D-17 vs JD 4720 MFD
Printed From: Unofficial Allis
Category: Allis Chalmers
Forum Name: Farm Equipment
Forum Description: everything about Allis-Chalmers farm equipment
URL: https://www.allischalmers.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=33196
Printed Date: 18 Jul 2025 at 7:26am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: D-17 vs JD 4720 MFD
Posted By: Kcgrain
Subject: D-17 vs JD 4720 MFD
Date Posted: 02 Jul 2011 at 9:11am
|
Heres an age old question what tractor has more power and performance the new generation tractors with all the toys or the old school? How many times have you heard some one say that there new compact tractor with 4wd was so much better than an old tractor. What tractor would have more pulling power the D-17 or a JD 4720.
AC D-17 no fluid, 56 hp gas engine, 4,750 # plus operator
JD 4720 66hp 4cyl turbo diesel rear tire full of fluid, cab 4wd and loader 3,700# tractor+ 2194 #loader, dont know what the cab weighs plus the fluid and operator.
Curious to see your opinions, pulled 4 ways back to back 2wd vs 2wd
back to back 2wd vs 4wd
traction booster drawbar to drawbar 2wd
traction booster drawbar to drawbar 4wd
I know the out come and am curious of what you think.
|
Replies:
Posted By: BStone
Date Posted: 02 Jul 2011 at 9:22am
|
I have 5 AC so I'm an AC man.All of the newer tractors are built shorter coupled...smaller engines producing more hp and generaly lighter, but with the heavier front end for the 4 wheel drive and front end loader I would guess it would out pull the AC.BStone
|
Posted By: BStone
Date Posted: 02 Jul 2011 at 9:26am
|
Looked at the JD 4720 on tractor house.I don't think your comparing apples to apples.I consider the JD 4720 to be a larger yard or garden tractor...not a true farm tractor so I'm sure the AC out pulled it.
|
Posted By: Kcgrain
Date Posted: 02 Jul 2011 at 9:33am
|
4720 is a compact tractor, but it has similar weight and tire size is close to the 17
|
Posted By: Eric[IL]
Date Posted: 02 Jul 2011 at 10:25am
|
I would guess that the D17 wins them all.
Loads of torque from the 226 power crater engine coupled to the power stick for smooth starts under load. Heavier overall castings, 3pt load response, & front end load dynamics should also give the D17 an advantage.
|
Posted By: Hurst
Date Posted: 02 Jul 2011 at 11:04am
|
I'd guess the D17, espescially if the deere had R4 tires all the way around and the D17 had R1s. Also, I'd imagine the D17's drawbar was a little higher, giving it a slight advantage with weight trasfer to the drawbar.
Hurst
-------------
1979 Allis Chalmers 7000
5800 Hours
|
Posted By: kip in cny
Date Posted: 02 Jul 2011 at 12:16pm
Iam with hurst. My kubota L4630 50hp 4 wheel has R4 on it loader and cab vs the 160 The 160 will out pull the kubota and out push. I will put money on the D17 for what your doing But for hot or cold or bad weather days the kubota will win for the cab.
-------------
160 CA 920diesel 5020 HD-3
|
Posted By: farmtoybuilder
Date Posted: 02 Jul 2011 at 3:33pm
|
Sorry I will bet on 4wd one! especially if it has R1 tires! I love my orange tractors but I can take our smaller JD 4wd and out pull and push our 45's any day of the week! And tires aren't loaded on 4wd. It does have loader on it though. We have sold many customers a smaller 4wd tractor to do most jobs of a larger 2wd tractor. If you need X amount pto hp power that's a different story! Kip I find it hard to believe your 4630 won't out pull or push your 160 even with R4 tires? Just like today was mowing fields with JD6420 FWA loader with 20' bushog in high heavy wet grass and was cutting it short, And we sure could of used some more HP!!!!!! Normal mowing it does fine and saves some fuel over using the 7830 or 8130 on it. Each has their advantages and disadvantages.
-------------
5 different TT-10's,5 TT-18's Terra Tigers,B-10,2 B-207's,B-110,2 B-112's,HB-112,B-210,B-212,HB212,2 Scamp's & Homilite T-10. Still hunting NICE HB-112 & anything Terra Tiger & Trailers for them.
|
Posted By: acwdwcman
Date Posted: 02 Jul 2011 at 3:37pm
im going with the d-17
-------------
wd with a freeman model 90 trip loader, wd45, 38 unstylled wc, b 10 garden tractor and 2-14 ac trip plow. grandpa has a 56 wd45. wd. allis chalmers snap coupler blade and 3 bottom snap coupler plow
|
Posted By: DaveKamp
Date Posted: 02 Jul 2011 at 10:58pm
From an agricultural tractive effort perspective, if they have the same size rear tires, and the D17 is heavier, and you have 'em loaded down so that both tractors' front ends are in the air, the D17 will win.
Why?
Because tractive effort calculation is based on the diameter of driven wheel, ratio of weight on driven wheels vs. undriven, and finally, weight.
Under many conditions, having 4WD really gives a machine enhanced ability in maneuvering around sloppy areas, especially if there's a heavy load on the front end. With front wheels in the air, however, having FWD becomes irrelevant. There's no drag of undriven wheels, and all weight is on the rears, which is driven... that means they're on same playing field.
Finally, weight. Tractive effort for ANY wheel-to-surface is substantially relative to the amount of force connecting the two together. One can reasonable estimate the total drawbar force at incipient slip as being a percentage of the weight on drivers.
Notice that I never mentioned horsepower. Once you've reached the point of incipient slip, adding more power increases slip, but the amount of added tractive effort is very small in comparison to the amount of horsepower added. The Wismer-Luth study illustrates not only how to calculate the incipient slip point, but how much additional drawbar force is available as slip is increased. It also indicates how to predict horsepower requirement to reach that slip level.
It is possible that the Deere could put enough engine to the wheels to generate substantial slip, and a little more drawbar effort, but the difference in weight between the two machines IS substantial... I highly doubt that even with it's horsepower advantage, that it would be able to generate the kind of slip required to equate to the 17's drawbar capacity... but I'd sure like to try!!!
But that's comparing 'em solely on drawbar figures at unballasted conditions. With ballast, the story changes pretty quick...
|
Posted By: DaveKamp
Date Posted: 02 Jul 2011 at 11:02pm
Looking again, I missed the point where you said there was a 2200lb loader on it... so that makes the machine's total weight 5894 + unknown ballast in the tires.
To mach that, the D17would need ballasted tires, then follow that up with 1150lbs of suitcase weights about midway 'tween front and rear tires... then you'll have an apples-to-apples pull off.
|
Posted By: Kcgrain
Date Posted: 03 Jul 2011 at 12:03pm
|
Well here is how it played out now remember the Deere is heavier , with the loader, cab ,and fluid. Also a long chain was used so no tractor would be lifting the other, or anyways minimize it.
2wd vs 2wd drawbar to drawbar ............. stale mate
2wd vs 4wd drawbar to drawbar .................. Deere but begging for power
2wd vs 2wd traction booster drawbar to drawbar.........D-17 with no hesitation
2wd vs 4wd traction booster drawbar to drawbar...........D-17 with the Deere begging for power
|
Posted By: WD45
Date Posted: 03 Jul 2011 at 1:30pm
Traction booster drawbar - is this the same as the "T" hitch?
-------------
Fred Dunlop, G,B,CA, WC,WF, 3 WD45`s,gas, diesel and LP,U,D10 series III, D12,D14,D15 SERIES II,D17 Series IV in Gas and Diesel ,D19 GAS and D21,170 185,210 ,220 an I-600 8070 fwd, 716H and 1920H
|
Posted By: ky wonder
Date Posted: 04 Jul 2011 at 10:28pm
i can not state on the 4720, but i have a 1999 model 5210 jd 2wd that is heavier than the 4720, it also has a NA,179ci motor vs the 149ci turboed in the 4720, and at best it is a 2x14 plow tractor and i know that a d17 will handle 3x14 in the same ground with ease
-------------
i like old tractors of all colors
|
|