(800) 853-2651
SHOP NOW

Differences between a JD 4630 and 4640??

A

andy r

Member
Looking to buy a John Deere 4630 or a 4640.

How many internal/external differences are there between a John Deere 4630 and a 4640?

Given the same hours and same general appearance is a 4630 worth all that much more that a 4640?

Were there some mechanical improvements that give the 4640 an edge over the 30's series?

Seems to be many power shift transmissions in the 4630's and 4640's that I have seen. One owners says he has replaced one whole power shift assembly in the transmission at about $6000. Sounded like it was an entire assembly that was bought rebuilt. Are there sort of 2 separate clutch pack/planetary assemblies in the transmission. With these tractors having 7000 - 8000 hours on them should I stick with power shifts or move toward the quad range transmission? Probably would put 200 hours on this tractor yearly consisting of light to moderate draft. Primarily a no till farmer. Thanks a lot. Happy New Year to all of you.
 
You?ll love the powwrshift if you get one . The quad range is pretty nice to . I would like to have a 4430 4440 my cousin had 3 4440 two quad range and one poweshift . I?m holding out for a 50 series because I want mfwd on my next tractor becuse I lose a couple days every fall do to being to wet to go but the neighbors With mfwd can go . You can get a reman poweshift packs for about 6500$ For the front and rear packs
Untitled URL Link
 
The biggest difference is the engine the 30 series is the 404. The 40 series is the 466. Also in my opinion no 4630 would be worth more than a 40 series.
 
I would go with the 4640 which has the 466 engine and the Quad Range transmission which offers double the speeds of a Powershift and tends to be less costly to repair. IMO the 404 of the 30 series is maxed out when you get to 150 PTO HP and takes quite a bit of fuel to do it. It would take a 4630 that had a reputation that could be confirmed by yourself or others to really make it a comfortable consideration for purchase. The 8 speed Powershift was nice in its day but really is a dinosaur today and JD has stopped offering some of the less frequently replaced parts for them. Once again the 4640 with Quad Range is the way to go in my mind.
 

4630s were still a "small" frame - roughly the same dimensions as a 4430. Also only came with small 1000 PTO. Had the 404 with intercooler. Early models had the same seat as a 4020 - were great on an open station but poor in a cab. It would have to be a 1977 model and extremely cheap to entice me to buy one over a 40 series - super nice and under $9k. 1977 model is even more important if you go for a quad range. The shifter linkages were made much better that last year. Not as important for a powershift

4640 and 4840 were large frame tractors - wider and longer. They have a more comfortable ride, but they're also not as manueverable. They came with big 1000 PTO only. There is a serial number break at (only going from memory, so i may be a lil' off) 10,250 on the 4840 and 16,500 on the 4640 powershifts where they fixed a problem with the PTO. Many have been upgraded, but you need to look over the PTO if below those numbers. The PTO should not slide in and out at all. If it does (even a 1/16th), it has not been upgraded. they also had the better 466 engine.

I have both a 4640 I bought to replace a 4430 and a 4840. They're great tractors. Used to hurt their value that they did not offer 540 PTO, but so much stuff is 1000 now that it isn't the case as much anymore.

Keep in mind, these were the brutes of their day - biggest row crop tractors available. Lots of them had their guts pulled out. Have them dynoed and if they're running over 200 hp, turn them back.
 
I farmed for a guy who bought a new 4630 and 5-18 JD plow. After the first 2 rounds I thought, this thing is really a dog.
 
You must have been trying to run in d4 or forgot to push the fuel shutoff all the way In my 4020 pulls 5x16 in 3 rd in sod and 4th in stubble . Kinda sounds like a fiat lover story to me
 
Depending what you want to do with it the poweshift Is the only way to go you can shift through 1 to 8 and back and change directions without ever touching the clutch that?s really handy cutting hay baling hay any job where you want to slow down to turn and then speed up or change directions. If your going to hook to a big disk or field cultivator In a big field then the quad range is ok but even though you get a lot more gears sometimes the one you want Is say b1 or b3 Guess What no poweshift down when your in one or 3 without clutching either dropping the speed lever a hole or the range lever a hole
 
Worked on a farm for a while that had 2 4430s. One was a hard puller and worked good. The other was an amazing dog and burned even more fuel than the other. They had the dog into the dealer to look at and found nothing wrong. They said the good one was just better than average. Was the first time I came across 2 basically identical tractors that we're so different. I later ran across 2-2290 cases that we're like that.
 
I have seen two Cummins engines that were set up exactly the same and one would sure run a lot better same pump and injectors we even pulled injectors and swapped them and checked the injection pump settings could not figure out what was different both automatic transmission and same gear ratio the one would just flat walk all over the other one
 
I had both a 4630 quad and a 4840 powershift. Loved them both I preferred 4630 for the narrow hood on certain jobs. And preferred the 4840 for power needy jobs. That 466cid was so snappy strong.4840's and 4640' are almost the same tractor.
 
Huh-We used to pull A Deere 3200 6x18 pull type plow with ours---Tee
cvphoto7802.jpg
 
I borrowed a 4650 once. Put my 4x16 rollover plow on it.Wound up it had more power than my 1256.At low rpm it was a dog. Fell flat on it's face. Had to leave the throttle wide open at all times,use the powershift to turn and slow down.It had no low end torque. The 1256 on the other hand,you could back the off the throttle down to an idle to slow down and make your turn.. Then push it open and it would go.All kinds of low end torque.BTW,the 4650 used about twice the fuel of the 1256.Even the 4040 I bought new in '80 used more fuel than my 1256 does now.And my buddies 4010 would out pull it.I think I'll stay with my red ones.LOL
 
Dad had 2 4020s that were night and day different there was one year difference and both stock the older one always out performed the newer one.
 
(quoted from post at 21:13:27 01/01/19) I borrowed a 4650 once. Put my 4x16 rollover plow on it.Wound up it had more power than my 1256.At low rpm it was a dog. Fell flat on it's face. Had to leave the throttle wide open at all times,use the powershift to turn and slow down.It had no low end torque. The 1256 on the other hand,you could back the off the throttle down to an idle to slow down and make your turn.. Then push it open and it would go.All kinds of low end torque.BTW,the 4650 used about twice the fuel of the 1256.Even the 4040 I bought new in '80 used more fuel than my 1256 does now.And my buddies 4010 would out pull it.I think I'll stay with my red ones.LOL
Click to expand...

"the 4650 used about twice the fuel of the 1256", that seems ODD, as Nebraska Test 971 shows a 1256 putting out 103.27 HP burning 7.128 gallons per hour (14.49 Hp hrs/gallon), and Test 1460 shows a 4650 loafing while putting out 108.94 HP and burning 7.34 gallons per hour (14.84 Hp hrs/gallon).

Not the the DEERE did slightly better in the Hp hrs/gallon category.

You must have used a REALLY sick 4650!
 
Sounds like bs to me I?ve ran 4430 4650 and we had 2 4850 but it?s your story I guess . Kinda like a green plow pulls harder than a red one I proved that false pulling a smaller red plow than the John Deere and the red one pulled harder oh and that was behind the same tractor
 
It?s the typical red tractor guy story and then when
you give them facts they say oh well uh uh well
those numbers are fake . I like delta red but it?s
winter and even I have to much time to tell stories
on here
 
I have two 50 series engines with one in a 4250 and the other as a repower in an 8430 articulated. I don't find either hard on fuel but will admit that the 4250 uses more fuel than i like to see where it is basically loafing for a job. I would have the same criticism for any high HP tractor doing very light chores. Further, a 1256 is around 115-120 HP and the 4650 is 165 HP and can be opened up to around 215 HP at the flywheel. The 8430 put out 185 PTO HP on the dyno when the 50 series engine went in. So it is not surprising the JD uses quite a bit more fuel.
 
Regardless of make poor tires and poor ballasting will result in a lot of extra fuel burned per acre or hour. Also, MFWD tractors in my mind have an advantage over 2WD tractors again due to less slippage. The Midwest was not big on MFWD during the 1980's so many 4650 tractors as well as others that may have gone to the farm as 2WD don't standup to today's MFWD and radial tire equipped units in terms of efficiency. The Northeast where I live adapted to MFWD earlier and wider so I don't see many 4650's here that are 2WD.
 
I own a 1256 too. We never owned a 4650 but did own a 4640 and the 1256 doesn't come close to what the 4640 would pull. Its more on par with our 5010 and 5020 and that's on its best day.
 
My cousins have two 6030s. One they bought new back in the day and the other they bought used later on. The first one had endless power and the 2nd one was sort of doggy compared to the first one. One of them was a demo tractor. Take a guess which one it was.
 
I ran it for days as I worked for him at the time. I pumped the fuel myself. This was a spring season thing, so a good long term test.
 
I was just looking at mfwd tractors they seem to be worth about 12 to 15 thousand dollars more than a 2wd tractor I just do not know if I can swing that deal or not . You?re dead right about ballast I?ve got a 3020 ballast to 9700 pounds with the duals on it?s going on a diet come spring I think will have them pull about half the fluid out of each tire ideally I?d have them pull it all out and go with a couple sets of cast weights
 
I always have to chuckle at these guys, who can barely remember their wife’s birthday, swear they remember how much fuel a tractor they last drove in 1987 burned.

Size of fuel tank, work being done, ambient temperature, how much Cletus turned up the smoke screw, etc all affect how well a tractor performs..... or at least what someone thinks they remember it performed 30 years ago....
 
His had front wheel drive, and was an upgrade from a 2290 case. It was replaced by a case 9270 4x4. I drove that a lot too. That was hands down the most fuel efficient tractor I've ever driven.
 
If you are running that MFWD tractor several hundred hours per year under heavy drawbar load you will see some of the cost recovered in less fuel burned. Maintenance will be higher due to front tire wear along with mechanical parts. All in all I would rather have the MFWD and stay ahead of oil leaks which unattended will lead to big repair bills.
 
The 40 series had stronger rear ends and a better cooling system than the 30s, among many other things already mentioned. I prefer a quad range for field work, but power shifts are good too. Either series will have the quad or 8 speed power shift available.

Make sure the front axle pivots take grease- they can wear out their bushings and eat into the casting.
 
Going from bias tires to radials makes a big difference from my experience. The 8430 has cast centers all around for 8 tires and that is all the ballast it needs. Got rid of the calcium when we went to radial tires.
 
Not surprised with the articulated tractor. I have heard more than a couple IH guys prefer a 2 plus 2 for tillage work over a Magnum. The weight is where you need it on all 4 tires on a 2 plus 2.
 
(quoted from post at 21:48:50 01/01/19) Those numbers don't add up, my brother
had a 4650 and it burned a lot more
than that.
Click to expand...

The gpa fuel rate I posted for the 4650 was at 108 HP, to get it close to the rating of the 1256.

At 165.38 HP, the 4650 burned 9.799 gallons per hour, and made a respectable 16.88 Hp hrs./gallon.

At 117.23 HP, the 1256 burned 7.588 gallons per hour and made 15.45 Hp hrs./gallon.

4650 made an average 13.78 Hp hrs./gallon over a 2 hour series of tests and the 1256 made an average of 11.81 Hp hrs.gallon.

It would be hard to call the 4650 a fuel hog vs. the 1256 based upon the Nebraska Tests, IMHO.
 
There is a lot of things a guy can say about a 4630 or 4640. Saying either tractor was good on fuel will never be one of the things. These horses were built be for anyone really cared to much about how much fuel they burned. Either tractor was LIGHT YEARS ahead of anything else out there for operator comfort. Time has proven they will last a long time and were well built. The number of units built says they were popular. Talk with 100 guys who ran them and most will tell you they were strong. If Jesus himself built that tractor some guys would still think it was junk. Al
 
Never said the '12' had more power than the 4650. It didn't.Not by a long ways.It just had a lot more low end torque than the Jd. And only used half the fuel,too.As far as IH plow pulling easier than a Jd plow.Hook up to a JD 4200(4x18). then hook up to an IH 140(4x18).Make your own decision.I have,and I decided. So did two neighbors.All I can say is the JD plow went to town and an IH came home in it's place. Your results may vary.
 
(quoted from post at 19:13:27 01/01/19) I borrowed a 4650 once. Put my 4x16 rollover plow on it.Wound up it had more power than my 1256.At low rpm it was a dog. Fell flat on it's face. Had to leave the throttle wide open at all times,use the powershift to turn and slow down.It had no low end torque. The 1256 on the other hand,you could back the off the throttle down to an idle to slow down and make your turn.. Then push it open and it would go.All kinds of low end torque.BTW,the 4650 used about twice the fuel of the 1256.Even the 4040 I bought new in '80 used more fuel than my 1256 does now.And my buddies 4010 would out pull it.I think I'll stay with my red ones.LOL
Click to expand...

I have a 4650 and a 1086. Compared to the 1086 the 4650 does have quite a bit less low end grunt but it isn’t THAT bad. I wonder if in your higher elevation it’s easier to get below the turbo. When we ran 2388 combines in higher elevations they fell flat and smoked coal black when we engaged the separators at a slow engine speed. Back here in Iowa at 1200’ elevation there was practically no smoke and we didn’t have to worry about killing the engine when we engaged the separator.

The only fuel economy records between the 1086 and the 4650 I have to go by is the Nebraska tests. According to the Nebraska tests the 4650 was slightly better on fuel economy. The 1086 was slightly better than the 4640.
 
back in the early 80s when I had the 4040,I had aJD #825(3x14). Then I bought a IH#314(3x16). Thought I'd died and went to heaven.
 
(quoted from post at 21:46:17 01/01/19) back in the early 80s when I had the 4040,I had aJD #825(3x14). Then I bought a IH#314(3x16). Thought I'd died and went to heaven.
Click to expand...

Delta, at risk of making this topic veer further off, I agree with you on that. I pulled 5-16 Deere F145H for a few years, then got a good deal on a 5-18 IH 720. Did it mostly because I wanted automatic resets. Pulled them both with the same 4430 in the same fields. The IH was easier to pull - less downshifting through harder areas, and typically in a higher gear set. Now, the 145 was older than a 720, and I've never pulled a 1450 or 2600, so I don't know if it was brand or style that made the IH better.... but it was. Both plows did an equally good job, but the 145 plugged a lot more.
 
I'm chuckling right out loud. My daughter has never been on YT,and I had no idea how she even remembers so much about tractors,but she was poking a little fun at me one day when my wife talked about me being on here too much.
She said "Yea,I can imagine how it goes on there: That's not a 47 Farmall H,it's a 48. They didn't use those front wheels until 48!". LOL
 
It was very common to have someone buy a new green tractor and then go to the other end of town and buy a red plow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

G
Brass debris in hydraulic oil JD 4640
Replies
10
Views
681
Muir hill 101
M
G
Brass debris in hydraulic oil JD 4640
Replies
2
Views
335
fdt860
F
P
YM 1810 clutch output shaft
Replies
0
Views
2K
winston-HT
W
N
JD 300 loader on a 2030
Replies
13
Views
640
Tx Jim
Tx Jim
D
You have a new JD convert. I'm gonna need some on-going advice
2 3
Replies
41
Views
2K
Poppy Johnny
Poppy Johnny
Tractor Parts Tractor Manuals

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.

Copyright © 1997-2024 Yesterday's Tractor Co.

All Rights Reserved. Reproduction of any part of this website, including design and content, without written permission is strictly prohibited. Trade Marks and Trade Names contained and used in this Website are those of others, and are used in this Website in a descriptive sense to refer to the products of others. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER: Tradenames and Trademarks referred to within Yesterday's Tractor Co. products and within the Yesterday's Tractor Co. websites are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Yesterday's Tractor Co., our products, or our website nor are we sponsored by them. John Deere and its logos are the registered trademarks of the John Deere Corporation. Agco, Agco Allis, White, Massey Ferguson and their logos are the registered trademarks of AGCO Corporation. Case, Case-IH, Farmall, International Harvester, New Holland and their logos are registered trademarks of CNH Global N.V.

Yesterday's Tractors - Antique Tractor Headquarters
Website Accessibility Policy

Back
Top