Machinery Photo/Discussion Thread

Keepgrowing

Muckit wrote: »

I'd say the articulation with loader is handy for pushing in silage

It is but I'm interested in a bale u roller as sometimes in Summer I'd need to spread 2/3 bales out over a fence for buffering

Mooooo

Keepgrowing wrote: »

It is but I'm interested in a bale u roller as sometimes in Summer I'd need to spread 2/3 bales out over a fence for buffering

Ah shir a diet feeder would do that for that no bother😀

Never wrestle with pigs

Keepgrowing wrote: »

It is but I'm interested in a bale u roller as sometimes in Summer I'd need to spread 2/3 bales out over a fence for buffering

That's what it's really made for. They use them for buffing in nz. How many bales would you put out a day when buffing? The one mentioned above with the self fill spikes at the back that carry two are a good job.

twin_beacon

jaymla627 wrote: »

The trailed bale unwinders are the proper job, they have a spike on the back for loading so no need to be messing around with pipes and unhitching, also carry two bales at a time one on the table and one on the spike.....
have never seen them in ireland/england but operated them out in australia

Ive seen them online alright, not great in most tight Irish yards though. We dont need to disconnect any pipes on our machine (or any of the other machines with the same design). The feeder comes in 2 parts, a spike with a hydraulic motor, the spike disconnects from the body for loading.

Keepgrowing wrote: »

How many bales in 45 minutes?

I feed out 2 bales in that time, but I am a novice on the machine. That 45 mins time was the time from putting the key into the tractor, to turning it off again. In good conditions, and an experienced operator would easily get a bale from the stack to being fed out in 10 mins.

satstheway

Got a MF398 here with 13.9 R34 and 13.6 R24 tyres on.
Always wanted 38s on back. "Hitch always a bit low with 34s I thought"

Now I have a chance of 13.6 R38 and 11.2 R24.
I have seen a 398 for sale with this combination so I think the conversion ratio must be OK!

What are the pro's and con's of doing this?

(More speed, more grip, bit less power are my thoughts)

larthehar

satstheway wrote: »

Got a MF398 here with 13.9 R34 and 13.6 R24 tyres on.
Always wanted 38s on back. "Hitch always a bit low with 34s I thought"

Now I have a chance of 13.6 R38 and 11.2 R24.
I have seen a 398 for sale with this combination so I think the conversion ratio must be OK!

What are the pro's and con's of doing this?

(More speed, more grip, bit less power are my thoughts)

Ratios have to stay close to the same.. +1%/+5% i remember reading somewhere..

So that is;
Rear Front
R38 R28
R34 R24

There will be a hit on torque no doubt..

rangler1

satstheway wrote: »

Got a MF398 here with 13.9 R34 and 13.6 R24 tyres on.
Always wanted 38s on back. "Hitch always a bit low with 34s I thought"

Now I have a chance of 13.6 R38 and 11.2 R24.
I have seen a 398 for sale with this combination so I think the conversion ratio must be OK!

What are the pro's and con's of doing this?

(More speed, more grip, bit less power are my thoughts)

Hard to see how the ratios could be the same

satstheway

rangler1 wrote: »

Hard to see how the ratios could be the same

That's what I thought then I saw one for sale with them. I assume the fronts are tall and narrow.

Do case have the same back stud fitment as mf?

rangler1

satstheway wrote: »

That's what I thought then I saw one for sale with them. I assume the fronts are tall and narrow.

Do case have the same back stud fitment as mf?

Don't know about Case, I'm not really interested in machinery.
As for your front wheels, both tractors have 24 rims and 11s wouldn't be as tall as 13s would they,

satstheway

rangler1 wrote: »

Don't know about Case, I'm not really interested in machinery.
As for your front wheels, both tractors have 24 rims and 11s wouldn't be as tall as 13s would they,

Sounds dodgy right enough. I see most 398s with 38" back have 28" front.
Back to the drawing board

jimmy G M

Reggie is your man to ask. He had a 398 before and is pretty sharp on that sort of thing. Depending on the side profile of the tyres etc there may not be as much in it as you think. I remember replacing 13.9 x 38 wheels with 16.9 x 34 wheels for a MF a few years ago and there was not a lot of difference in tyre height overall.

Older case models eg 1390, 1394 etc had interchangeable rims with MF, not sure about more recent models.

Personally I'd rather wider tyres over narrow ones on a tractor, any reason you are going for narrower wheels?

rangler1

jimmy G M wrote: »

Reggie is your man to ask. He had a 398 before and is pretty sharp on that sort of thing. Depending on the side profile of the tyres etc there may not be as much in it as you think. I remember replacing 13.9 x 38 wheels with 16.9 x 34 wheels for a MF a few years ago and there was not a lot of difference in tyre height overall.

Older case models eg 1390, 1394 etc had interchangeable rims with MF, not sure about more recent models.

Personally I'd rather wider tyres over narrow ones on a tractor, any reason you are going for narrower wheels?

Yea was thinking of that today.....putting 16.9s on both front and back, probably would rise it the same

darragh_haven

larthehar wrote: »

Ratios have to stay close to the same.. +1%/+5% i remember reading somewhere..

So that is;
Rear Front
R38 R28
R34 R24

There will be a hit on torque no doubt..

The ratio on the R34 R24 is 0.706
The ratio on this R38 R28 is 0.737

Your looking at approx 4.3% difference from the original ratio.... not to much in my own mind but its borderline

satstheway

jimmy G M wrote: »

Reggie is your man to ask. He had a 398 before and is pretty sharp on that sort of thing. Depending on the side profile of the tyres etc there may not be as much in it as you think. I remember replacing 13.9 x 38 wheels with 16.9 x 34 wheels for a MF a few years ago and there was not a lot of difference in tyre height overall.

Older case models eg 1390, 1394 etc had interchangeable rims with MF, not sure about more recent models.

Personally I'd rather wider tyres over narrow ones on a tractor, any reason you are going for narrower wheels?

Just saw a set for sale on dd and had been looking for a set.

mythos110

Tyre ratios have little to do with the width.

You need to look at the full code.

Take an example
Modern codes would be something like 480/85 R38
85 is the tyre wall height which means 85% of the width
480*0.85 = 408MM

To change to a wider tyre for example
580/70 R38
580 = the width of the tyre
= 580 * .70 = 406 would be a match

For the OP, if going from R34 to 38 you need to add to this half of the diameter
R 38: 38/2= 19 * 25.4 (convert to mm) = 482.6
R 34: 34/2= 17 * 25.4 = 431.8

You might be able to match without having to change your fronts.
Personally I wouldn't get anything narrower than you have...

satstheway

mythos110 wrote: »

Tyre ratios have little to do with the width.

You need to look at the full code.

Take an example
Modern codes would be something like 480/85 R38
85 is the tyre wall height which means 85% of the width
480*0.85 = 408MM

To change to a wider tyre for example
580/70 R38
580 = the width of the tyre
= 580 * .70 = 406 would be a match

For the OP, if going from R34 to 38 you need to add to this half of the diameter
R 38: 38/2= 19 * 25.4 (convert to mm) = 482.6
R 34: 34/2= 17 * 25.4 = 431.8

You might be able to match without having to change your fronts.
Personally I wouldn't get anything narrower than you have...

My tyres are about done.
Can I go wider without changing rims

mythos110

You could probably go up a size but best to check with you tyre supplier. I would imagine that most tyres would have a minimum rim width requirement.
Personally I plan on changing a set of 16.9R38 for 18.4R38 (or whatever the modern equivalent is) on one of my machines in the next few years, once the 16.9's wear out fully. I wouldn't bother changing rims for that much of an increase.

If going from 16.9 (~420's) to 650's as an example then you would def need to change the rims.

mythos110

mythos110 wrote: »

You could probably go up a size but best to check with you tyre supplier. I would imagine that most tyres would have a minimum rim width requirement.
Personally I plan on changing a set of 16.9R38 for 18.4R38 (or whatever the modern equivalent is) on one of my machines in the next few years, once the 16.9's wear out fully. I wouldn't bother changing rims for that much of an increase.

If going from 16.9 (~420's) to 650's as an example then you would def need to change the rims.

I should have mentioned that I will be increasing the size of the fronts at the same time to keep the ratios the same and because I want wider fronts as well

satstheway

mythos110 wrote: »

I should have mentioned that I will be increasing the size of the fronts at the same time to keep the ratios the same and because I want wider fronts as well

On hard ground grip seams to decrease with wider tyres

9935452

satstheway wrote: »

On hard ground grip seams to decrease with wider tyres

Wider tyre give lower ground pressure.
It spreads the weight of the tractor so the grips dont sink in and get grip

mythos110

9935452 wrote: »

Wider tyre give lower ground pressure.
It spreads the weight of the tractor so the grips dont sink in and get grip

Agreed. But given the amount of times that ground gets that hard in Ireland, I'd sooner have the wider tyres. And I live on dry, steep land. You get much better wear on the wider tyres and nothing like a bit of opposite lock after a shower of rain during a dry spell to hone the rallying skills!

satstheway

mythos110 wrote: »

Agreed. But given the amount of times that ground gets that hard in Ireland, I'd sooner have the wider tyres. And I live on dry, steep land. You get much better wear on the wider tyres and nothing like a bit of opposite lock after a shower of rain during a dry spell to hone the rallying skills!

Not usually towing a tanker when rallying 😆

mythos110

satstheway wrote: »

Not usually towing a tanker when rallying 😆

Depends if you are spreading out of season or not!!:D

9935452

mythos110 wrote: »

Depends if you are spreading out of season or not!!:D

Dirty water wasnt it ?

mythos110

9935452 wrote: »

Dirty water wasnt it ?

Clean water!

Thanks god no issues here this year anyway. Should be good for another few weeks!

Buford T. Justice XIX

https://twitter.com/Crashingtv/status/818950441241296896

Buford T. Justice XIX

http://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/john-deere-and-new-holland-top-2016-tractor-sales/

Results are in....Tractor sales 2016
Total tractor sales 1937
John Deere 377
New Holland 376
Massey Ferguson 361
Claas 144
Others 679

Shannon757

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

http://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/john-deere-and-new-holland-top-2016-tractor-sales/

Results are in....Tractor sales 2016
Total tractor sales 1937
John Deere 377
New Holland 376
Massey Ferguson 361
Claas 144
Others 679

Only one in the difference between JD and NH.

Buford T. Justice XIX

Shannon757 wrote: »

Only one in the difference between JD and NH.

Yup, that was me:D

X6.430macman

Claas 144 😂😂😂

tomwaterford

.

whelan2

Thinking of changing our jcb 3cx its 1998 new tyres , 8000 hours what is it worth? Engine good just changing to go up the years a bit

tomwaterford

whelan2 wrote: »

Thinking of changing our jcb 3cx its 1998 new tyres , 8000 hours what is it worth? Engine good just changing to go up the years a bit

Spoke to lad....last summer who told me he gave 36K for a 09 one off ECI with 9 months warranty....no trade in though


(Dunno how usefull that info is to you)
Guess depends how well looked after/how fresh etc

Nekarsulm

18 to 20 thousand?

f140

whelan2 wrote: »

Thinking of changing our jcb 3cx its 1998 new tyres , 8000 hours what is it worth? Engine good just changing to go up the years a bit

what are you trading it on for? Would the backactor very tight in it (as in not worn?

whelan2

Nekarsulm wrote: »

18 to 20 thousand?

For our one or anew to us one? Do they hold their value well?

whelan2

f140 wrote: »

what are you trading it on for? Would the backactor very tight in it (as in not worn?

Back actor has had little work with us. But is still used. Builder had it before us. We have it about 10 years. Just really does feeding and going to out farm a mile away.

f140

whelan2 wrote: »

Back actor has had little work with us. Builder had it before us. We have it about 10 years. Just really f oes feeding and going to out farm a mile away.

will you go for a 3cx again?

whelan2

f140 wrote: »

will you go for a 3cx again?

Hopefully.

Dozer1

anybody any experience of the mf 4335, looking for something with a shuttle some of these 2nd tractors aren't cheap...

https://www.donedeal.ie/tractors-for-sale/massey-4335/14477557

jimmy G M

Dozer1 wrote: »

anybody any experience of the mf 4335, looking for something with a shuttle some of these 2nd tractors aren't cheap...

https://www.donedeal.ie/tractors-for-sale/massey-4335/14477557

An upgrade from the MF 4200 series. No experience of the 4335 but some discussion on the MF4255 on this tread. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=102361332#post102361332

A lot of this info would apply.

Nekarsulm

whelan2 wrote: »

For our one or anew to us one? Do they hold their value well?

For your current one. 1998. Loads were exported during the bust, builders sending them abroad to bring in a bit of cash etc, not so easy getting a good clean one. I bought a s/h bucket for mine four years ago, from a lad in Meath who was sending two or three a month to Poland.

blue5000

whelan2 wrote: »

Back actor has had little work with us. But is still used. Builder had it before us. We have it about 10 years. Just really does feeding and going to out farm a mile away.

Why are you thinking of changing? Unless you come up to a 2010 or later machine I reckon you would be buying something that was worked hard during the boom, and maybe not maintained at all.

If it's not bursting pipes/seals and the king pin is still ok I'd be inclined to hold on to it, and keep it maintained properly.

f140

blue5000 wrote: »

Why are you thinking of changing? Unless you come up to a 2010 or later machine I reckon you would be buying something that was worked hard during the boom, and maybe not maintained at all.

If it's not bursting pipes/seals and the king pin is still ok I'd be inclined to hold on to it, and keep it maintained properly.

The thing about buying a backhoe second hand is that more than likely the previous owner would have used it 80% for the backactor and 20 % for the front loader. In contrast a farmer is more likely to use the front loader 80% and backactor 20% (is even). So therefore there should be very little wear on front loader and front axle (which the farmer will wnt in good condition) and it wont matter too much to the farmer if there is a bit of wear in the backactor as that wont be its primary job. Once the front loader/axle is tight and engine in good condition and the back actor isn't falling off/ leaking any oil it might not be a bad buy if the price was right.

whelan2

blue5000 wrote: »

Why are you thinking of changing? Unless you come up to a 2010 or later machine I reckon you would be buying something that was worked hard during the boom, and maybe not maintained at all.

If it's not bursting pipes/seals and the king pin is still ok I'd be inclined to hold on to it, and keep it maintained properly.

Digger is 1998 tractor is 2000. I will have to replace one of them sooner or later. Tractor will go forever so will jus t have a look around about changing the digger

Bullocks

whelan2 wrote: »

Digger is 1998 tractor is 2000. I will have to replace one of them sooner or later. Tractor will go forever so will jus t have a look around about changing the digger

How do you find the 3cx for travelling the road every day ?

whelan2

Bullocks wrote: »

How do you find the 3cx for travelling the road every day ?

Only go to outfarm about 2 or 3 times a week during winter with it. It's amillion times quicker than the 50hx we had before it-that was painful- It's fine on the road, would never be in 4th gear as it would be too jumpy on the road, 3rd is fine

f140

whelan2 wrote: »

Only go to outfarm about 2 or 3 times a week during winter with it. It's amillion times quicker than the 50hx we had before it-that was painful- It's fine on the road, would never be in 4th gear as it would be too jumpy on the road, 3rd is fine

does it not have softride?

whelan2

f140 wrote: »

does it not have softride?

Not that I know of

maidhc

whelan2 wrote: »

Digger is 1998 tractor is 2000. I will have to replace one of them sooner or later. Tractor will go forever so will just have a look around about changing the digger

Just realised today my Ford 550 is 38 years old. Still does what is asked of it.