|
|
Post by hardrockacres on Mar 22, 2021 12:59:45 GMT -6
Had a post before about looking for my first 4wd. Have now found 2 mint looking units
1998 NH 9282 - 20.8-38 tires, about 3300 hours - 12 speed std, 8.3L @ 260
2000 JD 9100 - 20.8-38 tires, about 3100 hours - 24 speed std, 8.1L @ 260
Bot are 1 owner units and look to be near perfect. no auto steer in either. I see that spec was the JD had ~5gpm less hyd flow than the NH, (26 vs 31). Not a deal breaker for me as I only have a single fan cart. Any pros cons on these 2 models?
I know nothing about the JD of the 24 speed trans. Have run and worked on the NH - simple unit. Dealers for either are 20 min away.
Thanks for any input.
|
|
|
|
Post by northernfarmer on Mar 22, 2021 13:33:41 GMT -6
I won't claim to know much about either tractor, in fact nothing about the NH in person other then reading specs and info on Tractordata. What I wanted to comment on was the transmission of the JD as per it being the 24 speed and for obvious reasons does have closer speed choices within normal field gear speeds. But also the fact that its a partial power shift in the sense of shifting between two speeds. Not only that, all gears are synchronized so you can with free rolling on the road anyway shift up progressively through the gears/ranges and the top speed is considerably faster then the NH according to the gear charts. The NH suffers from the same thing a JD I had which only had a 12 speed standard and that is no power shift gearing at all and it could NOT be shifted within the ranges while rolling so the tractor had to be stopped and shifted into the lowest gear within in high range and then start out. For that reason 12 speed manuals in a JD were definitely not a popular transmission and the only reason it worked reasonably well in the field is that it was an 8970 with lots of grunt with the 855 Cummins.
There may be items that make the NH better in other areas and the fact that you are more familiar with them and found them simple as I don't think a JD is seen as the most simple tractor to work on but that isn't coming from a point of knowledge on both these particular tractors either.
|
|
|
|
Post by meskie on Mar 22, 2021 13:57:18 GMT -6
If you double clutch and hit the throttle like your shifting a truck you don’t need to be stopped to range shift a NH 12 speed. Did it all the time on our 9882.
Either of those tractors would be good. I’d go with the one with better tires.
|
|
|
|
Post by northernfarmer on Mar 22, 2021 14:10:49 GMT -6
If you double clutch and hit the throttle like your shifting a truck you don’t need to be stopped to range shift a NH 12 speed. Did it all the time on our 9882. Either of those tractors would be good. I’d go with the one with better tires. That's good to hear, the JD was an impossible transmission as a 12 speed as mine sure wasn't willing to shift and feared for damage if I attempted it. Not only that though it was missing gears for field use with an engine with less torque and would have to choose a lower gear then ideal.
|
|
|
|
Post by totaledmygn on Mar 22, 2021 15:57:39 GMT -6
9282 should be 45g.p.m. hyd. like the 94-96-9882's I believe. 31 gallons is the hyd. tank capacity. Any reason you don't want a bit bigger tractor? More choices in slightly bigger and not much difference in price.
|
|
|
|
Post by Albertabuck on Mar 22, 2021 17:03:52 GMT -6
I have never been a fan of any of the smallest 4wds, biggest reason being you have the bulk of a large tractor with the power of a large MFWD coming from an engine pushed to the limits. MY two cents is I would move up at least one model and get into where you are running a larger engine at the lower end of its capabilities, that in itself makes for longer life.
I guess it depends on what you are pulling with it. I never realized just how hard I had been pushing my 4850 and the 6030 till I hooked up the 875 to the same machines, of course vast increase in power and traction but I can still make that Versy stand up and take notice, and certainly it will do more work in a given time, however also comes with a larger fuel bill as well, so now you're balancing out fuel vs time costs. As a point of reference, a friend and neighbor has an 8440 that I can run circles around with the 4850 MFWD...but in his case, he got it very cheap and turned out ok, so thus why he bought it as cheap horsepower and it works for him.
So this is where I'm coming from, rather than get one at the bottom of heap, move up at least one. More often than not, those smaller units also run a higher market value when in good shape, there are guys who do want them for specific purposes, they are not that common. Also, if you need to get other equipment, you can by 50 foot and plus machines cheaper than 40s or under in most cases, can always make them smaller, but the possibilities are increased with the larger unit.
But of the two, the NH that is the Versy 12 speed gear box but is synchronized between the four speeds, but not between ranges. As Meskie said, they can be shifted on the fly under the right circumstances. The Deere 24 speed is basically like the old Quad range, you have a high low shift but again its only a synchronized shift between gears. Depends on what you want to do with it, for most purposes 12 speeds does fine.
And as to parts and serviceability, I think the NH be cheaper to own and easier to repair.
I would suspect in the long run the Deere would have the higher resale down the road, but probably has the higher price now as well, so that would need to be taken into account as well. But most of all, buy something you will enjoy owning and driving, you don't want something you swear at everytime you need climb into it. Good luck.
|
|
|
|
Post by northernfarmer on Mar 22, 2021 18:16:03 GMT -6
AB, that certainly is a good point about going larger with a tractor then one thinks they can get away with using as more power and ability to pull more variety of implements and as well in less then ideal conditions to be able to fog on through and not get stuck in a marginal spot. Also those small engines are being pushed to the limit and that isn't ideal but again depends on the expected use of the tractor.
Now I may have misunderstood your comment on the 24 speed but indeed the range shifts ( for a JD that is A,B,C,D ) are synchronized on a 9100 as they were on the JD 8870 I still have as an example. Also because it has 6 forward gears within each range and that partial power shift its pretty easy to shift from 1 through 6 within a range. It takes pressure on the range gear shift to make those shifts as the syncro works by way of that force and obviously trying to match the engine speed the best one can to ground speed and the clutch depressed will allow it to shift the easiest. But indeed the old quad range as in my 4430 for example is certainly not syncro on the range gears but it can be shifted if careful while going down the road although not recommended, and I only do that to get from C to D.
I can't say about the NH but typically the JD tractors steer very easy, nice to drive in that way. Cab room, again not sure but will say the JD doesn't have an excess of room. I've forgotten now if a 9100 has a buddy seat, just something to look out for in a tractor for its a plus factor in having.
One good point about tractors that happen to be equipped with 20.8 x 38 tires, unless anything has changed that tire size is certainly cheaper then when one starts jumping up in size and isn't an oddball tire to find or don't think so yet anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by Albertabuck on Mar 22, 2021 19:00:07 GMT -6
Yea NF I wasn't very specific there but what I meant was all the shifts, gear and range are synchronized in the Deere, actually I think the last of the quads were as well in the 50 series, maybe not, and that don't matter here, different gear box entirely.And of course the hi lo shift in each gear is a powershift.
NF mentioned something I hadn't thought about, and that is ride. Not sure how the newer tractors are set up, but in the past, you had a lot better ride when the front axle oscillated independently and the cab followed the rear axle, as with the older Deere models, especially with a wide wheel track such as with duals. Thats one thing I really don't like about my old Versy, hoky smokes you just hit things right like while turning or doing headlands, have to slow down so I don't bounce my head off the side windows. Thats something you didn't get as bad with the older Deeres where the front axle was on its own. It kind of evened things out, so when the rear wheels followed the tracks, it was a lot smoother and that translated into a much softer ride and less pitching side to side of the cab. Even my old Kirovets isn't as bad as the Versy, but then its only got them big singles, so they ride different, as it has the oscillating joint at the hinge in the middle, cab follows front axle pitches. Come to think of it, I think thats now how a Deere is now, as they went to a center osculating joint as well correct?
In this day of zero till that is more of an issue I suppose. I've driven across friends fields with my tractors, swather and more and all I can say, I'm glad I still do min till, that no till is brutal to drive over lol
|
|
|
|
Post by northernfarmer on Mar 22, 2021 19:22:03 GMT -6
I think the front oscillating axle design for the JD ended with the 50 series ( don't quote me on that ) and the 60 series came out as an all new design that was more component oriented as in geez, they copied Versatile/Steiger etc. That is many years ago I drove an 8430 for an area farmer and it would have had bias tires on it but was actually surprising how good it did ride for what it was due to that front axle design. Yes all the later JD tractors went to the solid front axle to cab system and the rear behind the articulating pivot point does the oscillating. Having radial tires of the type that are designed to run lower pressures certainly soften up the ride but there is no getting away from crossing ridges at too severe an angle makes for a jiggling ride or worse. That is where tracks shine or at least the bit I had been in a quad track to get some feel for the concept.
|
|
|
|
Post by hardrockacres on Mar 22, 2021 19:26:56 GMT -6
Yes I was looking at the tank capacity thinking it was flow. The N H is at 45gpm flow. Deere around 37.
Albertabuck. I have looked at larger units and totally agree that a bigger engine operating at the bottom of its hp range should run almost forever. Problem I find is that finding it is hard to find one that is of low hours. Most that I see are 6000-8000 hours with no engine work done. Reason I was thinking harder on these smaller units is that neither of them has over 3300 hours. I don’t know what Deere gets out of the 8.1 litre engine for max power as I don’t know much about Deere. But I have seen the 8.3 at well over 300 hp. ( up to 400 hp in pusher motor homes). Understand that is a different application however. Thanks for all the info. You have reaffirmed some of the questions I have been contemplating.
|
|
