1486 needs more power

I have a 1486 that I had the pump rebuilt hoping that it would help on the power. Had the injectors rebuilt also. The tractor starts good, uses no oil but does not have enough power. I have a 1466 also that will drag the 86 around the world backwards. I use both of them to pull a round baler that needs around 120 hp. The 66 handles it fine, under a load it opens up will pull that baler up a hill at 6-7mph and never slow down leaving black smoke seen for miles. The 86 in the same gear, most the time high 1 will pull the motor down to where I will have to pull the TA back and then lucky if I make to the top of the hill. It pulls the motor all the way down with very little smoke. they told me they turned the pump 10% up from factory. I backed out the screw myself one more turn and still don't have the power it should have. The timing is set 18 degrees. Any suggestions on getting more power?

Give it another turn or two on the pump.

If you can't notice any more power you have another problem some where.

Gary

You say the 66 leaves black smoke seen for miles, telling us it is over fueled. If your 86 doesn't smoke as much , give it more fuel if you like. I would dyno test both for a comparison. The pumps on those models , 66 and 86, have a habit of leaking internally around the delivery valve and causing tremendous power increase.That may be why your 66 has so much or there are several other things in pump to cause it also, most likely just turned up a lot. Some pullers just loosen the deliver valve for a pull and then tighten it back afterwards. If turbo is bad you will have smoke and low power, if cam is bad you will have poor running engine. At any rate, one has to know turbo pressures, fuel comsumption , horsepower and torque rise to make an accurate determination. Heck, I saw a Deere 4440 that couldn't pull a thing because owner had over filled transmission about ten gallons, filling the wet clutch compartment causing flywheel to bog down in the fluid. You never know what you will find until you start to trouble shoot a problem.

I would say that at 10% she should come to life IF the pmp shop was worth there salt . And at 10% she should be making some smoke . IF the pump shop set it to a 14 spec's . So i would check flow out of the tank and i would ALSO replace the line from the filter to the pump with the correct line and not some home made hose that i have seen on some as that hose has to PULSE and hyd. line does not work and a good way to flat up and TRASH a pump . And three turns on that pump she would be a fire breather
IF he is twisten the wright screw
.

All good points made by Vet. I guess I always assume people check the obvious.

Larry: Does the 1466 make anymore round bales at the end of the day, than the 1486? I don't know what your running for round balers, but the tractors both sound like overkill to me.

I bought a new IH 241 in 1975, a new 1066 didn't make anymore bales per hour than my 8 year old 656. 1066 just burnt 3 times as much fuel doing it. I suspect a man running two round balers is at it to make money, and believe me I know one of these big tractors belching black smoke on a round baler, is not making money.

What kind of round baler needs a 120 HP. tractor much less make one smoke? I have A 568 Deere that makes 5X6 bales. A Deere 6420 4 banger will drag it up and down my hills all day, no problem.

Vermeer 605 super M baler. I do custom baling for a living and put around 6,000 bales a year thru one. These balers today are desighned to take windrows all you can get in the baler and weight around avarage 2100 lb bales and it takes hp to pull them baling around 30-40 bales a hour.

Larry: What the hell difference, it's still number of bales at end of day. Let me assure you, anyone putting 6,000 bales per year through a single round baler, aint fooling with 30-35 year old horses.

Scott: I never timed myself, tieing and dumping a bale, but I'm thinking it takes better part of a minute. Larry must be flying to wrap those 40 bales in 20 minutes.

(quoted from post at 20:31:37 10/03/09) Scott: I never timed myself, tieing and dumping a bale, but I'm thinking it takes better part of a minute. Larry must be flying to wrap those 40 bales in 20 minutes.

Click to expand...

What am I missing here? I read that as 30 to 40 [u:c497a7dcbc]per hour[/u:c497a7dcbc], not 20 minutes.
Dad had a guy with a Vermeer baler and not sure the model, but 100 HP IH wrapping his hay into 2000# bales and it made that tractor snort and blow black smoke when the bale was about done.

IHFan: If it takes 1 minute per bale to wrap and dump, that is 40 minutes of the hour used up. You do the math, leaves 20 minutes for actual baling. I've never been able to take 40 minutes out of an hour and still have an hour left. Gosh, the work I could have done with your math.

By the way any diesel tractor can be set to belch black smoke, doesn't make them efficient. I baled 2,000Lb. 5x6 bales with my IH 241, wasn't much difference in production between 656 and 1066. Where the 1066 had power the 656 had better manuverability. 1066 just burnt 3 times as much fuel doing same job. As far as what your pulling on hills, we're talking 5,000 lbs. with a full bale. I could pull that with my 140 and make 4 mph.

Tractor vet. I took the cover off the top with four screws and backed the only screw in there. It had a tab bent over the jam nut and took a 7/16 to lossen the jam not and a screwdriver on the screw.

Hugh, I don't fool around. I make my living doing this. If you all look at balers made today, they are just like buying combines today. It all about how much you can get thru one per day. I can take an older baler and make the same size bale but probley take three times longer using a tractor under 100hp but todays balers are made for high hp tractors and pulling one if the ground is smooth enough up to 10 mph not 3mph. I have custom baled for 27 years and started with a 560 with a 505 vermeer baler and would be lucky if the old 560 would pull this baler up a hill the empty. We use a rake taking 27 ft and puttind winrows you can barely get under the tractor. Sure you can pull a baler with under 100hp, I did it for years with my 856 but not baling 30-40 bales and hour puttin that kind of volume and speed into one but the old balers would not handle how I bale today. I know

MN Scott, Look up the vermeer site and look under balers for a 605 super M corn stalk and you will see it's recomended 140 hp to pull one

Sounds like we are getting more smoke out of the bales now than the tractor, or maybe the keyboards. At any rate, there is another screw in that pump called the droop set points screw and some of the pumps use a different angled stop plate where the normal fuel setting screw is on and this affects the governor action especially if you are throttled down some to normal pto rpm so there fore a good dyno test of horse power at rated load speed and overload torque rise at overload speed is really the only way to compare the two tractors.

Larry: I farmed a bit in my lifetime, and the problem I see is your math. We have those new Vermeer Balers around here. Personally I can't see where they wrap and dump a bale a lot faster than 35 years ago. I can see 30 bales per hour, no more.

Hugh. I have put as much as 137 bales in four hrs thru these balers and yes they do wrap and dump a bale faster than 27 years ago. Don't know about 35 years ago. Over TWICE as fast. I have went thru around 11 or 12 new round balers starting around 1982 when I started custom baling with a 560 diesel and a 5X5 1100 lb. baler. There is another custom baler in this area that runs a New Holland BR baler and uses a CIH 7130 to handle it running at around 7-9 mph. My problem is I do know my 1486 is not putting out the hp it should be. I also know my 1466 is turned up over 145 hp , guessing it is turning around 150-160 hp.

Hugh.Most new balers today takes about 30 sec with twine, 12-15 sec with net to wrap and dump.

Larry: My farming operation was basically silage with 100-120 mature cows plus replacements. Baler was there to bale hay that either got to dry for haylage, too much hay and to bale straw. I was also not smart enough to hire help to milk cows, thus I did 98% of the milking. I was smart enough to hire good tractor operators. The only reason I went to a round baler was the problem finding help to do square bales with thrower and wagons. When my dad and a brother were around square baling went fine even when I was off milking cows. We had it down to 100 ton per day, didn't take a lot of hp but it took 15 boys and men.

The few times I ran that old 241, I always cursed the length of time it took to wrap a bale and eject it. Probably wasn't a minute, but sure as hell seemed like it sitting there with clutch down. If these newer balers will wrap and eject in 15-20 seconds, yes I can see 40 per hour.

I probably didn't look for the kind of production you do with my round baler. Certain not by the year. By the same sign I did not allow my hired help any more time than needed to do the job. My 1066 and an articulated Deere went on non harvesting custom work soon as those silage harvesting jobs were done at home, and they ran round the clock on custom work. My full time on farm tractors were a 656D, 560D, 300 and a 130. I wasn't about to take 1066, bringing in $800. plus per day, home to do some round bales.

Yes I did bale big windrows. My farm was 45" annual rainfall and one 9' windrow required 16,9x38 tires on 560 or 656 to straddle that windrow. I always ran 20.8x38 duals full time on my 1066, and those inside duals were always crowding my windrows. Aside from that, I always found 1066 took three times the fuel to round bale the same hay as my 656.

Having said all this, I must say I'm not impressed with big equipment. I made more money farming in the 60s and early 70s when my 656D and 560D were the main source of farm hp. Not a little more money, I made three times as much. This past summer I was asked to row crop cultivate cabbage with my 25 hp 140, two rows at a time. I took it on by the acre and made $50. per hour with that little tractor. Fuel consumption was 1.4 L per acre or 2.8 L per hour.

No, Larry big won't make money unless the government throw tax payer dollars at it, and the first part to go bankrupt will be the manufacturing of the equipment. They call them farm subsidies but it's all about factory employment. I guess I best stop, that is another whole discussion.