190xts vs 4020 JD

I have noticed  on" Tractor House"  that the 4020's seem to be worth  alot more than the one -ninety XTs.  Could anyone tell me why.  Is it JD loyalty ?  or plain  lack of knowledge.

Its all about the name.  Next time your in a store with kids toys all you will find is JD and CAT toys.  Thats the only name non farming kids and adults know.  You can get the JD and CAT name on about anything. 

I,ll take the XT any day ,one big reason is the POWERDIRECTOR ; that gave AC a real advantage back when the HUNDRED series came out ;  but JD has the loyalty thing and  a real stable company with parts avaliabilty - people think of todays AGCO as a joke , with popular parts being dropped and dropping the ORANGE didnt help a thing ;one thing to think about though   -4020,s  can be aggrivating to get in gear - BUT THEY DONT JUMP OUT ON YOU ; that issue alone really puts a bad name on an   XT

Edited by DougG - 13 Mar 2011 at 6:08pm

I'll give JD credit on having brand stability, but i'll take a 190 any day over a 4020. Yeah I know the 190 had a little transmission problem, but it could cover more ground in a day than a 4020, it could justify the having the less hours on the trany. 4020s are just to hard to get on for me and I'm young. Shifting them are a pain, you cant speed shift and they dont seem to have the traction as the 190 does. It seems like every 4020 i've used has something different about the platform from starting it to hydrolic controls locations. I can go on all day giving dislikes about 4020's and there are no likes for me about them, so give me all them 190's and 200's any day of the week!

There are only two variations o 4020 hydraulics, either dash left (pre 1969) or side console (1969 and later). Though either could have zero, one or two remotes. There are several variations on starter control, some on the ignition switch, some a separate starter button. The changes at the beginning of the 1969 model year were so great many parts don't interchange between early and late and they have separate shop manuals and separate parts books. There were three different editions of the operator manual before 1969, I don't know how many afterwards.

I don't have trouble shifting the synchro ranges in my 4020 on the go, even when pulling up to 30,000 pounds of corn in wagons though that day it didn't get up to 22 mph with that load. I started the load off in 6th, ran it up to full engine speed with the foot feed, then clutched and let the engine speed come back down and shifted to 8th gear. As smooth as my truck or car. Whether with 10,000 pounds of grain or 30,000 pounds of grain behind it.

It is kind of nice to have a flat floor with no shift levers poking up, but the synchro range shifter is not intuitive to operate, it does take some practice or instruction compared to a couple conventional transmissions in line but that also makes the tractor several feet shorter and more compact. In the field, my gas 4020 with worn tires is more traction than power limited. And it will bring more money when I sell it than i paid for it so long as I don't burn it to the ground.

Gerald J.

 

Between me, Dad and my brother we have and use 3 XTs and one 190 and the 190 is the only one with a mechanical live PTO. I've never noticed an inconvenience running the hydraulic PTOs on the XTs.

i just got done tearing apart the steering housing on a 4020 because it leaked through the seals its a nightmare, about 4 hours and $900 for rebuilt ,on my 190 its a simple steering pump that is easy access and easy to replace. The jumping out of gear thing stinks on 190. The biggest difference in my area is PARTS,PARTS,AND PARTS or lack there of when its AC, just gotta deal with it.

I am a tractor fan of any brand.  I have lost equal amounts of hearing to both of these models - JD4020 or AC190XTIII.  They both are good tractors with each having their pros & cons.  Since the 190 is getting great reviews already, I will put in my good opinions for the JD4020.

1. The 4020 is and acts like a smaller handling machine than the 190.  Like the AC180 or 185, the 4020 is a great 90hp chore tractor around cramped livestock conditions. 

2. The 404 engine was naturally aspirated, so its higher cubes helped give it the necessary torque for 18-20' tillage implements.  From 1964-1972, it was in its infancy.  The 4020 was never turboed from the factory.  Only bigger models 4320, 4520, 4620, 4430, 4630 404 versions during the 70s received the intercooling/turbo it deserved.   

3. The JD synchro-shift 8 speed transmission had 4 ranges with a high/low gear built into each range.  1-3-3r, 2-5-5r, 4-7-7r, 6-8.  As noted by someone earlier in this thread, clutch shifting within a range was very comfortable using the floor mounted footspeed.  Although, not as handy as a power director on a 190, at the age of 8 years old, I could easily shift the synchro-trans with little difficulty.  

4. Its hydraulic wet brake assemblies worked great - any kid could stop a 4020 without having to stand on its brake pedals.

5. For a smaller person or kid, hooking up to 3pt or especially the drawbar, the JD4020 did not have the huge 190 fuel tank obscuring the necessary safe vision for hookups.  The 190 was not alone in this as the 930/1030 Case tractors had the same issue.

6. My Dads 2 JD4020s were serviced regularly.  They were untouched factory fuel pumps, so never turned up on fuel.  Both tractors are still in operation.  One of them was overhauled twice during its entire life of over 15,000hrs with my Dad.  Somewhere around 6000-7500 hrs per overhaul was common.  We never did brakes or transmissions on any of them.  The outer rear bearings would require changing if loaded with fluid, weights, & duals for decades.

 

In 1969, my Dad bought the low houred 65'4020 with a JD 5-16 plow for $5600.  Our local JD dealer out ranked the local AC dealer for parts, service, & trades.     

    

I'm with Eldon, I tink AC missed it putting little tires on all their tractors. 

I farmed with both 4020D and 190XTD III at the same time. I liked them both. I paid $8000 for the JD used and $3450 for the AC. Both about the same hours and same condition. I miss them both!

Differential lock was a common option with the 4020 Synchro Range transmission too. And really necessary doing field work.

Steering doesn't tilt, but the seat suspension is adjustable for height and position front to rear.

When I was shopping for a taller tractor about 11 years ago I found one AC for every two dozen 4020 available in central Iowa. And the one AC dealer with two or three AC thought they were made of the same gold he asks for parts.

Gerald J.

MikeB (SD) wrote:     Johan the Ford 8000 was released in 1968 exactly the same time as a SeriesIII XT190 and yes while the 8000 is physically larger then the XT190 the power is the exactly the same.

8000 is rated at 105, XT at 93.  Ford is much larger and heavier, doesn't have tranny or rear end issues, will start in the teens on one battery without ether or being plugged in and I would also say it will lug more and burn less fuel.

You can always tell when reading posts what kind of tractor is in your shed, I'm 100% AC but i worked at deere for 5 years they have a very weak top shaft in the transmission from 4020-4455 all same top shaft if you ballast heavy with loader they gave trouble so i would say they both had transmission issues that required up keep neither one are junk will a 190-200 twist the dyno more than a 4020 HELL YEAH love the fuel tank behind me don't want fuel on my shiny hood. Will a John Deere sell for more than its worth YES!!! Poor AC- the people who have never driven, ridden , or owned one are the one's who critisize them the worse oh yeah and the ones who get outpulled by them ragged orange tractors have bad opinions too!!!

The 190xt was and still is a very good tractor in my book. You will get alot of tractor for the buck. I am color blind when it comes to tractors ,orange.

AC WD45 wrote: In my opinon, the 4020 was the best (and still is) 100hp tractor avalible. That and the IH 10 and 1466. They had just the right gearing for their power, not to fast, not too slow. I hated the 4620, dang thing was either under powerd or would spin out

Don't know about the 4620 but I'll disagree on the other 2 counts. Having worked at both an Allis dealer and a CaseIH dealer I know that the 1066 and 1466 take parts. They do ride pretty nice and certainly start great but from the front axle, clutch, TA, PTO and 3 point hitch they take parts and they grenade rear ends some times. Compared to the 7000 series I'd take an Allis 7000 series. My cousin was given a 1066 by his Grandpa back in the 70's and overall he has liked it. I used to drive it quite a bit in the field. Some things I liked like the ride and how it started but not the cab or the layout of the controls. I prefer my 7050 over it. Cousin is still an Allis man too.  I am very biased when it comes to my tractors.