|
|
Southern Idaho | Could some of you guys tell me why i sometimes see a note on a 8640-30 that has an updated 50 series engine? did they not all have the 619? what was different on the 50 series engines? what else was different on the 50 series over the 30 and 40 series. thanks,
|
|
| |
|
ND | Doesn't matter, still a boat anchor!!!!!!!!!! |
|
| |
|
Southeast Florida | AMEN Brother! |
|
| |
|
Ellsworth IL | The most glaring difference that I know of offhand is the the 50 series engine was intercooled . The 8650 had the 30 and 40 beat IMHO because the stacks were off to the side instead of through the hood which made for easier operation. other than that i don't recall the 50 series being any more reliable than it's older siblings.
There are a lot of horror stories about these 3 series of tractors and they are mostly deserved. If it were me, I'd seriously consider spending the extra coin to get into a 60 or 70 series, they seem less prone to weird breakages when comparable hours are considered. |
|
| |
|
Southeast Florida | They all were aftercooled, and other than some cosmetics there's no difference in them. Now the early production 86's had 86 MM axles I believe and were prone to break. By now they've all been updated if they're still running. Never the less the 30-50 series is a really prone to be shop queens. There's a rare few people like plowboy that has one running still and his is even an 8850 with the 8955 V8 @ 10K hours. Those tractors are few and far between. I've had several of them before I learned the lesson and get Steiger's. |
|
| |
|
Ellsworth IL | Dangit you're right about the intercooler, I don't know where I got that idea.
I can remember lots of engine troubles with the ones I used to run, little things like head bolts breaking. one engine grenading, headgasket letting water into the oil, and the occasional U-joint. But never did have any troubles with anything behind the pivot although I have seen several with the tranny torn out from a foot slipping off the clutch in reverse , atleast I think that was the story. |
|
| |
|
Southeast Florida | Oh I've seen them torn all to pieces. The 2-speed would go out regular from shifting loaded in turns pulling scrapers. Engines didn't last long either. Kinze Cummins swap would solve this problem but it was a $25K upgrade. The weak frame rails caused a lot of torque from the front axle to be transferred to the engine block. The last Kinze Cummins swap I seen was really neat. They closed up the clutch and put a flex coupling between the engine and transmission like the newer tractor removing all the engine stress from the front axle. |
|
| |
|
NW Washington | I think the early 619 engines had a block cracking problem, especially in this 4x4 tractor where the engine block is used as the frame. I heard that the cracking was between cylinders. Back in the early 80's John Deere changed them out to the 50 series for I think, $5000 and when they did every thing was new, turbo, starter, injection pump ect. The Ag Mech lab at the U of Idaho had a couple of the reject engines that JD gave to use. Only condition was that they had to go back to JD when they were done with them. |
|
| |
|
Southern Idaho | John, did you study at Uof I?? wife got her masters there, i was too busy thought all i wanted to do was farm. hahaha |
|
| |
|
Ellsworth IL | Never was around a Kinze conversion, they did seem interesting from what I read about them though.
I can't figure out why these tractors are still commanding the price they do when you can get nearly the same headache from a 2670 Case and spend less for the privelege. |
|
| |
|
NW Washington | Yes, I studied at the U of Idaho, and worked there too. |
|
| |
|
central Iowa | Had a 8430 (no power), 8440 (no power), 8640 (decent tractor), 8650 (piece of junk), 8870 (fuel sucking pig with problems). Now have a 9300, finally got it right, 4000 hrs.,no problems, good on fuel. |
|
| |
|
| We bought a used 8650 with 6000+hrs on it and ran it for about 6 years up to nearly 10,000hrs. Had to work on the injector pump to the tune of about $1800. Never gave us any other trouble. It had 30.5-32 singles on it and rode like a dream compared to the 8300 that we traded it on. Went to no-till for more hydraulic capacity, and less power required. Was a little hard starting, but I thought it was a great tractor. |
|
| |
|
Chippewa County, MN | Part of the "big deal" about 30 & 40 series engine was due to Deere. I remember when the 50 series came out that they touted it as the greatest thing since sliced bread. They started to acknowledge that the 30 & 40 series had problems, but they were all fixed with the 50 series engines. There was supposedly some improvement in filtering, but due to the fact that the engine was still a stressed member the problems continued.
If those tractors had been any color but green, there would have been a major backlash against the manufacturer simular or worse than IH with the 45/4786.
While touring the tractor works in '83 the tour guide bragged about how up until that time no other engine manufacturer ever made a V-8 that would stand up to ag use. Theirs would. That "idea" didn't last long.
It sounds like they finally got it right with the 9000 series other than a head gasket now and then. A lot of folks seem to like the 8960/8970's also. |
|
| |
|
| The reason I like the 8970 is because they did it right and put in a Cummins, probably one of the best combinations made for a four wheeler. They finally had a drivetrain that would withstand putting power to the ground and a motor that could produce the power. BTW if you remove the electronic pump and go back to a good ole mechanical you can get a dependable 500+ out of that motor and the drivetrain will take it. |
|
| |
|
Southern Idaho | thanks guys, not really interested just now, or maybe ever just wonderin why all the attention to the 50 series engines,
|
|
| |
|
Southeast Florida | Sales pitch, there were no real improvements in the 50 series other than putting the exhaust to the side. |
|
| |
|
Fruita CO | The 8650 engine had a lot of upgrades, notably the crank-driven oil pump, also more meat between cylinders, to stop the head gasket blowing out between cyl. That was the fatal flaw in the 8630...early 619 was a bored out 531, & the liner flanges almost touched each other. The later 619, like in a 5830 chopper, wasn't that bad an engine, removed from the stress of being a frame member.
Local guy was using an 8630 plowing snow in the oil field, head gasket let go, & JD put him in a new 8650 engine...10 hr. later, in 4-5 ft. of snow, at 9000 ft., the oil filter popped open, seized the new engine...JD ate that too, since the filter came with the new motor...he decided not to push his luck any farther, & sold it.
Edited by ronm 6/11/2009 15:51
|
|
| |
|
Culdesac, Idaho | In April of 1980 I purchased an 8630 with 1800 hrs. that the motor had just been updated to 8640 spec. Before dealership delivered the tractor JD came and said for $2000 they would buy back engine in tractor and install 8650 engine. I ran that engine 8000 hrs. without a problem then had a reman installed and had zero problems with it. Tractor now has 13,000 hrs. and still going strong. Have had the 2 speed replaced 4000hrs. ago. Transmission has never been toughed. Weakest mpart of 8630 is the front end 8640 and newer they pressurized and circulated the oil thru filter and transmission. 8630 I replace the 6 gallons gear yearly and have not had a problem. I know one of these days is going to be a bad day with it but it owes me nothing. Have added a 8640 and 9300t but the old 8630 still gets the most hrs. a year probably because it is "my" tractor. |
|
| |
JD 8650 vs.8640-8630
