2 wheel drive vs. 4wd

Kickinbull · Feb 3, 2010

A salesman once told me that I could get by with 10 less hp by getting a tractor that was 4wd and get the same work done. Have you seen that this is true with 4wd's? I wonder about the fact that is takes more HP to run the other axle. Or is there enough increase in traction that it does get more power to the ground?TIA

960 · Feb 3, 2010

Salesman is more than correct. On field tractors above 100 HP on my farm the gap is way greater than 10 HP. You can add lots variables though, mud, snow, manure, hard surface, loose tilled surface to change that gap some greater some less.

Red1 · Feb 3, 2010

(quoted from post at 11:36:19 02/03/10) A salesman once told me that I could get by with 10 less hp by getting a tractor that was 4wd and get the same work done. Have you seen that this is true with 4wd's? I wonder about the fact that is takes more HP to run the other axle. Or is there enough increase in traction that it does get more power to the ground?TIA

Slippage is a big deal.....during the 70s a lot of the tractor mfgs were putting big horsepower 2 wheeled tractors out without considering the weight over the drivers.

BushogPapa · Feb 3, 2010

There are a multitude of variables to consider...

For a loader-tractor, I would definitely say "Yes", it would require less power..

For a "Field Tractor"..(What ever that is..!!)..it will depend just what you are talking about..

For a big-Hulking 220 HP behemoth, sure, FW assist is an advantage..but certainly DUALS on the Rear will reduce power required more...
If this is directed at a smaller tractor that really has only a light-loading on the steering when "Working", FWA will possibly only increase the power required because of frictional Losses..

Ron..

Ken Macfarlane · Feb 3, 2010

A perfectly ballasted 2wd will pull similar to a well ballasted 4wd. Only thing is a perfectly ballasted 2wd doesn't exist, and any weight on the fronts to help you steer means loss of drawbar hp.

The mfwd or 4wd is way less sensitive to changing soil and imperfect ballasting.

On a loader tractor its more to do with just having traction, not hp. With the changing weight in the bucket the ballasting goes all over the map leaving loader 2wd's nearly useless in mud unless you have thousands of pounds on the 3ph. A mfwd benefits from the weight but will do it like dry ground without the weight.

Anonymous-0 · Feb 3, 2010

Throw out EVERYTHING you've just been told when it comes to PTO loads. HP is HP. Less HP is less HP.

flying belgian · Feb 3, 2010

Ken. That is the perfect answer.

Foghorn Leghorn · Feb 3, 2010

One thing to consider while doing field work; With the front assist, if you hit a soft spot you are more likely to be able to get accross it. With a big two wheel drive, the big wheels will hit the soft spot and DOWN you go.

Of course, if it is a big soft spot it woldn't matter at all--just something to keep in mind.

This would be true of any situation where you get stuck. Generaly, the more sources of traction you can utilize will put you better off.

Anonymous-0 · Feb 3, 2010

Back in 1988 I bought a new CaseIH 1896 mfwd tractor 90 hp with a 5.9 cummins.It replaced a 1066 and a 766 IH,pulled the same equipment with a lot less fuel.I don"t have the fuel numbers but it was a big difference for 1066. The 1896 had a computer in it that you could read the wheel slippage. the tractor had loaded rear tires with clamp on duals 18.4 x38 In 2wd pulling our 20ft white disc the slippage would be 30 to 35 %.In 4wd it would drop back down to 5-7% which I was told is where the ideal slippage should be for that tractor. No salesman said this or that. This is what was on the screen in front of me. As far as Hp I am not sure about the exact hp needed but the 1896 would pull the same equipment as the 1066 at 125hp the same speed in the field. I know this because we tried the new tractor first in the same field and same equipment before we bought it.

Walterdavies · Feb 3, 2010

Having both here on the farm in small tractors I would say that the 4WD was much better in getting around in all kinds of mud and snow and what have you with less HP. My Kubota L-285 2WD is the worst thing you can get on a slippery surface. My L-2050 4WD could go anywhere right up and past its belly in mud.
Walt

RodinNS · Feb 3, 2010

MFWD dramatically increases available pull in most situations therby reducing wheel slip, thus you have a lot more available power in drawbar situations. For PTO work you still need the power...
Personally, there is not one situation I can think of where I would buy a 2WD tractor IF I was buying a new/newish tractor. If I just wanted an old pig to run a silo blower or manure pump and it was chinese cheap... then 2WD would be an option... but not for anything else. If nothing else I just don't want to bounce around a field and through every hole on a 16" front tire...

Rod

usetob · Feb 3, 2010

some times you have to prove things to yourself, in the early 90's I bought 2 tractors same size except one was fwa the other was 2-wheel drive. In most applications the FWA would eat the other one up, infact with a 550 Bu. grain cart in the rice field the 2-wkeel drive had a long rest. Pulling a 16'X60' land plane, on a half mile run the FWA would beat the 2-wheel probably a hundred yards or more!

buickanddeere · Feb 3, 2010

After you have used a 4WD. The only thing a 2WD is good for is pulling feedlot mixers, running pto pumps/generators and baling hay on dry level fields.Ok for getting the mail too.

Tx Jim · Feb 4, 2010

(quoted from post at 15:46:35 02/03/10) A perfectly ballasted 2wd will pull similar to a well ballasted 4wd. Only thing is a perfectly ballasted 2wd doesn't exist, and any weight on the fronts to help you steer means loss of drawbar hp

Adding frt weights to a 2WD does help traction at least that's what JD factory reps. stated back in the 80's. Tractor pullers must think adding frt weights helps traction also along with helping hold down frt end. I think one can perfectly ballast a 2WD tractor but only 125 HP & below.

RodinNS · Feb 4, 2010

The only purpose to adding front weight to a 2WD is to keep the front end down firm enough to maintain steering control. That's why pullers do it... They get plenty of rear weight from the transfer sled and their pull point.
The classic example of a poorly ballasted tractor in field conditions would be a ~100 HP 2WD with a 4 or 5 bottom mounted plow. If you load the front down to carry the plow you've got half a ton or more weight hanging there. When you drop the plow in the ground.... you've got half a ton of weight driving two silly little tires into the ground and the back ones spinning trying to push them anywhere.
The MFWD tractor still requires the same weight to carry the plow... but the weight distribution works out somewhere between 50/50 and 40/60 front/rear which is near an optimal ballast to get maximum pull from a MFWD tractor.
2WD's make nice museum pieces...

Rod

Tx Jim · Feb 4, 2010

(quoted from post at 09:11:35 02/04/10) The only purpose to adding front weight to a 2WD is to keep the front end down firm enough to maintain steering control. That's why pullers do it... They get plenty of rear weight from the transfer sled and their pull point.
The classic example of a poorly ballasted tractor in field conditions would be a ~100 HP 2WD with a 4 or 5 bottom mounted plow. If you load the front down to carry the plow you've got half a ton or more weight hanging there.
2WD's make nice museum pieces...

Rod

#1 have you ever watched a pulling contest? Sometimes frt wheels of pullers don't touch track for a ways and are steered with brakes.
#2 Tractor Co rep's didn't agree with your theory back before MFWD's became the rage. JD rep's stated every # on frt equaled 2#s on rear for 3pt hitch implements!!!!!!!!!!!!!
#3 Not every farmer requires a 4wd tractor any more than some 4wd road PU/SUV owners!!!!!!!!!! Except 4wd goes in snow/ice better BUT it doesn't STOP any better.
#5 I hate to find out after 20+ yrs custom baling that my 2wd's are no longer any good and I need NEW MFWD"s!

One good thing about MFWD's is they don't turn sharp enough to break a cv joint at least the ones I've driven.

EACH TO THERE OWN BELIEFS

RodinNS · Feb 4, 2010

I've watched lots of pulling videos...
The front ballast is there to keep the front end down... or try to. It's not helping the rear wheels grip when the front wheels are carrying wheght.
The same is true in the field with a plow. The recomendation on weighting a 2WD is still 30/70, the same as it always was... and that figure is about maintaining steering control. Actually it may have been 25/75... but the point is the same.

I suppose you don't need MFWD if you're working on a dry billiard table while making hay. All I can tell you is that around here the last few years... you'd be spending a lot of time on the benches. The last 2 years were so wet we needed MFWD just to drag a baler around in some places.

You can't have had much of a CV joint if you're breaking them either... I can put the tires against the baler tounge with either of the MFWD's that I bale with and the shaft has never given any trouble. Ofcourse that's a Claas baler too.... so performance is to be expected.

There are very VERY few situations today where MFWD will not quickly pay for itself. You may have one of them, but you're probably in about 2% of the population.

Rod

Ken Macfarlane · Feb 4, 2010

Adding weight to a 2wd tractor does increase traction if the f/r
ratio is right.

Putting a full rack on the front of a 2wd in soft soil with a load
that isn't so much downwards like a large trailed disc won't help
you much. May even hurt in soft ground.

Add that weight to the rear axle or just forward of it and you're
much better off.

The 4wd doesn't care that much, both weight positions will help
to a degree.

Ken Macfarlane · Feb 4, 2010

Its actually important for small tractors too.

Also just because you have 4wd has nothing to do with if you need duals on the rear (or fronts!) If your tire loads are too high for the soil you'll get too much compaction and slippage. Dual it up or get some bigger radials.

Tx Jim · Feb 5, 2010

RodinNS
I don't bale wet hay(no silage/haylage) so I run on dry soil not a billiard table so a 4WD isn't needed.

Some CV joints are not designed to turn pivot point on hitch to 90% which if one does while turning puts undue stress on the ball & socket inside the CV joint which shortens life of CV joint.

You can state all you care to that frt weights don't add traction to rear wheels. CAN YOU BACK IT UP WITH FACTS????????????????

You indicate the equipment you run is superior(Class & Ford) to other brands. I wonder why you run a JD 1460 disc cutter when IMHO a lot of manufacturers make better hay cutters than JD?

2 wheel drive vs. 4wd

Member

Member

Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Member

Well-known Member

Member

Well-known Member

Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Similar threads