190XT VS 4020

Bought a 70 model 4020 John Deere today and already checked it out against our 69 model XT190 series III. From what i saw the JD doesnt deliver the engine performance the AC  puts out.  The steering seems about the same , the hydrolics seem the same , the brakes on the JD are much more superior, the platform on the AC is at least twice the size of the JD, and i hear the AC is more economical on fuel. If anyone has had or used these these tractors what is your input.

I have both,  the 4020 synchro and series 3 190 ( if not worn and sloppy_ THE 4020 shifts a lot better than a 190)  its real nice to go from farward to reverse, i would say the 4020 wins hands down in transmission and brake department. In engine department , well most 404's will start a lot easier than the 301's in cold weather. but for top end horsepower  and fuel economy id give it to the 190, the 4020 should have a tighter turning radius, and a more nimble maneuverable feel,. For  hydraulics, i would vote for the 190, the jd closed center system is overly complex and expensive to work on and 95% of the time is not needed because you are just using the hydrualics to run a cylinder. The pto goes to the 4020 true live power. Overall id prefer the 4020 for a hay baling, pto chore tractor etc, but for field tillage work id prefer the 190.   all and all both good tracotr both have strong and weak points, 190 week points  are trans and rearend, jd weak points are the hydraulics system if high hours and not maintained 

Edited by ac45 - 23 Feb 2012 at 8:58pm

The 190 platform is large because its covering two transmissions one behind the other. The 4020 gets the same ranges of gears in a single three shaft transmission so it doesn't have as much to cover with platform. It does take some learning to get along with the 4020 gear selection, but its pretty good for most field work, though when plowing and you need to go down just one gear, its stop and change ranges.

Be sure to use JD approved transmission oil or the brakes will go bad.

The closed center hydraulics also supply power for steering, brakes, three point, and differential lock. Steering is not power assisted, its completely hydraulic. Same for brakes, though there's supposed to be mechanisms for a bit of manual operation of each without engine power.

4020 don't have the 190's history of crunching differential pinion gears.

Keeping up the hydraulic pressure does take fuel and its worst in the gas which I have, but the price difference between gas and diesel 12 years ago looked like it would buy gas for 14 years and I think it has more than done that for the amount I used it.

The 4020 design worked on being compact, size of the JD 720, not their biggest tractor, to make in more maneuverable and to have more HP per pound. That I've found to make it spin out instead of lug the engine down (but maybe I should put tires on with full height lugs for field work).

The hydraulic steering makes it harder to plant straight rows. It drifts just enough that I can't hold the wheel steady and plant a straight row, but my MF-135 will pull my planter with the engine just above idle speed and will plant straight rows. The 4020 has better ground clearance for cultivating and spraying corn crops.

When I was shopping I found 40 4020 for each 190 to select from and the 4020 were less prized than that one 190. Either would pull the AC monobeam plow I bought for the 4020 though 4x18 proved to be more than the 4020 could pull and keep the front wheels on the ground. 3x18 it pulled just fine and considerably faster.

Gerald J.

What if we threw an IH 966 into the mix?

The only 20 series JD's I ran had the hydraulic controls on the left side of the dash. What a PITA. I think Allis had em on ergonomics.

We had a 200 new and in late 80's all our allis dealers left us nothing within 100 miles had a good JD dealer 6 miles from home still there today we work with JD equipment just because of dealer so at one point we bought a used 4020 side console.Like mentioned both have good and bad points,strongs, weakness,but in my world it's all about parts and service,but I still liked the AC's!!!

I'd take the AC. I got an XT we are going to use for baling. As far as true live PTO from WD on up there has been nothing I can't do. Like someone said a long time ago I like pushing in the clutch for everything to stop. It's your first reaction to step on the cluth not reach for levers in my opinion. I'd also take the AC because thats my brand of tractor Iam not a  jd person.

Edited by Lonn - 24 Feb 2012 at 7:55am

This is what I like about this site.  If you asked this same question on most JD sites, there would never be one good thing said about a 190 or any other tractor that wasn't green except perhaps for its use as a ship anchor.  Here, people are honest and able to give credit where credit is due.  

When our 190xt was deliverd a neighbor came over  to look at and drive it .

His comments  were all positive ... (except the color ) then the AC dealer was 8 miles away and the IH dealer was  1 mile away . He bought an 856. Now  both dealers are gone . Nearest  CIH  dealer is 19 miles away , nearest Agco is 50 plus .I agree with the previous comment about  the dealer and service .

 I  have owned an 856  for 10 years now , and have  nothing to bitch about regarding that tractor , surprised more havent made a comment on it .  

I love my allis's. Gotta say though my 4020 synchro is one of my favorites. Starts when its real cold without nose candy, pulls good, steering is soooo smooth, will turn with one finger, pretty comfortable and the differential lok is something allis needed. 

I only hauled that load once. I figured I couldn't stop it even from 16 mph in an emergency, nor could I pick up any of the units of the train from on top of me in the ditch.

The shift in the SR 4020 is weird when used to a two lever transmission pair. Its illogical. I wouldn't turn anyone loose with it without spending some time explaining it and making them operate it with me instructing for a bit. Some will never figure it out.

The PS is spendy to fix, the SR is spendy to fix but the PS is built tough. My neighbor had a series of PS tractors over a 30 year period and never broke a PS transmission. He drove them hard too. Leaving the field by my house to go home for lunch after cultivating all morning or afternoon, he'd turn out on the road in a low gear, floor the throttle, and shift up through the gears without backing off on the throttle. If I went out for the mail soon after that I found rear wheel divots in the gravel for each shift. Yes it shifted "hard" you might say "solidly." Certainly no significant slip to make for gentle shifts and there was no torque converter to soften the shifts. Either transmission can be destroyed in a very short time by pulling the tractor with the shifter in any position but TOW. The SR probably breaks fastest, wrecking all the bearings on the top shaft from lack of lubrication while spinning several thousand RPM.

The 4020 cabs were prepackaged coffins, not much structure, not enough evident to stand up to a roll over, and not quiet, clean, or a controlled environment. The IH '66 cabs were no better. The 4020 cabs were not made by Deere though the parts for them are in the Deere 4020 parts book. They supplied them from several vendors. The next family of cabs were Deere designed, but with one oddity, a big post down the middle of the windshield, though they did control the operator environment for dirt, dust, and temperature much better.

The worst gas hog in Lester Larson's book about tractor testing was an IH 686 or 656 hydrostat. But the gas 3020 and 4020 were not really a lot better. Part of the problem with nearly all gas tractors is the ignition advance is only centrifugal, there's no vacuum component. It was known in the 30s that a gas engine needed more advance for lightly loaded part throttle operation according to a mid 30s engine design book I have. Something like 10 degrees more advance. One time I changed the distributor on a Pinto wagon from the combination to a Mallory dual point with only centrifugal advance. It ran fine accelerating at full throttle, but was a dog at part throttle and the gas mileage was rotten. I put an original back on as soon as I could get one. I'd broken the original looking for a squeak and couldn't get a Ford distributor shipped, but could get the Mallory shipped and without the distributor I couldn't go to town after anything, distributor or groceries.

When using the same hydraulic power for steering, brakes, and remotes, I think a pressure compensated system was too slow to respond. And keeping pressure high is certainly one place that uses fuel all the time.

I'd have to check the parts book, but I recall that the dry air cleaner came in about SN 91,000 and that was the first SN of the 1965 model year. The first official model year was 1964. There were three versions of 4020 between the 4010 and the side console 4020 with major changes in wiring harness, start switch location, and the air filter. And while there's only one edition of the shop manual for 4010 and pre side console 4020, there were three different editions of the operator's manual.

The generator was too small, and some say the starter was too small. Many change to a starter from later engines when converting the diesels to 12 volts that are rated at two or three times the starter motor horsepower for better starting. Usually a Nippon-Denso.

The only 190 I found for sale was priced like silver while the gas 4020 was priced like lead and I have 30 or 40 4020 to choose from that year within 50 miles of the farm. AC's were not in the running with that limited a selection.

Gerald J.

BTW Gerald, how long ago did you go looking to buy a gas 4020? Around here a gas 190 will sell for $2,500 to $3,500 for a good one at auction.

Gerald J. wrote: I won't buy at his auctions since the first one in 1990 where I bid against myself as the only bidder on a hay baler Gerald J.

I owned a pair of 190 XT's , have run 4010's, 4020's, 826's, 856's, 966's(owned one of those jewels for entirely too many years), 1850 Oliver as well. Each and every one had strong points and all had weak points.  From personal experience, the AC and Oliver were "torqueier", the IHC's were larger more bulky operating units, and the 966 was the hottest thing I have ever run on operators deck, it was BAD.