JD - Getting through the mud

[Ken Adamson]

Over the years I have been in the mud with several different tractors. For some reason the old JD two cylinder gas, gets around best in the mud. One year we had a newer diesel tractor and a JD 60 pulling the trailers around in the fields hauling in Christmas trees. We found out not to take the diesel in some places because it would get stuck, where the JD would just go on through. One time the diesel got stuck and I was driving the JD and I drove around it and pulled it out and I had a load on my trailer too. One of my uncles theorizes that it is to do with only having two cylinders.
Now the question; has any body had any experience with the JD two cylinder diesel in the mud and does it go in the mud as good as the gas?
Thank you and happy New Year
Ken Adamson

[Mike Monnier]

I'm going to go out on a limb and theorize that it's because the 2 cylinder is a "long stroke" engine that generates a gob of torque. Couple that to some low gearing and you can walk through almost anything. The only tractor that can beat the JD's consistently at the antique tractor pulls around here is the Oliver. You didn't mention anything about the tires, but tread design greatly affects traction in mud. Perhaps the ones on your diesel just don't clean themselves out as well as the one on your JD. Just my guessing at the end of the work day. Mike

[Ken Adamson]

Thank you Mike,
It is funny that you mentioned the Oliver. When growing up we had two Oliver Row Crop 70 and a John Deere G. We used the Oliver’s mostly because they were more fuel efficient and a little easier on the ears, but the JD could pull more and had better traction. I have seen the tractor pulling contest, but the contest is not the same as the real world.
I had an uncle that had a huge farm down in the Valley and he had more JDs than the dealer and I can remember back in the 60’s after he bought new tractors, him saying that if they got one of the new tractors stuck in the mud they had to come back to the machine shed and get one of the old “A”s to pull it out. Same tires, same gears, same weight, but the old two cylinders got around better in the mud – why?
Thanks again
Ken

[BobRR]

Mike hit it.LOW end TORQUE! BobRR

[Ken Majeski]

Well.... Weight distribution is a very Important reason. Probably more important than torque as the gearing would compensate. The 2 cyl John Deere had a lot of the engine weight on the rear wheels which would help traction while there wasn't as much for the narrow front wheels to carry. Even the 4010 and 20 series had the engine closer to the rear than IHC and others. About the worst I have seen in the Mud is the MD and 400 and 450 Diesel that IHC had. When that Heavy Front end sunk in you better hope for dry weather or a Helicopter When the front end goes Down you are Done.

I still have a B JD and when I am planting my oats and the 886 or the 1206 I used to have sunk in I could take the B and a 8 foot digger and go over the wet spot and dry it out. That Little B would just float over the top of the ground.

[Craig A]

I had a Farmall 200 which had that same front end problem...a soft spot and the front end went right down.
I skidded MANY LARGE logs for my Dad with my JD 70 Diesel up some VERY steep inclines and while the steering would become almost useless going up the inclines the front end never did leave the ground.
I'm with Ken---more weight distribution to the rear end---where it counts. It would also pull the best with the engine running at low idle going up these grades because the power would not divide in the differential and cause one wheel to spin.
I loved that tractor but we ran out of BIG logs and it's no use having a tractor you only use once or twice a year so I sold it.

[Andre Blanchard]

Ken is right, think about it, if you are in the mud and you can spin the wheels, more torque is not going to do you any good. It will just allow you the throw the mud farther. If you are depending on reaction instead of traction you are driving a mud racer not a tractor.
Front heavy tractors can do well on a pulling track because if it is setup right most of the front weight gets transferred to the rear wheels during the pull.

If you have the horsepower the only difference between torque and speed is a gearbox.
_____________
Andre' B. Clear Lake, Wi.

[Dick Welty]

I realize that this is a very late reply to this post BUT, I think that the power pulses of a 2 cylinder John Deere have a lot to do with its' excelent traction.

I have noticed that 4 stroke motor cycles can climb hills better than 2 strokes. I believe that the reason is that there is a pause after each power pulse while the 4 stroke goes through its' exhaust cycle. This allows the wheel to slow and catch traction again before it gets another power pulse. Sort of like antilock brakes only in reverse.

A 2 stroke motorcycle will throw dirt or sand all over the place while a large 4 stroke will just thump up the hill.

My son was riding a Honda 600 when they first came out. He was at Redrock Canyon in California. There are some very high and steep sand drift type hills. A couple of guys on 500 cc Honda and Yamahas 2 strokes were trying to get to the top of this particular hill. They would get a run at it and throw a big sand rooster tail into the air but would slow down and stall just short of the top.

My 30 year old son would start at the base of this hill without a running start and excelerate up and over the top. On the level ground or on the whoop de does (small hills) they would walk away from him but on the big steep hills he was king.

Motor cycles are not tractors but traction is traction. The only John Deere I have ever had is a 2 cylinder Model M. of course the cylinders are verticle but the power pulses are the same. This tractor only has 18 hp but the pulling power and traction are outstanding for a tractor of its' size.

Dick