190XT VS 4020
Printed From: Unofficial Allis
Category: Allis Chalmers
Forum Name: Farm Equipment
Forum Description: everything about Allis-Chalmers farm equipment
URL: https://www.allischalmers.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=46110
Printed Date: 04 Jul 2024 at 12:42pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: 190XT VS 4020
Posted By: mark vaughn
Subject: 190XT VS 4020
Date Posted: 23 Feb 2012 at 8:06pm
| 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. |
Replies:
Posted By: Claus
Date Posted: 23 Feb 2012 at 8:38pm
| Don't like the shift pattern on the 4020. |
Posted By: ac45
Date Posted: 23 Feb 2012 at 8:53pm
| 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 |
Posted By: David (in Mi.)
Date Posted: 23 Feb 2012 at 9:01pm
| I spent my young years always on Allis's from wd's to XT's and always thought that it was the best. Now i farm, still own my dad's 45 Diesel, with all John deere equipment, including two 4020's and both AC 's and Deere's have some things better then the other. I will agree, until you get use to shifting the 4020 they may seem unhandy, but they are very tough and last forever with a little care on shifting down the left side into the different ranges. The 4020 will steer very easy, and the brakes are better also. As far as fuel, the XT's may use a little less under light loads, but at full loads they are about the same per hour. As far as the turbo on the XT's they do sound great and i love listening to them purr. I do not own an XT but i am watching for one, and someday hope to have one around the place just for old time sake. |
Posted By: Gerald J.
Date Posted: 23 Feb 2012 at 9:05pm
|
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. |
Posted By: nyacdon
Date Posted: 23 Feb 2012 at 9:29pm
| i grew up on 2 wc's one with a 226 leroi engine tough and powerful and fun to work with!!!---later enter a john deere 4020 powershift w/m&w turbo--none of the xt's in our neighborhood could measure up--xt's were fine tractors but they fell short in many ways--an experience from the north country. |
Posted By: Claus
Date Posted: 23 Feb 2012 at 9:43pm
| What if we threw an IH 966 into the mix? |
Posted By: mark vaughn
Date Posted: 23 Feb 2012 at 10:22pm
| Also a very good tractor! |
Posted By: CTuckerNWIL
Date Posted: 23 Feb 2012 at 10:32pm
|
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.
------------- http://www.ae-ta.com" rel="nofollow - http://www.ae-ta.com Lena 1935 WC12xxx, Willie 1951 CA6xx Dad bought new, 1954WD45 PS, 1960 D17 NF |
Posted By: Gerald J.
Date Posted: 24 Feb 2012 at 12:23am
|
The later 20s called "side console" (1969 and later) had the hydraulic levers next to the seat on the right side. I've never driven one of those, they are more highly prized than the earlier versions and the hydraulics are considerably different all through the system. The early remote hydraulic valves were on the engine side of the firewall and the later hydraulic valves were on the back of the tractor including the connections as part of the valves. Both work. Gerald J. |
Posted By: RPSallispullinmd
Date Posted: 24 Feb 2012 at 5:58am
| 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!!! |
Posted By: Lonn
Date Posted: 24 Feb 2012 at 6:30am
You've got to be kidding on the starts easier part. I disagree on the shifting too otherwise I think I can agree with most of what you are saying. ------------- -- --- .... .- -- -- .- -.. / .-- .- ... / .- / -- ..- .-. -.. . .-. .. -. --. / -.-. .... .. .-.. -.. / .-. .- .--. .. ... - Wink I am a Russian Bot |
ac45 wrote:Posted By: KGood
Date Posted: 24 Feb 2012 at 6:33am
| 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. |
Posted By: Josh Day
Date Posted: 24 Feb 2012 at 6:44am
|
Posted By: Lonn
Date Posted: 24 Feb 2012 at 7:03am
|
The reason the 190 has a big platform is for operator comfort. If it was to cover two transmissions then the D17, 170, 180 would all have the big platform too. Our neighbor had lots of trouble with the brakes on his 4020 back in the day so I agree that the brakes can go horribly bad in a 4020. The steering isn't power assist on a 190 either and the 190 has plenty of hydraulic power. With a loader I think it would lift the Mayo Clinic building. Holding the clutch in for a while won't stop the hydraulics like on a 4020. Yes early 190's had a bad rep on rear end problems. 1966 and up not so much. They never were able to recover from that bad rep and sales showed it as did resale. The 190 sits up nice and high like a modern tractor. A 4020 is maneuverable for utility work but a 190 is pretty darn nimble too. The longer wheelbase of the 190 does give it a better ride in the field. I never notice the drifting when planting with the 190 but it probably drifts some too. A 190 has better axle clearance than a 4020 but who cultivates anymore. A 190XT will pull 4x18 monoframe for me all day long. The traction Booster system really works well to keep the front end down but Allis was always recognized as having a real good traction booster system. Independent PTO would have helped the 190 some but I never notice it having grown up with an XT. Dad's had the hydraulically actuated PTO anyhow and both mine XT and my brother's do too. Fuel economy wise a 4020 will never outdo an XT and same for torque. Power shift wheels are easier to deal with too but not all 190s have that. I have used the roll-shift front axle on my straight 190 and it is nice but you got to keep the tie rods greased or painted with never seize. Seat comfort they are about equal although the 190 has lots of positions and weight adjustment. You really can't be too uncomfortable driving a 190. Fuel tank size is nice too. You can go all day easy without stopping for fuel on the 190. The 3-point to me is heftier on the 190 and real easy to hook up things with the extendable links and cranks and you can lift or lower the 3 point from ground level standing behind while hooking up like a modern tractor. Even with a cab cause it's got remote linkage for that very thing. Dry air cleaner is a big plus over the 4020 and spin on oil filter and hydraulic filter. And last is the 4020 will never operate PTO equipment quite as smooth as a 190. You can put a glass of water on the hood while filling silo. You won't quite be able to do that on a 4020. I forgot, the hydraulic couplers are simpler and better on the 190, suspended clutch and brake pedals, RH console mounted throttle, shift-on-the-go as standard equipment, and having tilt steering as standard equipment betters the 4020 too. Also float positions for the hydraulics is real nice sometimes. There I think I did my best.
------------- -- --- .... .- -- -- .- -.. / .-- .- ... / .- / -- ..- .-. -.. . .-. .. -. --. / -.-. .... .. .-.. -.. / .-. .- .--. .. ... - Wink I am a Russian Bot |
Posted By: ACFarmer86
Date Posted: 24 Feb 2012 at 11:47pm
i have a 190 XT III with power adjust rear tires and like that option over regular rims like on Deere. I use it on mower/conditioner and light tillage work all with little trouble (bought it originally as a project that was treated poorly by previous owner). IN my area JD are by far the most common and most dealers, but 4020 fetch the highest dollar as well. Red is close behind and at just over half price is the reliable Allis 190 XT III 
|
Posted By: DanD
Date Posted: 25 Feb 2012 at 9:01am
| 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. |
Posted By: Gerald J.
Date Posted: 25 Feb 2012 at 10:31am
|
Well Lonn, you don't know everything about the 4020. Only the first couple years had an oil bath air cleaner but none every had a screw on canister oil filter. All are internal using the same inexpensive filter as prior 2 cylinder tractors. And its unlikely a tree limb is going to knock off that internal filter. In the Synchro Range tractors, in each range gears can be shifted on the go. In the first range there's 1,3 and 1R. Second range is 3,5, 2R, third rand is 4,7 and no R (though the 4010 had 3r), fourth range is 6, 8 and no R. The ranges are not synchronized and so have to be shifted while stopped. Has a foot throttle too, handy for road hauling. One time I hooked two wagons of corn behind started out in 6th ran it up to 15 mph, then shifted to 8 and with those wagons that proved the combination to weigh 40,300 pounds gross at the elevator ground on down the road at 16 mph. With one wagon I could run 22 or 23 mph shifting from 6th to 8th at 16 mph. Then there were Power Shift 4020 that allowed shifting all gears on the go. A hydraulically shifted transmission. Losing hydraulics with the clutch pushed in shows a defect in the check valve at the transmission charge pump. The cooler up front holds 5 gallons of oil which handles cylinder operations for a considerable time IF that check valve is good AND the cylinder returns to the right place in the system, not to the main reservoir, the transmission sump. The proper return for added hydraulic operators is the cover of the transmission oil filter. There was a JD service information on converting an elbow to check valve. I have a web page about it at www.geraldj.networkiowa.com/4020si.html I have left my 4020 parked for months, pushed in the clutch, started it, and lifted the loader off the floor before putting the transmission in gear or releasing the clutch. That new check valve really works. The later 4020 losing hydraulics with the clutch pushed is generally a sign of a serious high pressure hydraulics leak, like a split pipe in the transmission case or a bad pressure control valve or a bad valve on the myriad of hydraulic accessories. According to Nebraska tractor tests, a gas 4020 did 7.79 hp-hr/gal while the 190XT gasoline did 8.73 hp-hr/gal. Diesel 4020 did 11.77 vs 13.07 for the 190XT. Some difference but not huge. The stock 4020 lower links extend for hitching, always have. Without a cab the dash mounted 3 point lever I can reach from the ground. The side console level might be easier or harder depending on the implement being hitched. With the three point hydraulics under the seat, it wouldn't be hard to add a rear handle to control the three point, but it might be safer in case something slips to be away from the three point area while moving the three point. The 4020 steering wheel is sure fixed in position. But it takes very little force to turn it so that's not much of a fatigue factor. The early and late 4020 have drastically different remote hydraulic valves and couplers. I know the early can have float by changing how the link from lever to the valve is connected (moving to a different hole). I don't know about float on the later valves but the later 4020 remote valve design was used on the next 30 years of JD tractors. Gerald J. |
Posted By: michaelwis
Date Posted: 25 Feb 2012 at 12:17pm
|
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 . ------------- WD WD45 DIESEL D 14 D-15 SERIES 2 190XT TERRA TIGER ac allcrop 60 GLEANER F 6060 7040.and attachments for all Proud to be an active farmer |
Posted By: Lonn
Date Posted: 25 Feb 2012 at 8:20pm
You could never sell me on the synro transmission mess on a 4020. I just don't like them and under load you can't shift it like a Power Director. The optional Power Shift on the 4020 is nice but the shift should have been on the right hand side in a console. I know that when that power shift gave up it was a real spendy fix. The 4020 is quite a jerk-o-matic but if you have one it's still nice.
Foot throttle is nice too but Gerald, I be real careful pulling the heavy loads you mentioned at the speeds you mentioned. You only get one chance in this world.
The fix for where the return oil goes sounds reasonable.
Fuel wise it is a noticable difference. If the tractor was overhauled with updated pistons and what ever other internals and pump updates I understand the fuel consumption gets better but growing up I never heard a JD man brag on fuel economy on any older Deeres 40 series and older. As far a gassers they all take fuel but a 4020 is noted for being a hog.
I like the remote 3point lift on the 190. Most people don't even know it is there. You won't get wrapped up in the 3point if you use common sense. I've never had a problem. If it was a problem the newer machines probably would NOT have that feature.
Tilt steering is very nice and you can keep your arms in a more comfortable position. It's not about steering ease but ergonomics.
The couplers still aren't easy to work on with the later 4020 compared to the 190 but I will give credit that they are easier to hook up compared to the 190 break away couplers. You can just switch the couplers out on the 190 to the later lever style used on the 7000 and 8000 series.
John Deere was as stuborn as could be as far as upgrading certain things. Yes they upgraded things all the time but the cab design should have been upgraded way earlier than it was along with using ISO couplers and rotary combines and pressure flow compensated hydraulics .................OK OK now I'm just picking on ya. What did you expect on an Allis site? :-)
------------- -- --- .... .- -- -- .- -.. / .-- .- ... / .- / -- ..- .-. -.. . .-. .. -. --. / -.-. .... .. .-.. -.. / .-. .- .--. .. ... - Wink I am a Russian Bot |
Posted By: Dale
Date Posted: 25 Feb 2012 at 8:54pm
| 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. |
Posted By: BPM75
Date Posted: 25 Feb 2012 at 9:25pm
| I grew up with aan XT 190 ser III that my grandad bought new in 1971, we used it onthe farm until about 02 or 03, dad sold it and bought a Duetz 6275, nice little tractor but I sure miss the 190 alot. I have also spent some time time on 4020's my thoughts are there both great tractors some good and bad points to both. the brakes on 190 were not much, dad said that it was that way from day one and so was the 67 model and the 185 they used to have (both gone before my time). as far asd steering I dont think I ve ever ran an easier steering tactor you could steer it one finger no prob. it always seemed to do good on fuel and had plenty of power and always loved the sound of it. The 4020 was a great tractor but I never thought it was as easyto operate as the XT with all the controls on the console. Just my 2 cents worth. |
Posted By: Gerald J.
Date Posted: 25 Feb 2012 at 11:02pm
|
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. |
Posted By: Lonn
Date Posted: 26 Feb 2012 at 6:29am
|
"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."
On an Allis the main pump is a PFC pump and then there is a gyrotor pump and a gear pump for functions like steering etc. I know one thing, you can't accuse my 7050 for slow hydraulics though. When I first got it I hooked up to the digger and raised it then went to lift the wings and they came up with a bang and ripped one of the hydraulic cylinder brackets right off. I never seen the 190 lift those wings like that. That was at just over idle speed. I learned to use the rate of flow adjustment after that. Well, I almost learned. When I first hooked the snowblower up to it and started blowing the driveway I forgot to adjust the rate of flow down for the remote I was using and when I went to turn the spout, BANG, RIP off went the entire spout. I'm much better now at reaching down under the seat to turn the little rate of flow adjustment lever. ------------- -- --- .... .- -- -- .- -.. / .-- .- ... / .- / -- ..- .-. -.. . .-. .. -. --. / -.-. .... .. .-.. -.. / .-. .- .--. .. ... - Wink I am a Russian Bot |
Posted By: Lonn
Date Posted: 26 Feb 2012 at 6:45am
|
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.
Dad bought his gas XT back in 1977 for $6,000 at an auction. It was the main horse for quite a few years. Now it sits out in the cow yard. Dad put a new 7000 cab on it that he got at an auction around the same time. Allis was switching over to the Acousta Cab II and Dad said that at this one auction there were 6 new cabs (The original Accousta Cabs) and they sold pretty cheap. I think he said he paid $600 for his. Had to make it fit the 190 but it felt like we were driving a much newer tractor than a 65' model with that cab. I wish Dad hadn't parked it. It ran great and was overhauled just a few years earlier (I overhauled it at mechanics school) and he fitted it with new tires about that time too. He just quit using it and then the ethanol gas got rotten and it wouldn't start and he just didn't want to mess with it. It's been sitting for 15 years now. He won't sell it either. Not even to me! I'm sure it's stuck by now. I did get it running for him once about a year or so after he quit using it. Had to drain the gas tank but he wasn't interested in using it so it sat until that danged ethanol got rotten again which doesn't take long so I gave up. ------------- -- --- .... .- -- -- .- -.. / .-- .- ... / .- / -- ..- .-. -.. . .-. .. -. --. / -.-. .... .. .-.. -.. / .-. .- .--. .. ... - Wink I am a Russian Bot |
Posted By: Gerald J.
Date Posted: 26 Feb 2012 at 9:57am
|
I looked for about a year. I looked at the occasional Oliver, IH, and AC. I was more after ground clearance for cultivating than for power, just the 4020 gas was about the same price as the common utility tractors were selling for and had lots of crop clearance that the utility tractors did not. Lots of the tractors I looked at had been worked hard, but away wet, and neglected. Once I settled on a 4020, but hadn't yet bought one, I bought the I&T shop manual so I could learn more about them and with that and an op manual in my reading material, I soon knew more about them than the majority of sellers. I bought from a used equipment dealer that also auctions. 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, but at the lot I was able to drive the tractor and test all functions. Can't drive a tractor usually at auctions so you can't check out differential lock, steering, brakes, transmission and clutch. Having a demonstratable running engine is only a fraction of the things that can go wrong with a tractor. But I went to many auctions. I paid $5250 for a '68 in a time when diesels were selling for more like $9K. I figured correctly that the difference would buy all the gas I'd use in 14 years. The first year doing the same field work as I'd done with my MF-135 with bigger implements it used three times the gas of the 135. Then I weaned it fixing a choke that didn't open fully, removing junk like mud dobbers lumps from the air intake, replacing the float needle and seat, readjusting the shape of the Donaldson precleaner so it wasn't acting like a choke (top domed down instead of up), copper wires instead of carbon, AC plugs instead of cold heat range Champions and cut the fuel consumption in half. It smoked like an IH diesel with an especially big cloud after idling a couple minutes. I didn't have to adjust the carburetor, just fix those ills which can happen to any tractor. Today many a 4020 sells for more than it sold for new, primarily because it can do considerable work and sells for 1/10th the price of a new utility tractor of the same power and size. Some would say the new tractor is a better buy, but I counter that one can buy several 4020 for reliability if that's crucial and still spend less money and the 4020 is fixable without needing a computer and compute guru. Gerald J. |
Posted By: Lonn
Date Posted: 26 Feb 2012 at 6:12pm
That reminds me of the first time I bid at an auction. I was 18 and looking to by an E Gleaner at Dad's prodding. They were selling for around $2,000 to $3,000 at the time for a good one. I was prepared to pay around the $2,000 area with corn head and 13' floating bean head. Anyhow Dad had coached me and I had been to quite a few auctions before. He told me to wait until the last bidder was about to quit and then start in. I waited I guess too long cause Dad got nervous and started bidding but he didn't notice that right before him I had started bidding too. The auctioneer knew both of us but said nothing and kept taking bids. Dad told me not to look at the other bidder cause if you know him you might back down out of courtesy which Dad had done more than once himself. So I didn't know he was the other bidder and vice versa. In the end they had two biddings, one each piece separately and one all together heads and all for the top money. The second set of bidding Dad stayed out and I got it all together for $1,200. I was pleased but it was a cold wet snowy day that kept the crowd away. I guess I got long winded.  ------------- -- --- .... .- -- -- .- -.. / .-- .- ... / .- / -- ..- .-. -.. . .-. .. -. --. / -.-. .... .. .-.. -.. / .-. .- .--. .. ... - Wink I am a Russian Bot |
Posted By: captaindana
Date Posted: 26 Feb 2012 at 6:42pm
| Great story Lonn! Thanks! |
Posted By: Russ SCPA
Date Posted: 26 Feb 2012 at 7:26pm
|
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.
From memory if I had to pick
1 190 XT overall keep it light and run fast it will stay togeather
2 Oliver 1850, slower on road, harder to shift, but extremely long design life
3 4020 corperate back up service
4 4010 see above
5 856
6 966 just a little clumsy, never meet a gallon of fuel it didn't like
7 826 the hydro sucked entirely too much power away or this one would have been my number 1 choice tough, tough old birds
|
Posted By: ACFarmer
Date Posted: 26 Feb 2012 at 7:49pm
|
Dad had a 4020 for quite a while that was freshly overhauled and a pretty tight tractor. Never in my life would I trade our 190 xt series 3 for that thing. Hated it. How can you think in your mind that a straight 8 speed is handier than a 8 speed with a high/low shift? 190's are laid out better as far as controls and seating. Only thing 4020 has is hydraulic brakes, but keep your 190 brakes upkept and they do the job. 190 steers just as easy as the 4020. Quite a few guys in this area have ps 4020's, you shift, you slow down then it jerks into the next gear. 4020's that were used hard as tractors show the wear badly. Plus the fact you can buy a very nice 190 for half to a quarter of the price as a wore out 4020. ------------- Making A living everyday farming with and working on Allis Equipment |
Posted By: ALLISMAN32
Date Posted: 26 Feb 2012 at 8:00pm
| Driven both and they are both good tractors, but ill take an xt or 200 any day over the Deere. Cant stand the annoying hydraulic pump rattle that all the Deere tractors make. The platform on the A-C is far better for carrying some chains, hand tools and handyman jack than the Deere ever hoped to be. For sheer power and torque the A-C wins again. Dad said he had one customer with both tractors and plowing the only way the Deere could keep up was after the installation of a torque topper lp injection kit. The hydraulics are smoother on the A-C . Never really thought the steering was that bad on A-C you do need to keep the front ends greased on any tractor or they steer terrible. Deere spindles are no better than the A-C, thats why Deere has all the holes in their tie rods so you can realign the front wheel after the spindle twists. The closed center system on the Deere is nice for modern equipment and most of the industry has adopted it now, although i believe a WD Allis first incorporated a closed center system so really nothing new! Kudos to the Deere on road speed too, XT's and all the A-C's of that design are truly snails. Differential lock is also another nice feature as well as the hydraulic brakes on the 4020. Long live the orange tractors from West Allis!!!!!! |
Posted By: Jordan(OH)
Date Posted: 27 Feb 2012 at 4:58pm
| No one has mentioned the number 1 reason 4020s are so popular. If you went from a 2 cylinder to that you'd think it was great too! |
Posted By: LazyDFarms
Date Posted: 27 Feb 2012 at 8:23pm
|
As I can see this is a very heated debate! I have run both but own an XT and use it almost exclusively on my operation. So I must be a little byus, as this is an allis website.
Butt... like said above this site is great becuase you are allowed "tell it like it is".
What I am about to say, are words I will die by on the situation. An old farmer I knew had both tractors. He told me "When I wanted to work in comfort, I took the 4020. When I wanted to work and get  done, I took the XT."------------- I'VE DONE MORE WITH LESS!! |
Posted By: WC7610
Date Posted: 27 Feb 2012 at 9:58pm
|
Gerald,
You should be able to get any of the sync 4020's to that 3rd reverse if you slam it from 4th down past 7th. Have done it on the ones we had/still have-kids will try anything once. Deere designed it for safety reasons I heard not to be able to shift to the 3rd reverse. It will go about as fast in reverse as 7th forward...
I grew up on sync 4020's and have no problem shifting any of them on the go as long as going downhill and not under load :) ------------- Thanks Most Bad Government has grown out of Too Much Government- Thomas Jefferson |
Posted By: Gerald J.
Date Posted: 27 Feb 2012 at 11:09pm
|
It takes worn linkage to get to 3rd reverse. It was included in the 4010. It is fast moving and some say the gears can't handle the transmission input torque well either so adding leads to broken transmission gears. The gearing in the 4020 transmission is not simple, nearly ever gear in the box is used in every operating position, just in different orders. It wasn't designed overnight. The shift lever runs two cams, one in the left position, the other in the right position so lots of combinations are possible. Gerald J. |
Posted By: ac45
Date Posted: 28 Feb 2012 at 8:55am
| Another negative, on the 4020 is the ealry ones with the split 24/12 volt system, they were hard on batteries, and the generator never seemed to keep up unless you were running wide open, if you used the lights much and did a lot of stopping and starting you were lucky to get 2 years on a set of batterys, and alot of times would have to charge them, On a plus though you can pull start a synchro tractor you cant do that on an xt For a useing 4020 your money ahead to convert to 12 volt and put an alternator on it. This was remidied with the later console tractors, not sure why they just didn't do it earlier, as they were buliding 2020's with alternators when the 4020 was still 24volt and had a generator. As far as shifting a syncro, unless the linkage is worn out, if a person can figure it out from the decal with the shift pattern they shouldnt be on a tractor, forward to reverese shifting is quicker than you could ever imagine shifting on the allis. In my opinon the powershift deeres were overated. whil innovative at the time, it does take about 7 or 8 hp to run that power shift, From what ive heard a lot of guys could almost add an extra bottom with a synchro tractor while plowing. It is nice for chore, hay bush hogging work though. |
Posted By: ky wonder
Date Posted: 28 Feb 2012 at 10:44am
------------- i like old tractors of all colors |
Posted By: Gerald J.
Date Posted: 28 Feb 2012 at 11:01am
|
The 12/24 was only on the diesel 4020 though it began with electric start 2 cylinder diesels. It mostly worked though it confused most barn yard electricians who added loads without keeping them balanced and that upset battery charging balance. The biggest fault was the wimpy generator. On the gas and LP it was 12 volts 20 amps and on the diesel 24 volts 10 amps. Which meant you needed to run the tractor and hour or two per start to charge the battery, maybe longer on the diesel and there was no ammeter to let you know it was charging. It didn't take many added lights to absorb all that charging current. I added an ammeter and the voltage regulator was so slow it pulsed the ammeter which bounced from peg to peg, no useful reading. So I converted my gas to an alternator for about the same money as a new regulator, and get several times the battery life because it does charge properly. The solid state regulator is probably the greatest benefit. The PS did absorb lots of engine power, think about losing that much on a 60 hp 3020 which could be had with PS. Gerald J. |
Posted By: Butch(OH)
Date Posted: 28 Feb 2012 at 11:53am
|
The XT is superior in every respect because of who made it,,, no other reason needed in this house.
|
Posted By: DonDittmar
Date Posted: 28 Feb 2012 at 12:33pm
|
Never driven either one so can't comment on the tractors.
I am not stick up for Mother Deere or anything, but I will comment and the 12/24 electrical system, which is not as compicated as many think
In a normal gennie system, assuming its positive ground, the current on the negative side of the sine wave is used to charge the batteries, the current on the positive side is dissipated to ground via the ground brush.
The 12/24 GEN has 2 ARM terminals(only one on a normal gen) One is hooked to the positive side of the current and the other to the negative. The 12/24 tractors had 4 6 volt batteries hooked up to make 24 volts. The gen sends 12volts+ out of one terminal and 12volts- out of the other to the batteries. See, the gen is charging 2 of the batteries like they are positive ground and the other 2 like they are negative ground, although like Gerald said, only at 10 amps.
I think maybe I just confused everyone instead of explaing it, but at least it sounds good ------------- Experience is a fancy name for past mistakes. "Great moments are born from great opportunity" 1968 D15D,1962 D19D Also 1965 Cub Loboy and 1958 JD 720 Diesel Pony Start |
Posted By: Butch(OH)
Date Posted: 28 Feb 2012 at 2:27pm
LOL, baffling them with BS eh?
 |
Posted By: DonDittmar
Date Posted: 28 Feb 2012 at 2:34pm
------------- Experience is a fancy name for past mistakes. "Great moments are born from great opportunity" 1968 D15D,1962 D19D Also 1965 Cub Loboy and 1958 JD 720 Diesel Pony Start |
Posted By: Gerald J.
Date Posted: 28 Feb 2012 at 4:45pm
|
Don is close but... The 3010, 3020, 4010, and 4020 used two 12 volt batteries. The starter and generator were wired directly to the batteries for 24 volt operation and are 24 volt devices. With solenoid for the starter. The junction of the two batteries was grounded to the chassis allowing positive ground and negative ground loads like lighting, planter monitors, radio, and gauges. Some vintages used a really solid ground, and some used a fuse and blowing that fuse with unbalanced 12 volt loads caused seriously confusing voltage readings to ground and sometimes blew lamps on the low load side. Its not a lot different in concept than what Thomas Edison used for 120/240 volt DC power in the late 1800s. One side of the street got +120 and the other side got -120. With wound field motors, hot plates, and lamps as the loads they didn't care much about polarity. Some electrolytic "meter" for consumption probably did, but no matter the direction of the electrons, material moved and could be weighed to determine user consumption. In the tractors, it was important when adding loads to split them and add equally to both batteries so the batteries would charge and discharge evenly. That was so important that the lights on the tractor are divided with twice the circuits, circuit breakers, (or fuses), and switch poles. Edison used two generators in series. His benefit was reduced current and thus voltage drop in the neutral. In a generator, no current is dissipated for half the sinewave. The commutator connects each armature coil in sequence when its at maximum voltage with the proper polarity for the load. And since the armature coils are in series, the brushes ground the negative side of the armature (for negative ground) and tap off the positive side to the battery. Each coil in the armature generates a sinewave IN the coil but the commutator does mechanical rectification. In the alternator a bank of silicon diodes connects each of the three windings to ground the negative going end and to connect the positive going end to the battery WHEN the generated voltage is at or above the battery voltage and swaps ends each half cycle of the sinewave. 4 6 volt batteries would also work, but it wasn't used in the new generation JD tractors to my knowledge. Gerald J. |
Posted By: skipwelte
Date Posted: 28 Feb 2012 at 7:19pm
| Yea I remember them 4010s and 4020s. Typical Deere design, overcomplicated transmission, prone to wear, over complicated closed center hyd sytem, over complicated electrical system that didnt work, and a marginal engine. They had good brakes and a comfy seat. |
Posted By: Lonn
Date Posted: 28 Feb 2012 at 7:35pm
|
Well if we are going into bashing mode IH was pretty good too at making things more complicated than needed. Examples are the 3-point hitch on about all IHs and the wide front end. Lots of peices to wear and break. That all said I still can give credit where credit is due. The 706/806 were pretty comfortable to ride and I never seen an Allis diesel or Deere of the 70's or earlier that starts like a 1066. Well Dad's HD11 starts about as good as the 1066. Deere at least used to be most loyal to the American farmer unlike Deutz or AGCO.
------------- -- --- .... .- -- -- .- -.. / .-- .- ... / .- / -- ..- .-. -.. . .-. .. -. --. / -.-. .... .. .-.. -.. / .-. .- .--. .. ... - Wink I am a Russian Bot |
Posted By: Butch(OH)
Date Posted: 28 Feb 2012 at 8:06pm
|
Shouldn't leave them out of the logo either I guess?  |
