190XT VS 4020

Well if we are going into bashing mode IH was pretty good too at making things more complicated than needed. Examples are the 3-point hitch on about all IHs and the wide front end. Lots of peices to wear and break. That all said I still can give credit where credit is due. The 706/806 were pretty comfortable to ride and I never seen an Allis diesel or Deere of the 70's or earlier that starts like a 1066. Well Dad's HD11 starts about as good as the 1066. Deere at least used to be most loyal to the American farmer unlike Deutz or AGCO.

Edited by Lonn - 28 Feb 2012 at 7:36pm

Don is close but... The 3010, 3020, 4010, and 4020 used two 12 volt batteries. The starter and generator were wired directly to the batteries for 24 volt operation and are 24 volt devices. With solenoid for the starter. The junction of the two batteries was grounded to the chassis allowing positive ground and negative ground loads like lighting, planter monitors, radio, and gauges. Some vintages used a really solid ground, and some used a fuse and blowing that fuse with unbalanced 12 volt loads caused seriously confusing voltage readings to ground and sometimes blew lamps on the low load side.

Its not a lot different in concept than what Thomas Edison used for 120/240 volt DC power in the late 1800s. One side of the street got +120 and the other side got -120. With wound field motors, hot plates, and lamps as the loads they didn't care much about polarity. Some electrolytic "meter" for consumption probably did, but no matter the direction of the electrons, material moved and could be weighed to determine user consumption.

In the tractors, it was important when adding loads to split them and add equally to both batteries so the batteries would charge and discharge evenly. That was so important that the lights on the tractor are divided with twice the circuits, circuit breakers, (or fuses), and switch poles. Edison used two generators in series. His benefit was reduced current and thus voltage drop in the neutral.

In a generator, no current is dissipated for half the sinewave. The commutator connects each armature coil in sequence when its at maximum voltage with the proper polarity for the load. And since the armature coils are in series, the brushes ground the negative side of the armature (for negative ground) and tap off the positive side to the battery. Each coil in the armature generates a sinewave IN the coil but the commutator does mechanical rectification. In the alternator a bank of silicon diodes connects each of the three windings to ground the negative going end and to connect the positive going end to the battery WHEN the generated voltage is at or above the battery voltage and swaps ends each half cycle of the sinewave.

4 6 volt batteries would also work, but it wasn't used in the new generation JD tractors to my knowledge.

Gerald J.

DonDittmar wrote: I think maybe I just confused everyone instead of explaing it, but at least it sounds good

The XT is superior in every respect because of who made it,,, no other reason needed in this house.

Russ SCPA wrote: I owned a pair of 190 XT's , have run 4010's, 4020's, 826's, 856's, 966's(owned one of those jewels for entirely too many years), 1850 Oliver as well. Each and every one had strong points and all had weak points.  From personal experience, the AC and Oliver were "torqueier", the IHC's were larger more bulky operating units, and the 966 was the hottest thing I have ever run on operators deck, it was BAD. From memory if I had to pick  1   190 XT overall keep it light and run fast it will stay togeather  2   Oliver 1850,   slower on road, harder to shift, but extremely long design life  3  4020   corperate back up service  4   4010  see above  5   856    6   966   just a little clumsy, never meet a gallon of fuel it didn't like  7   826    the hydro sucked entirely too much power away or this one would have been my number 1 choice    tough, tough old birds

i have to agree about the 826, strongest tractor for weight we ever owned was a 826 manual transmission, the german diesel just did not know the meaning of quit, we never owned a 190, and i am sure that there are things that i would like about one, but when the 826 was bought in 1970, the 64 4020 became a wagon puller,

It takes worn linkage to get to 3rd reverse. It was included in the 4010. It is fast moving and some say the gears can't handle the transmission input torque well either so adding leads to broken transmission gears. The gearing in the 4020 transmission is not simple, nearly ever gear in the box is used in every operating position, just in different orders. It wasn't designed overnight. The shift lever runs two cams, one in the left position, the other in the right position so lots of combinations are possible.

Gerald J.

As I can see this is a very heated debate!  I have run both but own an XT and use it almost exclusively on my operation.  So I must be a little byus, as this is an allis website.

Driven both and they are both good tractors, but ill take an xt or 200 any day over the Deere. Cant stand the annoying hydraulic pump rattle that all the Deere tractors make. The platform on the A-C is far better for carrying some chains, hand tools and handyman jack than the Deere ever hoped to be. For sheer power and torque the A-C wins again. Dad said he had one customer with both tractors and plowing the only way the Deere could keep up was after the installation of a torque topper lp injection kit. The hydraulics are smoother on the A-C . Never really thought the steering was that bad on A-C you do need to keep the front ends greased on any tractor or they steer terrible. Deere spindles are no better than the A-C, thats why Deere has all the holes in their tie rods so you can realign the front wheel after the spindle twists. The closed center system on the Deere is nice for modern equipment and most of the industry has adopted it now, although i believe a WD Allis first incorporated a closed center system so really nothing new! Kudos to the Deere on road speed too, XT's and all the A-C's  of that design are truly snails. Differential lock is also another nice feature as well as the hydraulic brakes on the 4020. Long live the orange tractors from West Allis!!!!!!

I owned a pair of 190 XT's , have run 4010's, 4020's, 826's, 856's, 966's(owned one of those jewels for entirely too many years), 1850 Oliver as well. Each and every one had strong points and all had weak points.  From personal experience, the AC and Oliver were "torqueier", the IHC's were larger more bulky operating units, and the 966 was the hottest thing I have ever run on operators deck, it was BAD.

Gerald J. wrote: I won't buy at his auctions since the first one in 1990 where I bid against myself as the only bidder on a hay baler Gerald J.

BTW Gerald, how long ago did you go looking to buy a gas 4020? Around here a gas 190 will sell for $2,500 to $3,500 for a good one at auction.

I only hauled that load once. I figured I couldn't stop it even from 16 mph in an emergency, nor could I pick up any of the units of the train from on top of me in the ditch.

The shift in the SR 4020 is weird when used to a two lever transmission pair. Its illogical. I wouldn't turn anyone loose with it without spending some time explaining it and making them operate it with me instructing for a bit. Some will never figure it out.

The PS is spendy to fix, the SR is spendy to fix but the PS is built tough. My neighbor had a series of PS tractors over a 30 year period and never broke a PS transmission. He drove them hard too. Leaving the field by my house to go home for lunch after cultivating all morning or afternoon, he'd turn out on the road in a low gear, floor the throttle, and shift up through the gears without backing off on the throttle. If I went out for the mail soon after that I found rear wheel divots in the gravel for each shift. Yes it shifted "hard" you might say "solidly." Certainly no significant slip to make for gentle shifts and there was no torque converter to soften the shifts. Either transmission can be destroyed in a very short time by pulling the tractor with the shifter in any position but TOW. The SR probably breaks fastest, wrecking all the bearings on the top shaft from lack of lubrication while spinning several thousand RPM.

The 4020 cabs were prepackaged coffins, not much structure, not enough evident to stand up to a roll over, and not quiet, clean, or a controlled environment. The IH '66 cabs were no better. The 4020 cabs were not made by Deere though the parts for them are in the Deere 4020 parts book. They supplied them from several vendors. The next family of cabs were Deere designed, but with one oddity, a big post down the middle of the windshield, though they did control the operator environment for dirt, dust, and temperature much better.

The worst gas hog in Lester Larson's book about tractor testing was an IH 686 or 656 hydrostat. But the gas 3020 and 4020 were not really a lot better. Part of the problem with nearly all gas tractors is the ignition advance is only centrifugal, there's no vacuum component. It was known in the 30s that a gas engine needed more advance for lightly loaded part throttle operation according to a mid 30s engine design book I have. Something like 10 degrees more advance. One time I changed the distributor on a Pinto wagon from the combination to a Mallory dual point with only centrifugal advance. It ran fine accelerating at full throttle, but was a dog at part throttle and the gas mileage was rotten. I put an original back on as soon as I could get one. I'd broken the original looking for a squeak and couldn't get a Ford distributor shipped, but could get the Mallory shipped and without the distributor I couldn't go to town after anything, distributor or groceries.

When using the same hydraulic power for steering, brakes, and remotes, I think a pressure compensated system was too slow to respond. And keeping pressure high is certainly one place that uses fuel all the time.

I'd have to check the parts book, but I recall that the dry air cleaner came in about SN 91,000 and that was the first SN of the 1965 model year. The first official model year was 1964. There were three versions of 4020 between the 4010 and the side console 4020 with major changes in wiring harness, start switch location, and the air filter. And while there's only one edition of the shop manual for 4010 and pre side console 4020, there were three different editions of the operator's manual.

The generator was too small, and some say the starter was too small. Many change to a starter from later engines when converting the diesels to 12 volts that are rated at two or three times the starter motor horsepower for better starting. Usually a Nippon-Denso.

The only 190 I found for sale was priced like silver while the gas 4020 was priced like lead and I have 30 or 40 4020 to choose from that year within 50 miles of the farm. AC's were not in the running with that limited a selection.

Gerald J.

I love my allis's. Gotta say though my 4020 synchro is one of my favorites. Starts when its real cold without nose candy, pulls good, steering is soooo smooth, will turn with one finger, pretty comfortable and the differential lok is something allis needed. 

When our 190xt was deliverd a neighbor came over  to look at and drive it .

His comments  were all positive ... (except the color ) then the AC dealer was 8 miles away and the IH dealer was  1 mile away . He bought an 856. Now  both dealers are gone . Nearest  CIH  dealer is 19 miles away , nearest Agco is 50 plus .I agree with the previous comment about  the dealer and service .

 I  have owned an 856  for 10 years now , and have  nothing to bitch about regarding that tractor , surprised more havent made a comment on it .  

This is what I like about this site.  If you asked this same question on most JD sites, there would never be one good thing said about a 190 or any other tractor that wasn't green except perhaps for its use as a ship anchor.  Here, people are honest and able to give credit where credit is due.