tractor was built. So, you can't go by the age of the tractor.....it's either a 3 bolt or 4 bolt.

It's not too bad. Just need to be rolling. Bet I've set a couple hundred bales with my WD. Maybe 50 or so with the spike setup. You run what you can afford. Anything with a full hyd loader is going to take good money to buy, or good time to fab. Currently putting a Paulson full hyd loader on a D17 I bought. Will sell the WD and loader to someone who can use it.
AaronSEIA

Thanks everyone for the info on the loaders. One of the things I struggle with on the WD45 is simply scale. I'm sure I've seen one up close, but don't remember, so in pics, they just look like a smaller tractor than their counterparts from IH and JD. Hopefully this summer I can see one at a county fair or a tractor pull to get a feel for how large/small a tractor they are relative to my MF50.

That's the reason I was asking about the loader' stability to handle a round bale. Not sure just how physically large the WD45 is - LOL!

Thanks again,
Bill

Any tractor you buy you need to get on one and drive it around to see if it suits you,some of these old tractors are neat to look at but when using them for field work they are a job in themselves to drive.Probably the worst drivers I've been on are the Case
DC and SC followed by most of the older Farmalls and the WD ain't too far behind.The CA Allis drives pretty nice as do most of the older Olivers.Doing something like mowing and raking hay that requires a lot of turning poor/hard steering will wear you out quick.

Thanks! Totally understood.

This 3rd tractor is more of a novelty for me and my boys than a tractor that we would spend hours and hours on working it; we've got other tractors for that. The dated design and all that goes with it - we know going-in it ain't going to be necessarily a comfortable ride like my JD or MF. But we would like the tractor to be a worker when needed and I have to say that the WD45 is at the top of my list right now.

I don't know about some of the folks here, but with me, the day job puts the potatoes on the plate. Keeping up the old farm and making some hay, having some quantity and quality time with my family on the farm - while doing chores - to me (I gather) is what golfing or boating is to someone else.

One of these days I'm going to upgrade the baler to something newer or new. IMHO - the inline Hesston/MF small square balers are about as good as it gets. But from a spectacle standpoint, maybe not. I'll probably upgrade, when I do, it will likely be a JD 338. Old design - yet still in production, reliable - but just as important (to me) is - I just like the spectacle of looking over my shoulder at the hay pick-up feeding hay into the baler - LOL. Not as easy with the inline. Heck of a reason to choose one baler over the other, but in my off hours, if there isn't some fun in it - might as well do something else. Someone told me one time - life is good when you are riding a tractor. For me - it's like taking a pill to relax after a stressful day at the salt mine.

Same with the WD45. Very intriguing tractor. Great engine, '50's look, live power, 3 point adaptable easily - but what would really be fun, I think, is hooking up a snap coupler plow and giving the tractor a workout. I also like the sensitive governor. I got to believe (and have read this to some extent) that the tractor gives a nice grunt every time the plunger cycles on a square baler. Not a good reason to buy a tractor, but music to my ears - another plus for the WD45.

Thanks again for all the help.

Bill

The single front wheel case SC although not good for a loader are simple and a pleasure to drive its like having power steering quick sharp turns. You can even play with the neighbors put your one brake on turn and make perfect crop circles. Just saying Byron