d14 or wd45

you can sometimes buy a pretty decent D17 for the same amount as a 15...

I like using my WD45 over my D17 when using brush cutter or baleing hay. Even tho the 17 has PD and more power I just think it is more handy when useing the hand clutch over the PD.  MACK

Before I made the decision I would analyze how many hours I expect to use the tractor and for what ... Bush Hog RPM requirements  will necessitate you running the tractor engine at or near full throttle for a 540 rpm PTO. I owned/used a wd-45 many years back when I first started farming. I can vividly remember the amount of gasoline it used... copious amounts.... took almost two tanks of gas in a 10 day.  I would expect a gas D-17 to consume a similar quantity of fuel, while the smaller engine D's will burn less.  I got tired of pouring all that fuel through the tractor and bought a used AC 160 (3 cylinder perkins diesel)that ran for two plus  days on a tank of fuel. If you are a weekend hobby farmer then perhaps a gas job will be ok, but if you are a rather serious hobby farmer then I would look at something other than a gas job as my primary tractor.  You will not believe how much fuel a WD-45 will burn in cold weather pushing snow... very close to the amount my JD 60 will consume,... which, by the way...  I keep in the shed... just looking good. 

I have both a D14 and a WD45.  I use a 7foot LIlliston mower and the 45 handles it well.  the D14 will handle it, but is a bit lacking in power.  Also, the D14 uses 26in tires and rims.  Expensive!!!   The clutch on the WD45 is a bit hard on your left hip.

I have a WD, a WD-45 and a D-17.

i just did a fuel comparison for another inquiry on a 14 vs 17 gas application. the 226 in the 17 uses 60% more fuel under full load than the mouse motor in the 14, full load condition. however, you will probably not be running full throttle under the conditions you described for use tasks. yea the baler will rock and roll the 14 more than the 17 but if your doing under 1000 bales per year you just go with the flow and ride that buckin horse. the 14 has enough snoot to pull the baler and a wagon on flat or hilly ground without spinning out and its a lot easier to mount and dismount because of height of the 17. younger operators or old geezers like me can appreciate the height difference, steering quickness and braking response of the 14. however, never discount the amount of pleasure/work that the 17 can and will do.

I have both, get a D series.  Much safer getting on in front of the wheel, away from the PTO.

I have a WD, a d15 and a d17 and I wouldnt give my 17 for both the other ones.

Thanks A lot you guys a very helpful. i got 3 spotted we will see what happens.
thanks again and wish me luck!

R

They would all work. For baling hay I think the bigger machine is better.
But as stated, even the D14 would work. The comments about fuel
consumption and the 160 are spot on. As soon as we got a 160, the other
tractors lost their jobs. The 2N just sat, the Ferguson TO-30 got a loader.
The JD B became a lawn ornament, the Minneapolis Moline ZB got
outfitted special for spraying.  Only the C was still used, because it had
cultivators. When I was younger I was the the operator of the sit-on
two row corn planter. The C always pulled that planter. My very important
job was to raise and lower at end of row. Keep an eye on it to ensure the
seeds were not stuck or blocked. That sound of the C at low rpm and the
plates on the planter clicking away are still with me. Sun going down, getting chilly.
Then as I got older, doing things after school, and dad couldn't count on his planter boy, the 160 got a 3-pt planter, now I was out of a job. Then he got a cultivator on the 160 and now the C was used only part time.  So the 160 ended up doing all the chores you mentioned, including cutting the hay and baling it, plowing (two bottom flipper, but fast), discing. Fuel economy won out (and power steering) and always starting....
Problem with the 160 is it is rare, and parts situation is dicey. I think the second place
choice to the 160 was a JD 1020. The 160 was about $2k cheaper. The diesels are noisy.
The D14 is lower than the D17, we ain't getting younger. Boy it was easy to hop on the 2N and the Ferguson.

79fordblake wrote: If you get one of those steps that bolts to the frame rail you can get on a WD45 from the front. I get on my WD45 from the front if pto is going and I don't have the added on step. I am use to the WD45 so when I get on my neighbors D14 and D17 it seems like a pain to get on them to me.

I think all coments are spot on, the D17 is a tractor capable of farming 160 acre's with no problem, however I still like my WD45-- it's a classic!!!

Baling hay with a small square baler doesn't require much PTO HP. My Dad baled with a JD 50 pulling a 14T baler, with a category 1 ejector and pull behind wagon in the Catskill mountains of New York State... while operating a small dairy farm. He later upgraded to a WD-45, but the 50 handled the load just fine and consumed a lot less fuel. He liked the WD-45 but quickly retreated when he discovered the amount of fuel it consumed over and above the little JD 50. He's 96 now, but still remembers when he took the 45 off the baler in disgust. The d-14 will do just fine with the baler.   

go with a d series for sure. i have a 59 d14 and love it compared to my friends wd45. i know the power advantage goes to the 45 but if you want to pull a baler with it... good luck. it doesnt have a low enough ground speed. i love my d14 especially when just put it in first gear and use the hi for light hay and when you come up to some heavyer stuff just pull it pd back into low. and if the baler is getting fed to much just put the pd in neutral and slowly pull back and inch through the tough stuff. sooo handy. plus you are safely away from the pto when you get on/off and on most dseries you have powersteering. unlike the wd/45 where ps is not so common. id take my d14 over a wd45 anyday.