1486 vs 1086 Opinions?

[Gearclash]

1 hour ago, 766 Man said:

Around here a 1486 would pull a 6 X 18 plow from 2.75 MPH in Odessa clay

And that right there is why a tractor has rear end troubles.  

[766 Man]

7 minutes ago, Gearclash said:

And that right there is why a tractor has rear end troubles.  

  6 X 18 too much?  2.75 MPH too fast?  

[Gearclash]

5 minutes ago, 766 Man said:

  6 X 18 too much?  2.75 MPH too fast?  

2.75 MPH at full engine power on a traction load, unless slippage is astronomically high, is putting too much torque through the diff and finals of an ag tractor.  Old rule of thumb was to maintain at least 4 mph wheel speed.  

[766 Man]

2 minutes ago, Gearclash said:

2.75 MPH at full engine power on a traction load, unless slippage is astronomically high, is putting too much torque through the diff and finals of an ag tractor.  Old rule of thumb was to maintain at least 4 mph wheel speed.  

  I don't know the Midwest soils that well but 2.75 MPH would allow a 1486 w/ 6 X 18 plow to breath while going through the tough parts of a field at least around me.  Then shift up in a loamy part of a field.  One reason JD's Power Shift and White's over/under shined around these parts as you had 3 reasonably spaced speeds to deal with changing soil types.  Around here you can go from clay to blow sand in a span of less than 50 ft.  

[Gearclash]

A few numbers. Assuming a rated hp 1486 with 18.4-38 tires. At 3 mph wheel speed, the rear axles are seeing a shared torque of 55,000 ft/ lbs. Bump wheel speed to 5 mph and torque drops to 33,000 ft/lbs.  Slowing that much may be letting the engine breathe but it kills the back end of the drive train. It would be batter to pull one less bottom and travel faster overall. 

[766 Man]

49 minutes ago, Gearclash said:

A few numbers. Assuming a rated hp 1486 with 18.4-38 tires. At 3 mph wheel speed, the rear axles are seeing a shared torque of 55,000 ft/ lbs. Bump wheel speed to 5 mph and torque drops to 33,000 ft/lbs.  Slowing that much may be letting the engine breathe but it kills the back end of the drive train. It would be batter to pull one less bottom and travel faster overall. 

  Not sure that it works that way but I lack the engineering background to debate that with you.  Seems like load (torque) should increase as travel speed increases with a given load.  

[Big Bud guy]

9 minutes ago, 766 Man said:

  Not sure that it works that way but I lack the engineering background to debate that with you.  Seems like load (torque) should increase as travel speed increases with a given load.  

I lack engineering experience too but on all our tractors it says on the corner post avoid excessive loads below 4 mph.  And alot of these newer tractors derate themselves in the lower gears.

[Gearclash]

It really isn’t engineering, it’s just math.   It has to do with the relationship of rpm and torque as it pertains to the horsepower calculation. 

[766 Man]

4 minutes ago, Big Bud guy said:

I lack engineering experience too but on all our tractors it says on the corner post avoid excessive loads below 4 mph.  And alot of these newer tractors derate themselves in the lower gears.

  But excessive is subject to definition.  How many ft/lbs of resistant load?  I would guess that the engineering standards for transmission design differed in the 1970's versus later.  That a first gear set would only be used for low torque applications like pulling a vegetable transplanter or vegetable harvester in a tractor made in the last 25 years.  What about a tile plow where the operating speed would be expected to be under 3 MPH?  A deep till where travel speed would be under 3 MPH but would be maybe 20 percent of the tractors annual chores?  Other than deliberate engineering standards to have minimal load resistance in a low gear it would seem if the engine is running easy (little or no RPM drop when the implement is lowered that the back end of the tractor is not at risk.  That if moving at 2.5 MPH with a very heavy resistant load would draw engine RPM's down signaling the tractor is overloaded requiring a change  in speed at the least or changing to a tractor that is better equipped for the job at hand.  And it is really engineering as well as math as values need to be established for factors such as load resistance.  I've been around agricultural engineering enough to know that there are formulas to establsih predicted power required for a moldboard plow.  

[acem]

Power transmission through a shaft. 

When you increase the speed of a shaft while doing the same work it decreases the torque on the shaft.  

Another way to look at it.  If you have X torque on a shaft at 500 rpm and increase the speed of the shaft to 1000 rpm the HP will double.

H = T x rpm/5252

H Horsepower

T Torque

Engineering is just science and math put to use in the real world.

I feel certain this is why the 1486 runs higher RPM through the same drive train as a 1086 to get more power.  The 1086 is probably the max acceptable power (HP) of the drive train at 2400 RPM.  The 1486 at 2600 RPM allows a little more power.

 

[Farming Enthusiast]

Higher speeds under load might be easier on drive train but more stress on the engine. 

[sd186man]

13 hours ago, acem said:

Power transmission through a shaft. 

When you increase the speed of a shaft while doing the same work it decreases the torque on the shaft.  

Another way to look at it.  If you have X torque on a shaft at 500 rpm and increase the speed of the shaft to 1000 rpm the HP will double.

H = T x rpm/5252

H Horsepower

T Torque

Engineering is just science and math put to use in the real world.

I feel certain this is why the 1486 runs higher RPM through the same drive train as a 1086 to get more power.  The 1086 is probably the max acceptable power (HP) of the drive train at 2400 RPM.  The 1486 at 2600 RPM allows a little more power.

 

Isn’t that why the 1000 pto shaft was invented

[sd186man]

5 hours ago, Farming Enthusiast said:

Higher speeds under load might be easier on drive train but more stress on the engine. 

I’m guessing manufacturers try to balance that to optimize powertrain life and reduce component failures

[INTERNATIONAL 1466]

1486 has had a bad reputation of rear end trouble and such. It however was not the fault of the tractor at all. How many other 145 HP tractors at that time could be turned up to well over 200 HP in less than 10 minutes? And then four 20.8's, two or four full of fluid and an implement that should have been pulled by a 4586 and expect it to hold! It was operator failure to use them like intended. We have a 1486 that Dad bought new. Was our tillage tractor since new. Not sure it was stock 145 HP even when it came to the farm. When I was in high school I turned it up a couple turns. A few years later we bought a new field cultivator and I turned it up some more. It ran like that until OH time as it broke a ring and started drinking oil. I overhauled it and we ran it not even a year and and lost the drain plug while disking and ruined it. One of us clearly didn't tighten the drain plug, expensive mistake! We then put a 466 3LM set up in it. It has over 335 on the dyno. Nearly 17,000 hours and we have never touched the rear end. Never had fluid, weights only the first few years and on four 20.8's since new. It has not been babied either. 28 foot field cultivator, 25 foot 496 and such. Hauled hundreds of loads. So at least one 14 has held the test of time. The weight is the killer in my humble opinion. It is not the tractors fault, just how some were run. I think one of the best tractors IH built. One thing I always thought funny as well was the 1466 doesn't get the bad rear end wrap. They are the same you know. By 1978 farming was growing fast, many 86's were pulling a lot larger equipment than the 66's did. Just my humble experience with now nearly 45 years of a 1486.

[stronger800]

We’ve pulled 6x18’s, forever, with 1066’s in 3rd  direct or 4th with torque pulled back.  Idk how many mph that is but i would have said 3. 

[766 Man]

  In my mind there is a difference between a hard pull which will make an engine puff black smoke plus make the temperature gauge rise and a soft pull where neither of those happen.  Also, that a tractor designed during the 1970's was intended for use in tillage in the lower gears.  From the chart in Tractor Data a 1486 would most likely be operating in 2nd low to run around 2.75 MPH.  As I said in one of my previous posts 2.75 MPH would be for a heavier soil type while the more loamy and sandy ground would allow for a faster speed (3rd and 4th low).   Don't have a manual for a 1486 but I checked the cab posts in my pre-1990 tractors where operator instructions are posted and saw nothing about not placing a heavy load on a given tractor pulling under 4 MPH.  I get on newer tractors that they will not be operated like they were during the 1970's and in the pursuit of chasing a buck the manufacturer will use a light gear set and whatever else in what would be considered a low torque speed.  

[Dirt_Floor_Poor]

7 hours ago, INTERNATIONAL 1466 said:

How many other 145 HP tractors at that time could be turned up to well over 200 HP in less than 10 minutes?

I would say all of them built in that time period. And if you did, they all had problems. My small town had a tractor pull up until 1974 or so. It was literally just farmers bringing their tractors to town and seeing what they could do. They had horsepower limits in the class and winners had to dyno to make sure they were not over the limit. My dad has told me many times that our closest neighbor won with his brand new 4430. The guy said it was turned up all the way and my dad saw it dyno at 250 hp on the pto. He also said it was blown up in short order farming with it like that. There was also an incident when a 1066 flipped a dyno over when the operator of the dyno wanted to prove that he could bring that tractor to its knees. The town stopped having the pull because the horsepower was getting more dangerous and they had no safety whatsoever. 

[Big Bud guy]

8 hours ago, INTERNATIONAL 1466 said:

How many other 145 HP tractors at that time could be turned up to well over 200 HP in less than 10 minutes?

I’d say before there was internet, none.

[Farming Enthusiast]

4 hours ago, 766 Man said:

  In my mind there is a difference between a hard pull which will make an engine puff black smoke plus make the temperature gauge rise and a soft pull where neither of those happen.  Also, that a tractor designed during the 1970's was intended for use in tillage in the lower gears.  From the chart in Tractor Data a 1486 would most likely be operating in 2nd low to run around 2.75 MPH.  As I said in one of my previous posts 2.75 MPH would be for a heavier soil type while the more loamy and sandy ground would allow for a faster speed (3rd and 4th low).   Don't have a manual for a 1486 but I checked the cab posts in my pre-1990 tractors where operator instructions are posted and saw nothing about not placing a heavy load on a given tractor pulling under 4 MPH.  I get on newer tractors that they will not be operated like they were during the 1970's and in the pursuit of chasing a buck the manufacturer will use a light gear set and whatever else in what would be considered a low torque speed.  

My dad and grandpa ran 4LTA with the 10s doing heavy tillage in what I would consider medium to light soil in my area. With a load on it that's around 4mph ground speed or so. Then they'd shift the TA ahead on the headlands when plowing. No drivetrain problems but did need a TA eventually because my dad would shift it too slow thinking he was being easy on it but in fact burned it up that way. That's the only time they had a TA fail to this day. I've heard of and seen guys on YT running 1HI but I'd think that'd get them hot unless the implement is undersized or the soil is very light

[766 Man]

12 minutes ago, Farming Enthusiast said:

My dad and grandpa ran 4LTA with the 10s doing heavy tillage in what I would consider medium to light soil in my area. With a load on it that's around 4mph ground speed or so. Then they'd shift the TA ahead on the headlands when plowing. No drivetrain problems but did need a TA eventually because my dad would shift it too slow thinking he was being easy on it but in fact burned it up that way. That's the only time they had a TA fail to this day. I've heard of and seen guys on YT running 1HI but I'd think that'd get them hot unless the implement is undersized or the soil is very light

  Farmers needed to find a reasonable speed selection while in the field and pretty much stick to it.  The failure of most clutches and hi-lows including the TA back then were just too much speed change for what the tractor was designed for.  If you are shifting or working the TA every 50 to 100 feet in a pass that runs a couple thousand feet in length that will prematurely wear those components.  Yes, your productivity per hour looks good but it comes at the cost of parts and shop time. 

[Drysleeves]

29 minutes ago, Farming Enthusiast said:

My dad and grandpa ran 4LTA with the 10s doing heavy tillage in what I would consider medium to light soil in my area. With a load on it that's around 4mph ground speed or so. Then they'd shift the TA ahead on the headlands when plowing. No drivetrain problems but did need a TA eventually because my dad would shift it too slow thinking he was being easy on it but in fact burned it up that way. That's the only time they had a TA fail to this day. I've heard of and seen guys on YT running 1HI but I'd think that'd get them hot unless the implement is undersized or the soil is very light

From way back to the days of the first hydraulic TA I was instructed:

Do not over use it

Never use as an engine brake at any time not just at high speeds

When needed under load engage quickly in one single motion

Shift to direct when load is relieved and with a slight hesitation when you can "feel" the transition

The original TA in the 806 that arrived when almost new and is still here never failed and was only replaced when the original pressure plate gave out after 50 years of service. 6800 hours on the original gear.

[DT Fan]

What gear is this fellow running in at the beginning of this video? I realize it's only a 5 bottom plow.

 

[Gearclash]

HI 2.  Takes off in TA and throws it in DD.  

[DT Fan]

3 minutes ago, Gearclash said:

HI 2.  Takes off in TA and throws it in DD.  

That was my guess. Cool to watch but the dirt is flying a bit far! I think trying to keep the speed at or under 6 MPH would leave a nicer seedbed.

[766 Man]

37 minutes ago, DT Fan said:

That was my guess. Cool to watch but the dirt is flying a bit far! I think trying to keep the speed at or under 6 MPH would leave a nicer seedbed.

  I see 6 bottoms.  Regardless just about any agricultural university would preach against that as high speed accelerates organic matter loss.  Maybe not so important in the Midwest where organic matter in the soil is extremely abundant but certainly here in the east where a lot of clay based soil and sandy soil are farmed.  An extension agent who I knew well years ago always said if a moldboard was uncomfortably warm to the touch after making a pass then organic matter loss was excessive.  Anybody plowing around here with an eye on organic matter content of the soil is keeping their speed under 5 MPH.