(800) 853-2651
SHOP NOW

Turning Up a D for Plowing

J

Joel Sanderson

Member
I need a bigger tractor to plow, disc and seed. I love the John Deere letter series--the way they're configured, their sound, torque and so on. I really like my '44 A, but it's not quite enough for what I need. It can barely pull my 8 foot disc in plowed ground, and it can barely pull two 16" bottoms in the ground I'm working--set-aside that's a mixture of sod and tree roots. It's all that little A can do to plow it in first gear in some of the soil.

My question is this: how much horsepower can be gotten out of a late model D and still use it in the fields? I've heard of G's being turned up to over 70 horse power and work fine all day long. Can a D be turned up to 60, 65 okay? Is it a matter of changing the pistons for higher compression? Shouldn't a D be able to be made to have more power than a G? It has a bigger bore, after all. What's so special about the G that a D can't do better for straight pulling?

How many bottoms can a D be expected to pull, compared to a G?

I know this is all pretty vague. I'm going to look at a D this weekend, and I would like to go knowing a tad more and what I might need to do to it if I need it to have a bit more grumpf.

Thanks for any advice.

Joel
 
A late model D should play with 2-16?s all day in about any type of ground without doing anything to it other than a good tune up. By late model I am talking 47 or newer, I pull 2-14 with a 51 B and it has no problem with it 8? deep in most soil.
 
The one I'm going to see is a 1946. I would like to pull four 14" bottoms. Is that possible in more normal soil? Would it need to be modified at all? We have sandy loam around here. My dad pulls a 5-16 with his 80, if that tells you anything.
 
Hi Joel,
My 1948 D handles 3-16's very well I don't have liquid in the tires or wheel weights. The issue is more traction than power. 8' disc is no problem, I usually pull a 3 section drag behind the disc. I am also in Branch County and the flat belt you made for my milling machine some years ago is still working fine.
 
The one I posted the picture of 3 days ago on Tractor Talk how old were you?, I had plowed hundreds of acres with pulling 3-16s and had a PTO pump to raise the plow. On a few tough places I would have to kick pump out of gear rather than down shift, this was in 3rd gear and a 47 or 48 D.
 
Styled Ds were rated 38 hp at the drawbar. About the only thing you can do without getting into machining, boring, sleeving and whatever else pullers do is try to find a gas kit or gas/cold manifold and pistons. Aftermarket companies sold them back in the day and JD even offered a gas kit. It was suppose to give the D about 10 more hp. Ds were rated to pull three and four bottom plows. But I think most guys went with three and went deeper or a gear faster.
 
That's one mighty impressive pull with remarkable torque. Thanks for the link. It doesn't sound right though--too fast. I really just want to use it on the farm. When i get this set aside
tamed I hope to move on to more ground that's been worked and kept under control.
 
Gosh, I don't remember a flat belt for your mill. Sorry about that. Thanks for remembering me though.

I have a weeder I put behind my disc. I was thinking of putting a cultipacker behind that for preparing a hayfield seedbed. I'd love to see your D work some time. Is it possible to send private messages on this forum?
 
I was under the impression that there are pistons available that give more compression and therefore more power. Is that not true? This really is new to me.
 
If you must have a D for show, buy one, but to work for tillage s 6ylinder diesel will cost you less money than it will take to modify a 2 cylinder collectible tractor. I just sold an IHC 896 rerally cheap. likely for less money than the price of a sound model D, Did you consider the price of fuel?
 
I have considered fuel--quite a bit, actually. Based on the information in Wendel's Nebraska Tractor Tests, the JD 80 (my family's most efficient tractor) burns 1.28 gallons of diesel an acre to plow and costs (at the time I did the math) $4.22 an acre. The 4040 burns 2.37 gallons and acre to plow and costs $7.82 an acre. The D, pulling four 14" bottoms would burn 1.76 gallons of gasoline an acre and cost $4.66 an acre. This means the D would cost $3.16 an acre less to run than the 4040 would.

My A burns .66 gallons an acre to mow hay. The 4040 burns 1 gallon an acre. That's not really fair though, because the 4040 is pulling a discbine, and my A is pulling a No5 mower.

So fuel cost is not bad (in theory) when compared to other tractors. I hope the math proves to be true with the D.
 
My brother in law overhauled their D in 60 or 61 and put in gasoline pistons. I put in on the dynamometer for him and I seem to remember it ran right about 50 hp. I had to really dampen down the gauges on the dyno to over come those pulses.

I always gave him grief after that because he always told me that flywheel dampened all those power pulses and it was just as smooth as the four cylinders on a pto shaft. That dyno sure didn't think so.

Also, we ran the exhaust out with the pipe into the shop squirrel cage fan which needed a good cleaning from steam cleaning and painting. That popper cleaned all that junk out slicker than a whistle.
 
the D and the G is the same engine. the D is my favorite deere tractor.it is a 3/16 plow tractor. tractors from that era in the same class are the J.D.D, the McCormick W6,the M.H. 44, CASE D, Minnie U, oliver 88. I have seen the john deere D block bored out .090. they are a slow speeded tractor but get the job done. a W6 will get more done in a day side by side. they are both 10 ft. drag disc tractors and 3/16 plow tractors.my uncle and dad farmed with the D and w6.
 
We have a local plowing bee and there's a A John Deere there that pulls 3x16, and hardly know it back there, sure it's a 1952, i am not sure whats been done too it,but i will guarantee it's going to run cheaper than a G, and will pull the size equipment your talking about!!!
 
Now that's funny! It cleaned it out!

I'm not surprised about the pulses. When the power goes out, my dad runs his house with the PTO generator. The 730 makes all the lights flicker. My shop runs on an open flywheel engine--a Reid--with two 60 inch flywheels. I have a dynamo for my lights, and you can always see a bit of a pulse in their brightness, even with two big flywheels.

But back to your original statement: changing the pistons brought it up to about 60 horsepower? Did you do anything else to it? And did its cooling system keep up okay under steady load? My A overheats when it's working hard, but it doesn't have a water pump. Does a D have a water pump?
 
Very good to know. Thank you.

Doing the math on a 16" plow vs a 14" plow, the 16, plowing 8" deep is 192 square inches, while the 14 plowing 7" deep is 196 square inches--very similar. So does a 4-14 pull about the same as a 3-16?

My thought is the D would ride better than a row crop, like the G, because you sit lower. Do you think that's true?
 
The late A's were high compression. My '44 is an all-fuel, so it's low compression. Wendel's book shows the late A (1947) putting out 36 hp, where my model made only 29. The late A had the same engine as the 60. Apparently Deere improved their tractors one model at a time, because the G didn't go up any from its 36 hp, but when they worked it into being the 70, it was a 46 horse engine.

When my dad was a kid back in the early 50's a neighbor (where I now live) was hurt and couldn't plow, so the farmers in the area all got together and plowed his farm. One fellow came wth his new A and pulled three bottoms. He and another guy who had a Farmall M were neck and neck trying all day to out do there other.
 
You do realize a 4040 is about twice the drawbar horsepower of a late model D ? Comparing fuel usage of the two tractors is not even a close comparison especially when you can buy farm diesel fifty cents cheaper than regular gas for the model D . Even you hooked them both to the same plow the 4040 will do more in 2 hours than the d will in a day
 
It's very comparable, because I compared how much each tractor costs to plow an acre--not to run an hour--by comparing the number of acres each plows an hour and how much fuel it burns an hour. I also compared pump prices from the same day. Yes, in Michigan we can get farm fuel without sales tax, but the comparison is still the same. As long as diesel costs at least 60? more than gasoline, the savings to burn diesel is negligible, while the cost to work on a diesel is still higher.
 
How Is it comparable when a 4040 will 4 16 inch bottoms and the d might be lucky to pull 2 in the same soil ?
 
(quoted from post at 17:41:36 02/27/19) I have considered fuel--quite a bit, actually. Based on the information in Wendel's Nebraska Tractor Tests, the JD 80 (my family's most efficient tractor) burns 1.28 gallons of diesel an acre to plow and costs (at the time I did the math) $4.22 an acre. The 4040 burns 2.37 gallons and acre to plow and costs $7.82 an acre. The D, pulling four 14" bottoms would burn 1.76 gallons of gasoline an acre and cost $4.66 an acre. This means the D would cost $3.16 an acre less to run than the 4040 would.

My A burns .66 gallons an acre to mow hay. The 4040 burns 1 gallon an acre. That's not really fair though, because the 4040 is pulling a discbine, and my A is pulling a No5 mower.

So fuel cost is not bad (in theory) when compared to other tractors. I hope the math proves to be true with the D.
Click to expand...


Joel, there is something very wrong with your 4040 fuel consumption rate. A 4040 working hard can easily burn 4.5 gal/hour but it would take it about two minutes with the corresponding equipment to till that acre up. That would be about .15 gal or about $.38.
 
Don?t get me wrong I want a model R diesel but trying to compare a 2 cylinder gasoline engine to a modern diesel for actual field work just isn?t going to work . And by the time you do enough work to the model D to gain all that horsepower you want you could overhaul a modern diesel cheaper
 
My Name is Paul Winbigler. I live south of Coldwater. My phone is 517-617-2391. Right now I"m on vacation, won"t be home until mid-april but you can call or email anytime. I"ve been using my D since 1989 for all kinds of farm work so I can give you the good and bad about it.
 
D does not have a water pump. I believe the G is 413 cid engine and the D is 500 cid. Compression will give you the power you want. They are only about 3.5 : 1 stock and you can get custom pistons from Ray Castner to get it up to anywhere you want but 8:1 would be ideal and would put it well into the 55,s in hp. Carbs are all same size for throttle bore/blade and are not the weak point anyway. Just get compression up and make sure timing and mag are all set right.
 
I'd really appreciate that, Paul. I'll give you a call when you're back. My number is (517)617-5908. Thanks. I look forward to it.
 
Boy do I appreciate what you just told me. Thank you. I'll look into this and see if I can get ahold of Ray Castner for some pistons. Thanks again.
 
It's just math. Here's how to figure it:

The following is according to the Nebraska Tests, under full load.


The John Deere D makes 40.24 HP with an economy of 10.14 horsepower hours. Divide 40.24 by 10.14 to find that it burns 3.97 gallons per hour.

The John Deere 4040 makes 90.8 HP with an economy of 13.49 horsepower hours, so it burns 6.7 gallons per hour.


Now take the width of the plow and the speed of the tractor to find the acres per hour each plows. Divide that by the gallons it burns in an hour to find how much fuel it burns to plow an acre:

The D, pulling four 16" bottoms at 4 mph (2nd gear) plows 2.26 acres an hour, burns 1.76 gallons an acre and would cost $4.66 an acre.

The 4040 pulling five 16" bottoms at 3 1/2 mph (2nd gear) plows 2.83 acres an hour, burns 2.37 gallons an acre and would cost $7.82 an acre.


The answer shows that the D can plow an acre for less money than the 4040 can plow an acre.

But here's the common sense way to think about it--without doing the math: The 4040 burns nearly twice as much fuel as the D but is not doing twice the work. On top of that, diesel is more expensive than gasoline.
 
My family's been farming 500 acres with an 80 and a 730 for years. They're the most efficient tractors on the place.

My grandfather used to pull 5 bottoms with the 4020 while my dad pulled 5 bottoms with the 80. Each morning my grandfather would have to fill up the 4020, but my dad could go until noon with the 80. Keep in mind the 730 held an economy record for years at the Nebraska Tests. The 80 was close to it.
 
You can get gasoline without tax too, you know--as long as it's for farm use. Take the tax off from both, and diesel's still more expensive than gasoline.
 
(quoted from post at 21:11:58 02/27/19) It's just math. Here's how to figure it:

The following is according to the Nebraska Tests, under full load.


The John Deere D makes 40.24 HP with an economy of 10.14 horsepower hours. Divide 40.24 by 10.14 to find that it burns 3.97 gallons per hour.

The John Deere 4040 makes 90.8 HP with an economy of 13.49 horsepower hours, so it burns 6.7 gallons per hour.


Now take the width of the plow and the speed of the tractor to find the acres per hour each plows. Divide that by the gallons it burns in an hour to find how much fuel it burns to plow an acre:

The D, pulling four 16" bottoms at 4 mph (2nd gear) plows 2.26 acres an hour, burns 1.76 gallons an acre and would cost $4.66 an acre.

The 4040 pulling five 16" bottoms at 3 1/2 mph (2nd gear) plows 2.83 acres an hour, burns 2.37 gallons an acre and would cost $7.82 an acre.


The answer shows that the D can plow an acre for less money than the 4040 can plow an acre.

But here's the common sense way to think about it--without doing the math: The 4040 burns nearly twice as much fuel as the D but is not doing twice the work. On top of that, diesel is more expensive than gasoline.
Click to expand...

I don't think you've got the acres per hour right. If you are pulling easier you're using less fuel. You are calculating the 4040 with a 30% more efficient engine will use 35% more fuel. That is just plain wrong. If you hook the 4040 to the same plow as the D it will still use less fuel. The D will likely struggle with 3-16's not four, and the 4040, to put out 90 hp, will really be eating up the ground. You're figuring the 4040, with over double the HP, will only pull one more bottom, and at a slower speed.

If the D can plow 2 acres per hour (which I doubt but my D is a two speed, but you're in second) the 4040 should push 5 acres per hour to use 90 HP, or it's not at rated HP and it will use less fuel.

If you want to farm with a D have at it. I use Farmall M's, and they are pretty efficient. Up to 12 hp-hr/gal. But don't try to justify the D on efficiency.
 
You may have an obstruction somewhere. My son rebuilt his great grandads 47 A. The block had to be bored the maximum which I think was .125. He used gas pistons and subbed in a gas manifold. It got a new radiator as well. We had to hook it to a 8' rotary mower to work it hard enough to get to normal to seat the rings. It does not have a water pump but also doesn't have the rad shutters.
 
Not sure where you live, but we could not pull 5 bottoms with a 4020 here, had to use a 4 bottom plow, it overheated with a 5 bottom plow, used a 4440 on the 5 bottom plow.
 
This is a very good reason why the Nebraska tractor tests were needed and a shame they went away. Math doesn't lie, but loyalties are not always accurate.

My father's 4020 was recorded, at the Nebraska tests, to burn 6.04 gallons an hour under full load. With current pump prices with diesel costing $3.00 a gallon, that's $18.00 an hour.
With a five-16 plow, that comes to 2.16 gallons an acre. Here's the math:

16" X 5 = 80" ? 12 = 6.6 square feet X 3.5 MPH X 5,280 feet in a mile =12,968 square feet per hour ? 43,560 square feet in an acre = 2.8 acres an hour. 6.04 gallons an hour ? 2.8 acres
an hour = 2.157 gallons an acre.

In an ACTUAL test, I once plowed a two acre field and carefully recorded the economy. What did I find? The 4020 burned 2.1 gallons an acre! By golly, those nerdy engineers at
Nebraska were right! Now multiply that by $3.00 a gallon and you have $6.30 an acre.

For a D to use that much fuel per acre, what would it need to do? Let's figure it...

According to Nebraska (those pesky engineers are back!) the D's maximum fuel use was shown to be 3.97 gallons an hour. With gasoline being $2.30 a gallon, that comes to $9.13 an
hour. Oooo... that's almost exactly HALF what the 4020 costs an hour to run! HALF! Wow.

Following me so far?

So... since it costs half as much an hour to run a D, for it to cost the SAME PER ACRE as the 4020 (and the 4040 is even less efficient) it would have to do HALF the work--pull TWO
AND A HALF 16" bottoms at the same speed as the 4020. Make sense? But it's pulling more than that. (I've heard it pulls three 16" bottoms with ease.) And its gear is a tad faster.
That's why it's doing more work per dollar.

D: 4 mph = (3) 16" bottoms = 4 feet, so... 4mph X 5,280 = 21,120 feet an hour X 4 feet wide = 84,480 square feet an hour, so.. 84,480 feet ? 43,580 square feet in an acre = 1.9 acres
an hour. Divide it's maximum fuel consumption, which is 3.97 gallon an hour, by 1.9, and it's burning 2.1 gallons an acre. Multiply that by $2.30 a gallon, and the D costs $4.80 an acre
to plow.

The 4020 costs $6.30 an acre to plow, while the D costs only $4.80 an acre to plow--$1.50 less per acre. And that's pulling only three bottoms.

Feel free to check my math.


Please don't call me a horse, because horses don't do math. I doubt one even knows what the Nebraska Tests were. Which side of the fence are you on?


All in fun, here--and thanks for your input.
 
Southern Michigan. Sandy loam. It belches, snorts and does it. Our 80 pulls 5, 16" bottoms too. It putts and snorts and does it. I prefer putt to snort.
 
No no. I figured it would pull 4-14" bottoms in our soil. Could be wrong. But even 3-16" bottoms it's cheaper per acre than the 4040 pulling 5. (I just posted the math for that if you want to find it in the thread.)
 
Please read through the post I made in which I went through the math. It's really quite an eye-opener.

Back in the day, the D was considered to be a fuel hog, and tractor companies came out with diesel tractors. This was back when tractors were small and diesel was much cheaper than
gasoline. As tractors have become bigger, we've gotten used to them burning more and more fuel. On top of that, diesel has slowly become more expensive than gasoline. That
changes the equation a lot.

As an example, take a 720 gas vs 720 diesel: at full load, the gasser burns 4.51 gph and the diesel burns 3.15 gph. (Nebraska tests # 605 and #594) 4.51 X $2.30 = $10.37 an hour for
the gas; 3.15 x $3.00 = $9.45 an hour for diesel. The 720 diesel is only $.92 cheaper an hour to run than the 720 gas. That's hardly the big savings that diesel once made.
 

Joel, the math is easy to follow. Where the starting figures come from not so much. Where in the Nebraska test to you get the specific information on amount of work done per hour?
 
I forgot to add that the demise of that poor old D was when the drive chain broke and put a hole in the bottom. My wife used to sit on the fenders of it with her dad plowing etc. She has very fond memories of those days. My brother in law gave "thats right" gave it away which pleased no one except the guy who picked it up.
 
The horse power hours compared to the hours per gallon gives you the amount of fuel it burns per hour; the speed of the tractor tells how much it's plowing an hour. Divide.
 
I read through your posts, and your arithmetic.

I happen to be one of those pesky engineers, a Registered Professional Mechanical Engineer with 50 years of experience.

Assuming the plows are in the same shape, and assuming it takes the same HP-Hr to plow an acre (too slow is less efficient as is too fast, there is the sweet rolling spot), you have decided to penalize the modern tractor.

Nebraska test 594 shows 3.2 gal per hr for a 720 diesel but test 605 shows 5.2 gal per hr. Much worse than you reported.

So using your numbers, with a D at 4 gal per hour, at about 10 hp-hr/gallon your designated field is using 40 hp to plow 1.9 acres per hour. 2.1 gal per acre. Or it takes 21 hp-hr/acre. The soil does not change between tractors so if the soil takes 21 hp-hr/acre, a tractor with 13 hp-hr/gal will take 1.62 gal per acre to do the same job. At your fuel prices it is about the same cost per acre, assuming your time is worthless it's a wash.

Now, it is critically important to run each tractor right at full load to make use of the maximum hp-hr/gal. They drop off quickly at lower hp. That's why new tractors have many gears. With the D you're stuck with first or second. If you're pulling 3-16's and it's belching and snorting and not at full RPM you'll find the efficiency is way down. Compare the slope of the HP-hr/gal curves for both tractors in the Nebraska tests. But you don't know because you don't have a tach. You'll know when you refill the tank, or run out of fuel before your calculations show you should.

I don't think you'll find the D can go as long between overhauls, however.
 
Your A likely still has all-fuel pistons in it. Get some gas pistons for it and it will really wake up !
 
Actually, Test No 605 shows the 720 gas used 4.51 gallons an hour under maximum load. (55.11 hp ? 12.21 hph = 4.51) You're figures came right for the diesel in test 594 though.
(56.66 ? 17.97 = 3.15)

The problem with your comparing the two tractors is that the soil doesn't figure into the economy--the tractor does. A tractor that's burning twice as many dollars per hour as another
tractor but is not doing twice as much work per hour is going to cost more per acre to run. That's what the 4020 is doing, compared to the D, when it costs nearly double an hour over
the D which is doing more than half as much work.

Smaller machines always have more wear on them. Take a narrow combine head vs a larger one: the small one has more passes per acre than the big one, and even running the machine
faster won't help save wear.

I mean no disrespect at all to any engineer anywhere, and that includes you. Thank you for thinking this through with me.
 
Joel, I do all my farming with two cylinders, and for me they do there work better than 3, 4 and 6 cylinder engines. I rented a 2016 New Holland Workmaster 60 (60 HP) I couldn?t pull 3-14? more than 4? deep. Now I got my John Deere 1947 A running, and that 38 HP tractor would pull 2-14 12? deep at the same speed! The NH was diesel, and a A is Gas, but the price per acre is about the same. Also the soil goes from sand, to clay, to good dark dirt. So if I were you I?d buy the D and fix it up.
 
The G & D are both all fuel engines.....low compression, 4:1. Designed to run on most any type of fuel, drip, kerosene, etc. You can do all the calculations you want, but the bottom line, stock they are both lazy. Pullers can spend a fortune to get the G to be competitive. You can take a late single stick A & it will pull circles around the G and use much less fuel (I have both). Now for the D, they are thirsty! I have a '45 & '49....the '49 has high comp. pistons and dual exhaust & still thirsty, but it will pull! I couldn't tell you what the D will do for you because soil conditions make a huge difference. We pulled 8' off-set disc & 3 bottom 14"'s with the D's in the rice fields w/o any problem. The R's pulled the same equipment and used WAY less fuel. Larger equipment came with the 830 & 4020's. Just passing along some first hand experience, hope it is of some value.
 
Hey, thanks for sharing your experience and encouraging me, TDJD. I appreciate it a lot.

I've been watching the prices of Ds over the last ten years or so, and they seem to be holding their own or going up somewhat. This means that if I ever farm the family farm and am working more land, I can sell it and get my money back to spend on a bigger tractor--like an 820. Resale value's another reason to get a collectible tractor. Besides, they make me happy, and that's important.

Thanks again.
 
I sincerely appreciate your response, jdddrawbar. Thank you very much.

My A is an all-fuel, like I said earlier. Nearly every test at Nebraska that tested the same engine on kerosene and gasoline showed more power on gasoline. I would think the D would be more economical on gas than on kerosene too, but I don' know that. Any thoughts on this?

Don't forget the cost of the fuel too though, now that diesel's so much more than gas. It's annoying that it's come to that, but it's true--at least here in Michigan.
 
More power and better fuel usage on gas. There was areas around that also ran LP on the D's, and they will run on diesel, but they were down on power. Remember, in their day, fuel was cheap & they will run on most anything. They also had a water injection system as a option. The theory was, if you got into a hard or soft spot in a field you could pull a lever to blend water into the fuel system. I have it on my '45 but would never use it. I plowed in a field with 7 D's (all on steel) for a couple wks. as a teenager....can still hear all the pulsations that filled the air!
 
Oh my word! Seven Ds! That must have been an experience to remember!

As I understand it, the water slows the burn, so with fuels that might tend to reignite and knock, it softens the combustion so there's no knocking. The all-fuel Fairbanks Morse engines had that too. I have a 10 HP Z and had a 6 HP Z, both of which have a valve to add water after the carburettor. I have another engine, a Reid, that likes water in its fuel too. If it's dry fuel, it'll knock under load.

Thanks for your response.
 
(quoted from post at 21:13:44 02/27/19) the D and the G is the same engine. the D is my favorite deere tractor.it is a 3/16 plow tractor. tractors from that era in the same class are the J.D.D, the McCormick W6,the M.H. 44, CASE D, Minnie U, oliver 88. I have seen the john deere D block bored out .090. they are a slow speeded tractor but get the job done. a W6 will get more done in a day side by side. they are both 10 ft. drag disc tractors and 3/16 plow tractors.my uncle and dad farmed with the D and w6.
Click to expand...

Bull Sh1t.
 

There is a true dual exhaust update for the D that adds considerable power . That in combination with gas pistons and a gas intake manifold would do the job .
My 3rd cousins have a D in the back of the shed . I have wondered how it would do with 9 to 1 pistons, a re-ground cam, blended valve bowls , three angle valve job, , cold manifold and dual exhaust .
I would bet 75HP at PTO RPM.
 
(quoted from post at 08:13:26 02/28/19) The horse power hours compared to the hours per gallon gives you the amount of fuel it burns per hour; the speed of the tractor tells how much it's plowing an hour. Divide.
Click to expand...

OK horsepower hours/gal is easy to arrive at from the test. The question is still the starting parameters!!!! All of the Nebraska testing and calculating you may want to do is still based on what you put in for basic facts. I will say that one or the other of these two scenarios is going to be closer to the fact. 1. the 4040 pulls in a significantly higher gear and gets the job done far faster using far less fuel, or 2 it pulls in a slightly higher gear with the governor sensing only a small load getting the job done a little faster with a lot less fuel used. Its like saying if second gear of 5 with my 960 Ford is good for a job that I am going to say my 9000 Ford needs to also be in 2nd gear though I have fourteen higher ones.
 
Where are you getting that diesel is 60 cents more expensive than gasoline? The load of fuel I had delivered a couple months ago #2 off road diesel was $2.56/gallon and 91 octane gasoline was $2.78/gallon. Now that was a couple months ago that I needed gasoline but I had another load of diesel delivered Monday and it was still $2.56. Now even if you?re going by pump price gas, I dont know what it is by you right now but in my part of Michigan it?s averaging about $2.39 for 87 octane so that still only makes diesel 17 cents more.

Now we used to run regular 87 in the gas tractors until our fuel guy turned us on to the 91 octane. It?s non ethanoled and the tractors run 10 times better on it and they use a little less of it so we are willing to pay a little extra for it so that?s the reason for that. Now don?t get me wrong I love running our small tractors but with these crazy late wet springs we?ve been having and the wet falls, time is money and even if they do use a little more fuel I can get 3 times the ground covered running our big diesels. Mother Nature doesn?t wait and days lost to weather is yield lost and grain dry down lost to nothing more than time which is one of the few things you have control of. Now not wanting to knock you for wanting to farm with cool old toys, I enjoy it to, but you are trying increadibly hard to justify it off of fuel economy when that?s only part of the story. The big factor is how much ground you can cover in a day.
 
(quoted from post at 08:41:18 02/28/19) Actually, Test No 605 shows the 720 gas used 4.51 gallons an hour under maximum load. (55.11 hp ? 12.21 hph = 4.51) You're figures came right for the diesel in test 594 though.
(56.66 ? 17.97 = 3.15)

The problem with your comparing the two tractors is that the soil doesn't figure into the economy--the tractor does. A tractor that's burning twice as many dollars per hour as another
tractor but is not doing twice as much work per hour is going to cost more per acre to run. That's what the 4020 is doing, compared to the D, when it costs nearly double an hour over
the D which is doing more than half as much work.

Smaller machines always have more wear on them. Take a narrow combine head vs a larger one: the small one has more passes per acre than the big one, and even running the machine
faster won't help save wear.

I mean no disrespect at all to any engineer anywhere, and that includes you. Thank you for thinking this through with me.
Click to expand...

Everybody makes fun of engineers but you were using engineering data as an excuse. I don't think you are fully understanding it.

You didn't look at the 100% maximum load one hour test, 4.52 gph. How do you know you won't be slightly overloading the D? They don't mind and will take it all day. But at a cost in fuel efficiency.

Bottom line is if you want to farm with a D, farm with one. They are fun to run, but I never use my D in the field. I use IH M's.

But you should read the rest of my post and understand you will spend the same or more money running a D unless you are very lucky to match field conditions and get the tractor at it's maximum efficiency. It is permissible to spend your money how you like.

Build yourself a tandem D and run two end to end if you really want to have fun.
 
Those are the gas prices at the pump in Quincy, Michigan. I'm using pump prices as a comparison only.

You're absolutely right that the bigger tractors get the job done in bigger fields, but I don't have bigger fields. My largest field is 7 /2 acres. Farming that wth a modern tractor is not remotely realistic. I could never pay for a $20,000 tractor with the 20 acres I'm farming. I can pay for a $3,000 D. As for speed, I borrow my dad's 4040 and his discbine to mow that field or I mow it with my JD D and my No 5 mower. You know what? It takes the same amount of time with either unit. That discbine cannot be run to its potential in that little field, and it takes a good deal longer to get ready and power wash when I'm done. How much ground you can cover really doesn't come into the equation for the tiny farmer like I am..

I'm a full time blacksmith and part time farmer. I don't ever intend to get big. Even if the fantasy of farming the family place becomes a reality, that's only 500 acres--still well within the 2 cylinder size, as my dad has shown for years.
 

The fact remains that the 4040 and 4020 cost almost twice for fuel per hour as the D. They do not do twice as much work as the D, when it comes to plowing. (Obviously, they
do for hay and other higher speed operations.) If you're dumping twice as much money into something, it must do twice as much work to be equally economical. The big diesels
are pulling 5 bottoms, the D is pulling 3. They would need to pull 6 bottoms to have the same economy. Where's the hole in this math that I'm not seeing?

Not sure how anyone can logically disagree with that.

A tandem D would be fun, but then I'd be burning twice as much fuel and would be as bad as a 4040. (I had to toss that in! Ha ha!)

You know, I had no intention to make this thread about economy. I really wanted to know what is done to a D to give it more power and how much it can do. I don't know how we
got off on this tangent, though it's been fun.
 
What does the dual exhaust do? Does it let it breathe easier and get the heat away faster?

Thanks. I really appreciate your information.

Joel
 
Actually, 2nd gear (the gear we plow in) is 3 1/2 miles an hour on the 4020. The second gear on the D is 4 mph. That's what I'm going by. I've heard it said that the D does
everything faster, so I'm assuming 2nd would be the gear to use.

Basic fact: I plowed a 2 acre field with the 4020 pulling a 5-16 plow, and it used 2.1 gallons an acre. I filled the tank before I started and when I finished. (Math based on
Nebraska's tests predicted it should be 2.13 gallons per acre.) Our JD 80 burns 1.28 gallons an acre, also pulling a 5-16 plow. Since Nebraska was so close to what I know to be
true, I have no reason to believe they'd be so wrong for any other tractor, including the D.
 
I'm not sure what you're referring to, buickanddeere. I'll appreciate your comment though, as soon as I can figure it out.

Please explain.
 
I only farm 100 acres and work full time for Bayer. I?m still more concerned about time. Now if you?re not currently grain farming I can understand why it doesn?t bother you as much but if you ever do get that whole 500 acres you?re going to find it harder and harder to make it pencil out with every acre you add if you still plan on trying to make it work doing it part time. Fuel economy isn?t even a fraction of the bottom line of farming. You?re wanting to farm for fun so if all you are looking to do is play then why bother trying to justify it at all, just have fun with it.

None on my equipment it remotely modern and I?ve never even come close to paying 10 grand for a tractor let alone 20. The big tractors are 1955 and 1950T Oliver?s and a 4-150 White. My biggest field is only 12 acres and my smallest is 2 acres but I still run a 9 shank soil saver and a 24 foot soil finisher. You?re not going to do the same amount of work in a day with a 3 bottom plow and a 10 foot disk whether you have small fields or big fields. That?s the whole reason guys back in the day went from D?s to R?s to 80?s and on up the line. It?s not about how little fuel you can use it?s a race against the clock to get the crop in the ground and get it off the field. When you have thousands of dollars tied up in seed, fertilizer and chemicals and every day you wast in the spring is bushels and dollars lost,3 dollars difference an acre on fuel becomes a mute point. If you?re farming 20 acres it?s easy to still get the numbers to work. With the cost of inputs these days though you aren?t going to get it to work farming 500 acres with a 2 banger, this isn?t 1950 anymore. Like I said though, for 20 acres just forget about the fuel and go play.
 
. Would also ditch the mag for a Delco distributer with mechanical advance .
Better than having too much or not enough advance .
 
Bring your D and I?ll show you how a 4020 will do about 3 times the work the d will even think of doing on its best day
 
Yeah. Part of the plan is to buy tractor I can sell in five, ten, years and get back what I paid for it--if the family farm does come my way. That's a big IF I can't depend on or even plan for. In the mean time I'd have a tractor I could use. I see no future in row crop, commodity grains any time soon, so I'm gearing up for hay and straw only--two markets not yet manipulated by the government which still seem to be holding their own. If you run the math on soybeans, their gross income can't even pay the interest on a loan to buy land around here. Double the gross, and it still cannot. It's that bad. Why farmers keep growing something nobody wants is beyond me, but then, I'm not really a farmer.

I never really meant this thread to be about economy, but somehow that got brought up, so I rolled with it. (Maybe I brought it up, I don't remember.) You're right of course, fuel really isn't that big an expense overall.

"Forget about fuel and go play" is the best response I've heard here. Thanks!
 
Your hp-hour numbers are really hp-hrs/gal. Big difference. The hp-hrs/gal figure will give the amount of work that can be done with a gallon of fuel. The 4020 and 4040 clearly are more efficient when used at their rated hp.

Using drawbar pull and ground speed and the resultant hp-hrs/gal numbers for a model D, 4020, 4040 is a better but not perfect comparison. The best would be a hp-hrs/gal measurement for your soil type pulling the largest plow each tractor could pull. The Nebraska test does not compare every possible soil type and plow size so the hp-hrs/gal for differing power outputs was used instead. However, you still need to compare apples to apples.

For a 3641 lbs pull a D will move around 3.9 mph, 9.8 hp-hrs/gallon, use 3.8 gallons/hr. Roughly 1 mile traveled will use 1 gallon of fuel for that drawbar pull.

A 4020 with a pull of 3867 lbs, speed 8.23 mph, 6th gear, roughly 14.6 hp-hrs/gal , and roughly 6 gal/hr. Roughly 1.4 miles traveled for each gallon for that drawbar pull.

A 4040 with a pull of 4160 lbs, more than the D, 9th gear, 7 mph, 11.2 hp-hrs/gal roughly, 6.6 gal/hr roughly. Around 1 mile for each gallon at that drawbar pull.

Looking at it like that, with a low drawbar pull, looks like the D is comparable to the larger diesel tractors. The confounding factor is that neither the 4020 nor the 4040 are in their efficient range when pulling only around 3800 pounds on the drawbar. That is nothing for the 4020 or 4040 to pull. The will be only slightly over 50% of their power. The D is near the height of its efficiency.

If you plan on pulling the same plow with the 4020 or 4040 as the D would pull then there is not much of a fuel cost savings. The real advantages come when using a much larger tractor as a larger tractor not as a large tractor doing the same work as a much smaller tractor. What size plow would be near full power for a 4020 or 4040? I have no idea since it depends on many factors. However, comparing fuel efficiency with the largest plow each can pull for your soil type is the best way if you only want to compare fuel used per acre plowed. There are other considerations such as purchase cost, reliability, maintenance costs, and so on but just based on fuel used per maximum plowed acre, I would be surprised if the D was competitive to a more modern larger diesel tractor.

The numbers I used were approximations since the drawbar pull, etc.. listed for each tractor model may not be exactly the same as another model.
 
Don't need to, SVcummins. My dad's already got a 4020. I know first hand it can't come close to doing three times the work a D does plowing. That would be pulling nine bottoms, and it ain't gonna happen. It can't even do twice the work. That would be six bottoms. That ain't gonna happen either. It sucks enough fuel pulling five. Five is 66% more than the D's 3, yet it has to burn twice as many dollars per acre to do even that. Oh, and the tractor costs three times as much to buy too.

No, a 4020 really is not economical.
 
Thanks, Electro. I appreciate your input.

The horsepower hours can tell you how many gallons the tractor burns in an hour. Multiply the result by the fuel's price per gallon, and the 4040 burns twice as many dollars an hour as
the D--to do only 66% more work. (66% because 5 bottoms is 66% more than the D's 3 bottoms.) Therefore, per acre per dollar, the D is more cost effective.

Not sure where this can be wrong.

And you're right--add the cost of the 4040, which is 5 to 6 times that of the D, and the dollar difference is even greater. Depreciate that over twenty to sixty acres for five years, and the
D will come out way ahead.

Thanks again.
 
Trust me, if I had the time to go out and turn over 100 acres with dads old 77 and 3-14?s I would in a heartbeat. I love that tractor to death. I really wish it was still like the 50?s and a guy could make a good living off of a good 250 acre diversified operation. It?s good to get the old girls out and streatch their legs though so hope you can make things happen like you want.
 
The gallons per hour data in the Nebraska test reports is recorded when the tractor is developing the full rated load. If the tractor isn't being asked to produce this full power than the gallons per hour will obviously be less. This is why the hp-hrs/gallon data is more appropriate to determine how much fuel will be used for a given amount of work. In Test #350 the D's efficiency was measured at 8.83 hp-hrs/gal at max belt load. Compare that with the 4040's 13.49 hp-hrs/gal in the max PTO power test. The 4040 was burning half again as much fuel per hour as the D but since it was making over twice the power the efficiency was much greater. There is also a test that averages the economy measured at several steps between very little load and maximum available power. Here the D averaged 7.90 hp-hrs/gal and the 4040 averaged 10.59. There's simply no way around it - the 4040 is by far the more fuel efficient tractor between these two.

In short, the gallons per hour data tells you how much fuel the tractor will burn when developing its maximum power. However, when comparing tractors, especially those of different power levels, the hp-hrs/gallon data is what gives the true picture.
 
I like a model d as well as the next guy and if you want to farm with one that?s dandy . I?m trying to resurrect a 420c to do a little light work around the place use to drill grain or pull a 4 section spike tooth harrow it was fun never had a plow I hope I can find a one bottom plow for it . Video pulling 3x16 at 5.5 mph 8 inches deep
Untitled URL Link
 
Yet, Nebraska's full load economy test came out to be almost exactly what our 4020 uses to plow. Plowing requires nearly full load. I ran a real test on two acres, and it came to within .03 gallons of what Nebraska said a 4020 would use under full load. Why should I believe the results would be different for any other tractor?

The 4040 uses 6.7 gallons an hour at full load. With diesel currently at $3.00 a gallon, this costs $20.10 an hour.

The D uses 3.97 gallons an hour at a full load. With gasoline currently at $2.30 a gallon, this costs $9.13 an hour. That's less than half spent in an hour for fuel.

Don't you see that the 4040 costs over twice as much to run an hour but is not doing twice as much work? (5 vs 3 bottoms) and the D costs less than half as much and is doing more than half as much work? Unless Nebraska had it all wrong--and my verification showed them to be right for one tractor--the D can plow an acre cheaper than the 4040.

I mean no disrespect, but I really don't see why this is so hard for modern tractor owners to accept. This isn't even considering the cost of the 4040, which would be 5X the D.
 
The problem occurs when you bring the number of plow bottoms each is pulling into the equation. The 4040 tested at fully twice the drawbar horsepower as the D but your math isn't giving it credit for that. You're assuming both are running at 100% maximum load with a 5 and 3 bottom plow, respectively. The other piece of of information that isn't being considered is that the maximum drawbar power of the 4040 occurred at about 5.5 mph while the D was less than 4 mph.

The fuel cost per acre is a different thing than fuel economy. I'll not argue at all that with the current cost of diesel fuel it takes significantly better economy to pencil out over gasoline. The fuel economy data from the test reports is objective and constant but what this means to fuel cost per acre is subject to the fluctuating fuel prices.
 
(quoted from post at 05:00:12 03/01/19) The problem occurs when you bring the number of plow bottoms each is pulling into the equation. The 4040 tested at fully twice the drawbar horsepower as the D but your math isn't giving it credit for that. You're assuming both are running at 100% maximum load with a 5 and 3 bottom plow, respectively. The other piece of of information that isn't being considered is that the maximum drawbar power of the 4040 occurred at about 5.5 mph while the D was less than 4 mph.

The fuel cost per acre is a different thing than fuel economy. I'll not argue at all that with the current cost of diesel fuel it takes significantly better economy to pencil out over gasoline. The fuel economy data from the test reports is objective and constant but what this means to fuel cost per acre is subject to the fluctuating fuel prices.
Click to expand...


Brendon, thanks for the explanation! That is exactly what I was trying to get at in my earlier post: 2. it pulls in a slightly higher gear with the governor sensing only a small load getting the job done a little faster with a lot less fuel used.
 
Not according to a real field trial in which the 4020 proved to be within .03 gallons of what Nebraska showed it would use.

How can spending twice as much money on fuel to do less than twice as much work be more economical? It can't. Ever. We are talking about fuel only here--not time spent.

No one has answered that question. Please try.
 

So are you saying the problem occurs when it is put into actual practice? But I carefully measured how much it took me to plow 2 acres with a 4020 pulling 5 bottoms. That's an actual test, but the D which I haven't bought, has not been tested.

I am assuming that a D can pull 3 bottoms in the same soil, but I might be wrong; in which case, the whole math is wrong. Hmmm..... Maybe it can pull only 2 bottoms. I better look into that one. Thanks.

Keep in mind this is engine horse power, not drawbar horsepower. Maybe, just maybe, that chain dive on the D gets its power to the gronund more efficiently than the power shift transmission on the 4020. I'm just guessing here--IF the D can pull more than half what the 4020 can pull with half the fuel cost. That's not certain.

I'm going to bring up another observation: Our 80, at 72 horsepower, is every bit the tractor the 4020 is, at 90 horsepower. That's not because the 4020's in bad shape either--it's fine. The older, low RPM engines are underrated. Take the old steam engines, for example. At the Wauseon steam convention some years ago I watched a 120 HP traction engine pull a 300+ hp bend-in-the-middle Steiger backwards, stalling it in the process. A third the horsepower out pulled AND killed the engine, both? Or take the engine that drives my shop: it's a "15" horsepower Reid. It has 750 cubic inches! It'd take a 15 HP lawn mower and throw it over a hill. There really is something to low RPM, high torque engines that will out perform high speed engines. That 80 will pull 5 bottoms at an idle. I've done it many times. The 4020 dies if you try. I realize this is another subject, but maybe it's related.

Thank you again for your input.
 
Joel Sanderson,

A small point but what you call hp-hrs really hp-hr/gal straight from the Nebraska test charts. You use the correct numbers but your labels are wrong. Does not affect your results since you are using the correct numbers with the wrong label. More important for those math folks that like the labels to fit to insure the equations are correct.

The efficiency data does not lie. I know there are those that think the Nebraska test is bogus but they never explain why or how. The Nebraska testing will explain their methods and what they indicate in the listing for most of the tractors tested. I see no reason to think their data is not accurate. The efficiency, hp-hrs/gal for the 4020 and 4040 is greater than for the D.

The Nebraska test does not always list the hp-hr/gal for their drawbar pulls but you can use the variable power data they list for a pretty good estimate. Comparing the drawbar pull at differing loads and the newer tractors still come out ahead.

If a 4020 will pull a 5-16 plow then, in your soil, I expect the D would be a 2-16 tractor. You will have to get the D and do a comparison to find out for sure.

Horsepower is horsepower, does not change with the engine type. A mower engine of 15 hp has the same horsepower as a steam engine of 15hp if, and a big if, they are measured the same way. Horsepower takes into account several factors including speed and torque so it is a good way to compare engines. It does not take into account the torque range or curve. I expect your 15 hp Reid engine would be more than 15 hp if measured using modern methods. The rpm of the engine, slow vs high speed engine, has nothing to do directly with the hp rating. I also expect the Reid engine has a very broad or flat torque curve which allows the engine speed to change a lot with less effect on the horsepower than an engine with a narrow or peaked torque curve. The large flywheel will also store power in the form of inertia and will let the flywheel power through short additional loads without needing a large input from the engine itself. A lawn mower engine does not have that large inertial mass to help it through short load fluctuations and must depend on the engine itself. I also expect the Reid engine is truly more than 15 hp.

In the end, you do not have to justify your decision to any of the YT "experts" since it is not their money nor do they know your situation. Get the John Deere D and have fun! Lots of 4040s out their, a lot less of the Model Ds still around.
 
Since there is no edit feature that works, I should have said "momentum" instead of "inertia" and the last "theirs" should be "there are".
 
I really appreciate what you say, electro. Thank you. Thank you for correcting my terminology too.

Whenever we talk about economy in terms of money spent, it's important to remember that diesel fuel now costs more than gasoline. Two days ago I called the gas station in the
nearest town, and they told me gas is $2.30 a gallon and diesel is $3.00 a gallon. The diesel is 31% higher, so a diesel tractor must be 31% more efficient in order to be as cost effective
as a gas of the same horsepower--no matter what tractors we're comparing. That's putting a pretty stiff impost on the diesel.

By the way, if you want to see that old Reid run, I have some videos under "Sanderson Iron" on U-tube that show the engine. You might like them, I don't know. Or you can just do a
search for "Joel Sanderson, Blacksmith" if that works better. I'd put a link here, but I don't want anyone thinking I'm running an ad or something.

Thanks again.

Joel
 
You are comparing pump fuel farm diesel is 50 to 65 cents cheaper a gallon than road fuel which makes it cost less than gas it?s not hard to figure out .
 
Off road fuel today from the local fuel supplier is 2.29 a gallon . Regular unleaded at the pump is 2.50$ so right there went your figure of a diesel must be 30% more efficient than a gas engine hopefully you understand math well enough to figure that out although I wonder because you said diesel at the pump was 60 cents more than gas in one post then in another you said how can a diesel be more efficient when the fuel costs twice as much ? Well if the gas costs 2.50 a gallon that would mean the diesel would have to cost 5.00$ not to be twice as much that?s a long ways from 60 cents ? Remember you are the one who started the whole economy argument.
 

Sometimes at shows there are D's that have had their usability improved with a SCV supplied from a live hydraulic pump mounted behind the mag/distributer.
Rather handy being able to raise or lower the plough, cultivator or seed drill without the tractor moving.
The Hydraulics for a D with a SCV look a lot like what was used on the AR and low seat 60.
 
You read what I said wrong. The 4040 COSTS twice much to run an hour as the D--paying twice as much per hour to run the 4040. I never said the fuel cost twice as much.

The prices I gave for gas and diesel are either what were advertised at the station in Quincy, Michigan three days ago or when I did the original calculations last summer.

Of course you can get off road fuel--gas and diesel--for less money. So do we. I'm using the advertised prices for comparison. It doesn't matter exactly what they are, because fuel prices change daily anyway.

The prices I showed require the diesel engine to be 31% more efficient to equal the cost of running a gasoline engine. That goes for car, truck or tractor.
 
Thank you. I've heard of that. In fact, I've been in touch with a guy who has one and can put it on for me. I think the one he has is from an AR, in fact. I'd like to have live hydraulics,
that's for sure. I wonder if it could have dual hydraulics! Then I could raise the disc and, well, um... something else. Ha ha!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

K
2 4 D mixing
2
Replies
21
Views
1K
T in NE
T in NE
M
Farmall 130 for plowing garden
Replies
2
Views
473
Massey_165
M
B
Farmall Fast Hitch Plowing
Replies
10
Views
960
Absent Minded Farmer
Absent Minded Farmer
3
Need tires for my F 150
Replies
8
Views
924
BarnyardEngineering
BarnyardEngineering
B
Plowing to Planting Timeline and Technique 1946
Replies
5
Views
583
DRussell
D
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