- Thread starter Bill VA
- Start date
Roger Tomfohrde
Member
Never broke a narrow front or a wide front with the loader. Stability issues yes but not all narrow fronts are equal. We usually broke a spindle off first. Got stuck really easy with narrow front end so if the ground is solid enough it is not a problem. 240 row crop for 30 years and a 560 narrow with a 2001 loader. Eventually we moved the 2001 to the 460 and then we broke a spindle.
In my opinion wide front is safer and the front wheels are less sensitive to sudden obstructions than narrow fronts. But I will also say that narrow fronts can be used quite safely if the tractor operator is attentive to what is going on around them. The bucket should always be as close to the ground as possible without striking an object on the ground. Turns could be an issue with a narrow front with the loader bucket at a level above the tractor hood. Especially if the bucket is fully loaded with dense material. Either way I would set rear wheels out at least half way out on the axle if not closer to all out to aid stability.
Janicholson
Well-known Member
A wide front extended quite wide, or from a lighter original tractor can be weaker, but not really an issue.
Stability, of either, is strictly within the sanity and experience of the operator on hills at higher speeds, and with a loader in a higher than the crankshaft position. If a wide front has spring loaded down pressure on the axle pivot (new tractors and European models may) It will be the most stable. The normal free pivot wide front will tip until the axle hits the bolster or travel stop. This is a freedom to pivot that can go easily beyond the recovery possibility and tip over. Jim
Stability, of either, is strictly within the sanity and experience of the operator on hills at higher speeds, and with a loader in a higher than the crankshaft position. If a wide front has spring loaded down pressure on the axle pivot (new tractors and European models may) It will be the most stable. The normal free pivot wide front will tip until the axle hits the bolster or travel stop. This is a freedom to pivot that can go easily beyond the recovery possibility and tip over. Jim
redforlife
Well-known Member
No difference if both front ends are fixed. But, I will say this. A wide front end that swivels (one front wheel goes up when the other goes down), shouldn't be compared to a narrow front that is fixed and doesn't do that. Because, it's just not the same. Not sure if your familiar with a roll-amatic front end. They allowed for some movement to keep the weight equally on both wheels. Without it, the front end is just fixed other than turning. Well, a wide front that swivels gives you the same affect as a roll-amatic narrow front.
Being fixed or not would be the only difference. And not fixed would be better. Otherwise the possibility is there for entire weight being only on one wheel.
Being fixed or not would be the only difference. And not fixed would be better. Otherwise the possibility is there for entire weight being only on one wheel.
I would say that in some tractors, the narrow front would put a heavy stress on
the castings and screws that hold the pedestal to the frame rails or front of the engine.
Screws break or pull out. Holes get wallowed out. Wide fronts usually have a wishbone
that braces the axle if it hits a dead furrow or woodchuck hole.
the castings and screws that hold the pedestal to the frame rails or front of the engine.
Screws break or pull out. Holes get wallowed out. Wide fronts usually have a wishbone
that braces the axle if it hits a dead furrow or woodchuck hole.
For rollover, major difference is height of tipping point.
Rollomatic pivots at ground level, so tractor stands on a triangle formed by rear wheels and narrow front and at ground level. Anytime the weight direction moves outside the triangle, tractor tips over. Shift of weight direction can be due to a slope, ateral acceleration and braking. Front loader make it very easy to do, because weight is shifted to the front and higher, so a small angle can make the weight go out of the safety triangle.
On a wide front, tractor stands on a triangle formed by the rear wheel and the front axle pivot. Only the rear edge of the triangle is on the ground.
The higher the pivot, the better.
This post was edited by fdt860 on 01/25/2022 at 08:52 pm.
Spindles were usually the same size, although Deere did offer three different Roll-o-Matic units, so spindle size would depend on which Roll-o-Matic was used. Keep in mind that narrow front ends dieded out in the late 1960's and were gone by the mid 1970's. The lasest narrow front ends were probably designed in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Wide front ends of that era were not great either.
IMHO the tire spacing and ballast on the rear axle contribute far more to tractor stability than whatever type of front end is used. If one rear tire is off the ground far enough that the front axle is against its stop, the tractor is already well on the way to tipping over and the front end isn't going to stop it from going over.
IMHO the tire spacing and ballast on the rear axle contribute far more to tractor stability than whatever type of front end is used. If one rear tire is off the ground far enough that the front axle is against its stop, the tractor is already well on the way to tipping over and the front end isn't going to stop it from going over.
the tractor vet
Well-known Member
Really can't say , My one friend used a 706 gas wwith a fabed up mounted Kelly loader with a six foot boom pole on the end to handle equipment and his had a wide ft . I had a 706 with a 2000 I H loader with a six foot boom pole and mine was a narrow ft. . I could handle a 13 foot Brillion Cultipacter with no problems , 20 foot wing discs lost count of four and five bottom plows . Now yep my buddy handled five times the amount of STUFF then i did as he had a bigger check book.. I never had and issue with the narrow , now i did replace to ft. spindles on his and his ft. end was and I H ft. not some junky after market . I know how much his 706 would lift as i picked up a Farmall M with a New idea 319 Super picker with the 12 roll bed when it blew a tire in the field . Mine could lift a 68 Chevy Impala and load it on a semi flat bed . Now Keep in mind here Both had loaded 18.4 x34's and 8 150 lb donuts on each side on the rear PLUS Donnies had a weight box on the fast hitch that was 3x3 x 3 loaded with IRON and i had 15 100Lb ft weights on a fast hitch bracket i made up and some times even wanting a few more lbs LIKE another 2000. NOT fun balancing on a narrow with both back wheels off the ground , HOw fast can you go from raise to LOWER .
Traditional Farmer
Well-known Member
- Location
- Virginia
Big difference in the strength of wide and narrow fronts between brands and individual tractors so tractor to tractor comparsions need to be made.
jon f mn
Well-known Member
The ones that say brand matters are correct. Some brands the wide fronts are less strong than others. I know some brands had worse reputations in that regard Than others. I know on Case tractors the spindles are the same on all tractors for several decades a d were rarely an issue. The early wide fronts were ok, but with the 70 series they were about the toughest made and I've never seen one broken except from hitting something like a tree. I have never seen a Case narrow front broken, but Case adds an extra reinforcement to the front casting for narrow fronts.
caterpillar guy
Well-known Member
If you are that worried about the front end holding the load whether a wide or narrow then just go to an industrial tractor with a heavier front end like the backhoe models or such Problem pretty much solved then.
Geo-TH,In
Well-known Member
Google said the last narrow front end was in or around 1980.
Dad had a 1940s farmall H, narrow front end, pipe loader with trip bucket.
The Farmall has no frame. The engine, bell housing, transmission and rear end was the frame.
The front end was stronger than the bell housing. The loader cracked the bell housing, not the front end.
So you are asking about tractors that are over 50 years old.
Not sure how much a 50 year old loader could lift.
The Farmall H was one step better than a shovel, but not that much better.
The problem with all loaders is the front wheels getting stuck in the mud and armstrong power steering.
Dad had a 1940s farmall H, narrow front end, pipe loader with trip bucket.
The Farmall has no frame. The engine, bell housing, transmission and rear end was the frame.
The front end was stronger than the bell housing. The loader cracked the bell housing, not the front end.
So you are asking about tractors that are over 50 years old.
Not sure how much a 50 year old loader could lift.
The Farmall H was one step better than a shovel, but not that much better.
The problem with all loaders is the front wheels getting stuck in the mud and armstrong power steering.
Traditional Farmer
Well-known Member
- Location
- Virginia
I have two 50 year old tractors with loaders I'd bet a good amount of $$$ either one will lift more than your Kubota.
Geo-TH,In
Well-known Member
TF
Your tractors may lift more.
I tried lifting this old metal brake and flattened the front
tires. I added more air and then attached a 900# rear ballast.
I'll bet you that if I damaged my front axle it would cost me more to repair, 4x4.
I have no clue what my Kubota can lift. I know if I try to lift too much dirt in the front bucket, the Kubota's computer won't let me. It just stops before there is any damage to cylinders or the front end. I like that more than winning a contest for your max weight lifting contest.
Having problems posting pics.
Your tractors may lift more.
I tried lifting this old metal brake and flattened the front
tires. I added more air and then attached a 900# rear ballast.
I'll bet you that if I damaged my front axle it would cost me more to repair, 4x4.
I have no clue what my Kubota can lift. I know if I try to lift too much dirt in the front bucket, the Kubota's computer won't let me. It just stops before there is any damage to cylinders or the front end. I like that more than winning a contest for your max weight lifting contest.
Having problems posting pics.
BarnyardEngineering
Well-known Member
- Location
- Rochester, NY
In THEORY, either is designed to be strong enough to withstand the work that the tractor is designed to do.
Most tractors were not designed for loader work.
A narrow front puts all the stress on the steering gearbox. A wide front distributes that stress to the frame of the tractor, leaving virtually no stress on the steering gearbox. All the steering gearbox has to do is turn the wheels at that point. It's not supporting any weight or experiencing any side loads.
The wide front SHOULD be stronger, as far as the mount to the tractor is concerned.
Most tractors were not designed for loader work.
A narrow front puts all the stress on the steering gearbox. A wide front distributes that stress to the frame of the tractor, leaving virtually no stress on the steering gearbox. All the steering gearbox has to do is turn the wheels at that point. It's not supporting any weight or experiencing any side loads.
The wide front SHOULD be stronger, as far as the mount to the tractor is concerned.
rustyfarmall
Well-known Member
The beauty of a wide front under a loader is that you can install bigger, wider front tires for more flotation. Other than that, there is no advantage.
Allis Chalmers recommends setting the wide front on WDs and WD 45s in the narrow setting for when the front end loader is on. Shorter axle length, not as easy to bend. Remember that farm tractor loaders were made to replace the pitchfork for loading manure, sawdust, etc., not for a full width bucket loaded with dirt, gravel, rocks, etc. And if you ever loaded a manure spreader with a pitch fork you would think any loader was pretty good, even a light duty farm tractor loader.
Traditional Farmer
Well-known Member
- Location
- Virginia
You are the one that said an old 40 or 50 year old tractor couldn't lift much.
I had a JD 4010 narrow front with a JD 148 loader on it. The front tires were 9.5 x 15. Once in a while in very wet conditions the front tires would bulldoze when I had a bucket full of manure or flooded corn stalks. It carried round bales; no problem. The loader is now on a 1971 4020 with a wide front on it. The upright shaft where the axle is on broke twice on one side and once on the other. The tractor now has a JD 4630 wide front on it; no more shaft brakeage. Wide front is usually smoother riding in rough field conditions, narrow front was nicer around buildings like pulling up to the blower or maneuvering around obstacles in barns and cow lots.
lugnuts2030
Member
I think Massey Ferguson always had a strong wide front,can't say I ever saw one broke except a 1155 that hit a moving train.
tractorguy2
Well-known Member
Makes a huge difference on brand, model, and size.
In the 70's and 80's the Farmall M was the most common loader tractor here. We had a 48nf with a dual 325 loader. Never had any problems. I know a few farmers that broke a spindle on wide front M's when they drove into a hole.
Few years back Abilene Machine sold a kit to put a Case 1070 axle under the John deere 4020. Kit came with a green painted Case axle. Later they made a kit with a 4630 axle. The Case axle fit better under the 4020 than the 4630 axle.
In the 70's and 80's the Farmall M was the most common loader tractor here. We had a 48nf with a dual 325 loader. Never had any problems. I know a few farmers that broke a spindle on wide front M's when they drove into a hole.
Few years back Abilene Machine sold a kit to put a Case 1070 axle under the John deere 4020. Kit came with a green painted Case axle. Later they made a kit with a 4630 axle. The Case axle fit better under the 4020 than the 4630 axle.
Similar threads
We sell tractor parts! We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today.
Copyright © 1997-2024 Yesterday's Tractor Co.
All Rights Reserved. Reproduction of any part of this website, including design and content, without written permission is strictly prohibited. Trade Marks and Trade Names contained and used in this Website are those of others, and are used in this Website in a descriptive sense to refer to the products of others. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER: Tradenames and Trademarks referred to within Yesterday's Tractor Co. products and within the Yesterday's Tractor Co. websites are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Yesterday's Tractor Co., our products, or our website nor are we sponsored by them. John Deere and its logos are the registered trademarks of the John Deere Corporation. Agco, Agco Allis, White, Massey Ferguson and their logos are the registered trademarks of AGCO Corporation. Case, Case-IH, Farmall, International Harvester, New Holland and their logos are registered trademarks of CNH Global N.V.
Yesterday's Tractors - Antique Tractor Headquarters
Website Accessibility Policy