At the Hunterdon county NJ 4H fair,,,and a JD Question//

A Ford with a real nice flathead v8,
A 1972 JD 4000 In real nice shape



I have never heard you JD guys mention A JD 4000,,It looks like a handy tractior...were they good?

They were a stripped down,cheap version of a 4020 built to be a cheap chore tractor. IH and Oliver had their cheap versions about that time too.
If you notice,they didn't even have battery boxes.

Like Randy stated they were a striped down JD 4020. They basically took a JD 3020 rear and put a JD 4020 engine in it. The marketing was to use your JD 3020 implements and pull them faster to get more work done. We they had the same horse power as the JD 4020 so guys bought them and used them like a JD 40420. They would tear up the rear ends. There where around 7700 of them build. The rarest being gas power shifts with only nine being factory built. Compared to the JD 4020 with 184,000 units being built, Granted that was over 9 years over two.

IH had the 826 that was the same principle tractor. I have not heard if it had issues like the JD 4000 did.

You've verified it for me. I'd heard they used a 3020 rear end,but I didn't know that as a fact and didn't want to stick my neck out and say so without knowing for sure. Thanks for confirming that.
I knew a dairy farmer just a few miles south of me who bought a new one to use on the grinder/mixer,manure spreader and to pull wagons for silo filling and what not. He ran the round baler with it when he finally got one. I don't know that he ever did much tillage with it. As far as I know,it held up alright for him.

The 826 Custom was the stripper. It didn't have a different drive setup, just fewer lights and accessories. jim

About the only thing on a 4000 that was the same as a 3020 was three point hitch. The rear end was heavier than a 3020 the axles were bigger on the inside but where the wheels slid on they were 3020 size. I know where there at least 5 of these that have never had rear end trouble and They were not used as chore tractors but worked hard and they did the work of a 4020 but were advertised as a runner by JohnDeere . They had different planitaries and axle housings then a 3020 , 4010, or 4020.

I will disagree with you on that statement. There are many of the internal parts that are common with the JD 3020. You know of one that did not have rear end issues. I personally knew the fellow that was in charge of JDs Waterloo tractor works warranty program in the early 1970s. He told me, nation wide, they had a much higher number of rear end failures than was common.. He wanted to make a service bulletin making the warranty void if the tractors weighed more than so much. They where sold to weigh 1000 lbs. less than a JD 4020. Guys found out you could get them to weight close to the same with fluid and cast weights both. Then they tore the rear ends up. Usually the ring gear carrier would be damaged around the spider gears. Planetary gear failures would happen too. Broken axles when used with axle duals too. Engine and transmission held up but the rear ends was the weak link.

The first dealership I worked for sold more JD 4000s than any other tractor model JD ever made. I think it was around 85 of them. So when I first started in the shop we were still seeing many of them in the shop. On may of the smaller diary farms these JD 4000s were the biggest tractor they had.

The funny thing was the second highest number of tractors sold was the JD 2840. I guess that the smaller independent dairy farmers needing tractors that size for hay and other chores pushed the sales.

"They basically took a JD 3020 rear and put a JD 4020 engine in it. "

Only trouble with that statement is that the parts catalogs show literally NOTHING, including the main case, the ring and pinion and so forth that is shared with the 3020 and 4000.

Jdparts lookup if free on-line if anyone cares to confirm it for themselves.

The ring and pinion was different then a 3020 the 4000 rear wheels were lighter the 4020 unless ordered heavy. The rear rims were different only had a single bevel to fit those castings. The differential lock was an option they did not have the front pto. The 4000 had a lot of parts unique only to themselves. The axles and axle housing have not been available for a long time but can use 4020 parts. I know of 5 that did not have rearend trouble I have owned 2 since new a 1969 and a 1970

(quoted from post at 09:52:57 08/28/16) Like Randy stated they were a striped down JD 4020. They basically took a JD 3020 rear and put a JD 4020 engine in it.

Click to expand...

I agree 4000 was a stripped down 4020 but technically 4000 didn't have a 3020 read end. Granted 4000 had collar shift reverse with no reverse syncronizers such as 4020 had.

3020 planetary didn't have this shaft(R45779) or this carrier(R45842) and differential(ring gear & pinion AR33962) were same as 4020

The stripped IH was the 856 Custom. The 4000 rear end was the same parts that fixed the original problem on the 4010. 4010/4020 parts will interchange, 3020 will not. Excess parts used to make a cheaper tractor than the 4020. They were sold as a PTO or light use tractor, stripped down, made for speed but farmers were used to heavy slow tractors. That didn't work well when wheel slippage was eliminated. Same problems as the 460/560 IH when first introduced. Here in the West where we have true row crops, they were a great tractor. Planting, cultivating, seedbed prep, haying and PTO work. We have a late 4000, diesel, powershift. Never had a rear end problem in 6800+ hours....James

Did they have the tap dancing senior ladies? That is my wife s favorite.

we didnt see them ,they might hasve been there a different day?

That is a pretty good fair . Too bad I moved to Fla.