Loading of M/SM trans/Final drive.How much is TOO much?????

Yea,Me again.

I see this subject touched upon slightly from time to time. About how much weight one should ACTUALLY pull and how much ballast should you be putting on these rear ends of the Ms MAXIMUM????? I know there is a "breaking point" somewhere??? I bet alot of tractor pullers have found it out??? lol

Is plowing really hard on them???

Jim Nicohlson brought up a good point a few post ago about breaking rear ends and I know it happens and I am ALWAYS curious as you all know by now!

(BTW,I got into a little debate on this very subject over on the Ford sight.They were saying how powerfull thier 800 series were with that 172 cubic inch motor,if they could ONLY put enough weight on them to "hook up" like the "bigger" tractors do!!! BS!!!!

I said from what I have ACTUALLY seen and Ford experts I talked to,they BETTER be glad they were NOT getting good traction! HA!

(quoted from post at 09:45:37 03/30/12) Yea,Me again.

I see this subject touched upon slightly from time to time. About how much weight one should ACTUALLY pull and how much ballast should you be putting on these rear ends of the Ms MAXIMUM????? I know there is a "breaking point" somewhere??? I bet alot of tractor pullers have found it out??? lol

Is plowing really hard on them???

Jim Nicohlson brought up a good point a few post ago about breaking rear ends and I know it happens and I am ALWAYS curious as you all know by now!

(BTW,I got into a little debate on this very subject over on the Ford sight.They were saying how powerfull thier 800 series were with that 172 cubic inch motor,if they could ONLY put enough weight on them to "hook up" like the "bigger" tractors do!!! BS!!!!

I said from what I have ACTUALLY seen and Ford experts I talked to,they BETTER be glad they were NOT getting good traction! HA!

Click to expand...

I think IH learned the hard way that there IS a breaking point when they built the 560, rated at 60 horsepower, and used the same basic rear end as used on the M, which was rated at only 36 horsepower. The M was rated to pull a 3-14s plow, and some of the 560 owners were pulling 4-16s and even 5-14s, and yes, the 560 rear ends failed.

I also agree with you on the Fords. I like Fords. They were very good tractors, but every Ford tractor I was ever on always ran out of traction long before they ran out of power. I think Ford designed them like that to prevent the destruction of the rear ends.

Mike - Can't tell you how much load is "too much". However the M/SM rears are pretty robust. My experience:

1 - My wide front SM plowed many thousands of acres while fitted with duals (the inner set loaded) and 2 sets of wheel weights. The only axle problem was when the tractor barrel-rolled down a steep hillside (fortunately less the driver) which snapped one axle.

2 - For 20+ years my narrow front SM harvested 500 - 600 acres of sweet corn annually carrying a 2-row mounted picker and pulling a Field Hand dump cart. Rear tires on this tractor were loaded. It is still running on its original axles.

Incidentally both tractors are now enjoying a well-earned retirement. They now pull only hayrides and run in an occasional firemens' parade.

My Super C put a spanking on a 800 series ford last summer in a Tractor pull! Got him by a few feet!

There's a picture on this forum somewhere of someone picking up a Farmall C with their Farmall H's aftermarket 3pt hitch.

That's at least a couple tons of weight above and beyond what the axle normally sees.

I know the axles support more weight than the drawbar can take, that's for sure.

I will relate experience from on the farm in eastern Kansas in the 60's. Dad souped up our Farmall M at the time, widened the wheel rims by 2 inches, filled the tires with water, and added two sets of wheel weights. The M would pull 3-14's in third in our tough ground. However, on the second day of plowing third gear would go out. After the second time, we just stayed with second gear and had no problems. I can remember helping replace the gear each time.

You could put 1000# of weight on a wheel and not break an axle. The tire would be loaded and require extra pressure to support it, but the weight is not on the axle.
The differential issues with both 460 and 560 tractors were the result of using H and M designs on 6 cylinder tractors. It was wrong. Later improvements and recalls programs were used to fix them. Hanging a mounted harvester (many different types0 also created issues for F-20 H- SH- and M -560 tractors. This included axle breakage and premature bearing failure.
Jim

Several factors here. It's just like at the strip, a little slippage will help protect driveline parts.

The real killer is shock loading. Either improperly taking up slack or pulling steady then losing traction then suddenly gaining again.

We got into an M last year that we knew the pilot bearing was out. Found signs of abuse; the two halves of the differential had tried to move, the bolt bosses were fractured but bolts still there and tight. Also one of the bull pinion cages was fractured 80% of the way around. It was obviously old damage and the tractor was still in use! Dad had bought it from a club that was using it on plow days to pull a 10 foot disk! Their plan was to run it until it cratered. They hadn't had it too long and the damage occured long before they acquired it.

We also noticed that the torque tube was from a different year tractor and concluded that whatever event caused the internal damage probably fractured the torque tube and was obvious to some p.o.

I don't think plowing is "hard" for these size machines and they're actually plenty overbuilt for their power range. I've been into several of these tractors and you always find the same things worn out: Input shaft bearings, pilot bearing and mainshaft bearing. I frequently find evidence that inner axle bearing have failed at one time and were replaced. I haven't personally seen any gears or splines that failed on their own. The damage that I have seen on those parts was secondary after a bearing failed or due to shock loading. I have seen a cracked axle, the crack was right where it came out of the housing.

I think a lot of times someone finds an old tractor and gets it running good and then puts it back to work w/o considering that was parked in a fairly well to well worn condition. Bearing are already loose and worn and probably have some corrosion damage from sitting. Now it's put back work or put in a tractor pull and bearings finish wearing out and then fail.

I mean how many people really tear into a trans and rear and go through it to at least check before putting it back in operation? A lot of people on the forum do but I see and talk to a lot of people at tractor shows that I know don't have the time, resources or inclination to do so. And it's true that even a well worn tractor will do light duty.

Anyway, kind of long winded here. I've seen a couple of guys running v-8's, 383's, 454's through otherwise stock Super M drivetrains and they've held! I always see plenty of tire spinning in those classes though.

I say replace any of the standard ball bearing with a max type. More balls = more capacity, a lot more. Have a clean housing with clean oil and you won't have any failures with any power level you can make from stock parts.

As far as actual load carrying capacity, SKF and Timken both have the actual design load, in Newtons of the bearings. The inner axle bearing is a 214W (a max type)and the stock type outer is a 214D (shield on one side). Replace the outer with a 214WD (max type with shield) to up the capacity. Convert the bearing design load from Newtons to pounds and multiply by 4 and there's some kind of number you can use as a point of departure.

I'm not sure how you would go about figuring your actual pulling load vs. tractor weight and traction. Any weight from wheel weights or loaded tires is not actually on the bearings directly but is pushing directly on the tire. Assuming you can hook up enough to convert all tractor weight into pulling force you're looking at around 7000lbs of load.

The results of max pull results from the Nebraska tractor tests were quite a bit less than that. I haven't looked at those in a while but I remember at least some of them gave the data as to how much extra weight they piled on for the tests.

Im pullin my Super M in the 8500LBS class up to 11500LBS class and makin 100horse outta the motor with no problems "yet", I know that tractor pullin isn't the same a ploughin all day either.

I totally agree with the "shock loading" statement Centex!

Going from FULL traction to NO traction on the tires back and fourth has GOT to be like an "impact hammer" on final drive parts!

About the SAME thing when I watch truck driver "DUMP" the clutch on a loaded 80,000,00 lb rig at the stoplight and I watch the dog house of the truck move up and down like 2 feet!!! (How do you think that RoadRanger trans liked that????? lol

Jim,

Would it be safe to say those 460s/560s were making a little more HP but ALOT more Torq than theHs/SHs and Ms/SMs???? (I didnt think those engines put out that many more "ponys" that the 281 cube motors in the 450s????)

Dont remember engine "specs" right off the top of my head????

YEA!!!!

Tell them "FOMOCO" boys to "GET SOME OF IT!!!"

lol

I'm going to give a different version. This excludes pulling, which to me is not real world. Unlike the early 560, the M/SM has balanced power to the ground. That is when the properly weighted tires start to slip the tractor loses rpm. The tractor is not overloaded as long as you can go from a standing start to full rpm in a few seconds. You should also be able to back off the throttle slightly, then open it up and the tractor will rapidly accelerate. Does plowing hurt the engine or rear end? -- not unless you overload it. I ran an H (think of it as a small M) for years pulling a 3 disk "breaking plow" in 2nd gear. The land wheel slipped slightly and probably could have used more weight. 3rd could be used for plowing in certain parts of the field, but that was rare. The H would pull a heavily weighted 6 ft tandem disk in 3rd gear, but almost never in 4th. Yes I know it will pull a wider one, but we got the best results with weight not width. I considered both of those tillage methods full load, for the gears we used. For all practical purposed 1st was too slow and 4th too fast. To sum up, combined with a little common sense on the part of the operator the tractor will tell you when it is happy, and when it is overloaded. The early 560 was overpowered for the drive train. Engine was happy, rear end hurt.

We farmed with a SMTA as main power into the late 1980s, it had a fasthitch I think from 400 when it was a few years old. Pulled 3-14s fasthitch plow in tough ground, usually 2nd gear, a 13ft fasthitch vibra shank field cultivator and a 12 ft disc, ran duals on it. Never had a failure in the trans or rearend other than couple bearings, had a couple chipped teeth on bull gears as a result of the balls going through them, that makes a heck of a noise by the way, and broke 3 axles, probably as a result of the added weight of fasthitch implements, the made doing wheelies easy. But we probably worked that beast as hard and long as anyone and it held up well. It still gets used from time to time, had to drill beans the last few years with it.It had 4 1/8" firecraters and a 400 head so it was making good power.Rear wheels were filled with calcium and 2 sets of weights for a long time. I wouldn't complain.

I know from guys that work on them daily.

That rear axle is glass if it EVER "dead hooked" up!!!