4630 fuel usage vs 4020???

agwss

Member
4630 powershift pulling a hayrake and loading/moving big round bales with a loader vs a 4020 dsl powershift doing the same thing....how will they compare at the end of the day when it's time to fuel them up???
 
Is the air conditioning running on the 4630, or is the 4630 weighted 50 percent heavier than the 4020?
 
So is it safe to say that let's say at 1500 rpms doing light work that the ratio would be the same?
 
I think the 4020 would do better at lower RPM's, I know the low end power would be better on the 4020,,4630's don't like low RPM work...
 
OK, Makes sense. I want to update the 4020 with a heavier framed tractor to handle the larger round bales we're making these days and the 4630 seems a lot less dollars up front but looks like I'll pay for it in the end. thanks.
 
The 4020 surprises me sometimes on how stingy it is compared to the Ford 6610, which gets real thirsty when worked hard.
 
speaking as a guy that has a couple 4630s I can speak for what I've seen them use for fuel consumption. Actually, they've really impressed me that they aren't the fuel hogs most folks claim they are.

Doing light work such as pulling a rake, doing loader work, pulling a drill moving snow, running 50k generator, ect I on average see consumption in the 2.5-3.5 gph range. now hook that same tractor up to a 21ft disc, and it will burn about 9gph.

We choose to go with the 4630 because they're plentiful, cheaper than dirt, easy to fix, affordable to buy parts for, and as a loader tractor is much better suited for carrying bales around all day if you can handle using a bigger tractor in your hay corral. the 4630 has so much more weight in the rear end you'll be much happier with the traction you'll get when moving round bales around. even 2 at at a time, and especially when it's cold, snowy, and slick. The front ends are built much heavier as well.

aside from size, and only having 1000 pto, I can't think of one reason why I'd want a 4020 over these 4630s.

I bought one just last fall. it was a 9000 hour machine that was recently inframe overhauled, and had a new air ride seat, new injection pump, and rebuilt hyd pump, with really good rubber on it. I paid 15K for it and it's been doing hard work since I got it home with no fuss. you just can't beat what you get for the money.

I moved the outside dual hubs all the way in and cut off the protruding 4 inches of axleshaft to help with going through gates and such and it's been no issue. some will say it devalues the tractor, but it's pretty hard to devalue something that's 40 years old, and cost between 10-15K

one suggestion, if you're going to use it for ranch/loader work primarily, you'll want the 8 speed powershift. the quad range is a great transmission and is my second choice. in primarily farm work, the quad range is a better option then the powershift.
 
(quoted from post at 23:18:00 03/02/15) The 4020 surprises me sometimes on how stingy it is compared to the Ford 6610, which gets real thirsty when worked hard.

David
According to Nebraska test 6610 burns a lot less fuel than a 4020. Has your 6610 had the fuel turned up?
mvphoto17049.png

mvphoto17050.png
 
Tim, That's why you take the leg off of the valve that regulates fuel control (no boost)on the injection pump. Makes a completely different tractor out of them.

We bought a new vermeer baler this winter and plan to pull it with our powershift 4630 at low rpms like we did the deere baler. We'll see how it handles 7th gear at about 1400 rpm :D :D
 
I have always been fond of 4630's it was the first new tractor of the new Gens that we bought,February 29,1976, we worked the snot out of it, back then it was our big horse, Dad would rake hay with it because it had a cab, we didn't know about the aneroid adjustment back then and it would dog out bad a low RPM's, we also had 2 4020's at that time working with the 4630, pulled 2 145X16 5bottom plows with the 4020's and a 6 bottom 1450X16 with the 4630, my little Brother ran the 4630 most of the time and he liked C2 when he plowed, and she liked her fuel in that gear, B2 was a more comfortable gear for it, the 4020's used 5th most of the time,,the fuel truck needed to show up when supper time came around...
 
not sure of the weighting of the 4020. I know the tag weight on the 4630 is 19,600. plus whatever wheel weights/fluid one might put in the rear wheels.

We have one 4630 with weights and fluid, and one with just weights.

It takes a triple axle or tandem dueled trailer to haul them anywhere, and a pickup that's got some motor under the hood. a 4020 I would think would weigh in the 13,000 - 15,000 range?
 
Our old 4630 worked at about 19,000lb and the 4020's with fluid and a few weights worked at about 11,500lb.
 
If I tried 1400 rpms with my 4630 on the baler it would never make the hills and fuel consumption would be double, I have to agree with Tim S on this one. They need turbo boost to run efficient and you dont get that when you are lugging an engine. Our Vermeer balers have always performed better at the 1700 to 1850 range as well. Pickup seems to be geared for that 6 to 7 mph at 75% rpm. Remember it takes more rpm to cool an engine that is being lugged.
 
For one thing the fan RPM is reduced, which will affect the cooling,, the cheaper price on the 4630's is mainly because of the 1000 RPM shaft,,and most people wanting that size HP want front wheel drive too, Hub City use to make a 540/1000 adapter box, not sure of the price and how it will effect the length of the PTO shaft to implement.. A 4440 is very near the same as a 4630, but with 540 shaft and a 466 engine, and when you compare the price of them there is a big difference because of the shaft speed..and a few less Birthdays...
 
We are comparing a turbocharged tractor to a non turboed one. For light work Like bale hauling I would think the 4020 would get better fuel economy than the 4630 when figuring HP hours per gallon. Under full load the 4630 might get better HP hours per gallon. Guys talk about how many gallons per hour their tractor uses but that is not a fair analysis. I'd like to see a stock 4020 and a stock 4630 sitting side by side pulling Dino's at 50 HP while fuel consumption is measured.
 
I know a 4020 was built as a non turbo'd engine, so it's power band is a bit different than a 4630. That being said, even if you're running a 4630 around 1500 rpm, I'm not sure your power would be less than a 4020s, as long as the 4630s fuel aneroid had been backed off or disabled.

for loader work which is very light work imo, either tractor would work, but only one of them will have good traction with one or two bales on the front, and a 4020 is pretty well limited to just that, maybe running a rake and loading a bale or two.

Like I said in my last post, our 4630's do all the light work of pulling a rake, grain drill manure spreader ect at lower rpms with fuel usage of 2.5-3.5 gph. very minimal.. on the flip side though there's the option to hook it up to a tilling implement, and make double the horsepower of a 4020 and go farming.


If a person's not willing to make the changes to the aneroid on the 4630s injector pump (which takes about 15 minutes) to wake it up at low rpms, then yes, I'd be less likely to recommend it for loader/low rpm work, you wouldn't like it.
 

We sell tractor parts! We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today.

Back
Top