John Deere 2940 Tractor, Pros cons

A friend has let me take his 2940 to try out, making hay. Only has 2500 hrs and is only done pasture clipping and some hay work. Not plowing or any crop farming. All I have ever run is my 4610 ford. This 2940 seems to be so huge for another 30 hp. It is alot longer and higher off the ground than I am used to. Just looking for opinions on this size of tractor for making hay and bushogging etc. I hate not to get it as I know its history etc. Has 4 new tires, new back rims, new clutch and has had some work on the hydrolics in the back end. I did notice that the rear housing was fairly warm to the touch after driving home 6 miles. Is that normal? Price is 11,000 and that looks like a good price as compared to others on the internet sales site. Thanks.

One of the ways to get a feel for used price is to go to the dealer and ask for the new plain jane version of the 2940. Approx 25 thousand for 75HP 4WD new.
Some folk dislike the 2940 as the trans hydraulic lines would split or blow off if the trans filter plugged and the divert valve chattered.
It's 33+ years old so use a coolant test strip and check the coolant's corrosion
inhibitor value. If depleted, you don't want any wet sleeve diesel that's been operated that way.
Pull the trans filter and look for anything. If there has been condensation or the wrong cheapo oil used. The brakes, pto and high/low drive clutches maybe ruined.
11 Grand is high for an old tractor of that size without a loader, cab or 4WD.

Sounds like something is missing from this story. Why does a 2500 hour tractor need new tires, rims, clutch, and hydraulic work? Yes, it is normal for the rear housing to be warm after six miles, 150 to 200 degrees would be be my guess as normal. Wayne

It did not come off a working farm but an estate. This is the 2nd set in its life. Was leaking behind and the farm manager thought new ones would be better. As was when it was in the shop being opened up, might as well put in a new clutch. Money was never an issue at this place.

Sounds like a good solid machine, I wouldn't be scared of it form the history. 11 sounds a bit high to me but maybe that's just because it hasn't been abused.

We had a 2940 for a few years. They have strong engines and not so strong hydraulics. Ours was used as a loader tractor on a dairy farm and saw its share of abuse. Biggest problem we had was the shift lever boots would get cracked or tore and water would get in the transmission. If I recall it got in the brakes and caused something to swell up and cause brake problems. I Can"t exactly remember though.

It is not a great loader tractor but would probably be fine for what you want to do with it.

Not nearly as reliable as a 4030, or 4040 in my book. Not as easy to service either; but 1/2 the price of the 4040!

Scotty

They're not a bad old tractor. There's several 3140's in the area here which are the same tractor more or less. They just used a different model number on them in Canada.
Probably their worst point is the hydraulics. They're notorious for developing high pressure leaks and other maladies that can cause a lot of headaches.... charge pressure problems, brake problems, wet clutch problems... etc. All of these things seem to lead to main pump problems... and so the cycle goes.
The Saran engines are pretty good engines too... but they like their drink. They do perform well at full power and produce good efficiency numbers on paper but their part load efficiency sucks. BAD.
They're also a ~10000 # range tractor before ballast. I'd question wether or not you really need that much tractor for what you describe. A lighter tractor with a 4 cylinder turbo engine might be a better fit. Also... these things were rated for 80 horse but I think most on the dyno will turn more like 85-90 horse at maximum...

With all due respect to B&D, if you need a tractor this size, comparing a 75 hp new 5xx0 series Deere to this tractor... is not even in the same ballpark. You'd be getting a bit better than half the weight with the new model and VERY basic features compared to this tractor. Even though the hydraulics were somewhat tempremental after some hours... it remains a very good system in terms of functionality when it's working correctly. You're not getting as much system on the new one.
But... mabey you don't need as much hydraulics or weight. New tractor might be worth a look for comparison and you can look at Kubota and NH too while you're at it.


Rod

No offense or slight intended or implied. If we all agreed on everything around here. It would be rather dull and new & improved innovations rare.
The 5075E is the only comparison left now that the safety Nazis in the EPA have forced the 6100D to common rail injection.

The 2940 and 2840 where great general utility tractors. The problems started when they are used as loader tractors or a heavy draw bar pulling tractor. The hydraulics system is a complicated one that if not repaired correctly will give headaches. The clutch is a dry one. The 359 engine is one of the best John Deere every built. It is very fuel efficient.

For the usage you are talking about it would work well. The price is on the higher range BUT you are getting a one owner tractor with new tires. If it is in the price range you can afford then I would not miss the opportunity to own it.

The heat you feel is just the oil warming up the transmission/rear end housing. I had a JD 2640 that would get so hot plowing that it would burn your leg on the sides if your pants road up.

RodinNS
I couldn't agree with you more .The JD 5075E even with MFWD only has a JD advertised weight of Approx. Ship Wgt, lb. (kg) Open; Cab 5070 (2300) and Advertised PTO HP (kW) @ Rated RPM 61 (44.9) @ 2400 per SAE out of a 179 cid engine.

According to Tractordata a 2940 Weight: 9435 to 10650 pounds and PTO (tested): 81.17 hp [60.5 kW] with a 329 cid engine

Hardly a even comparison on weight or hp or PRICE