Hey You Smart Guys!

How big of a tamdem IH disc with 20" blades will a 1066 handle? I mean, wheels up/no cheating, sucked in the ground width?

Will it pull a 20-22 footer okay in 4th?

Thanks,

Allan

The disk is a 16ft Krause cutting disk with 22" blades, and they were only on the disk about two years at the time so they weren't wore down hard. Now I could not come close to sinking it all the way in but it did handle the disk in lo 3rd with the torque ahead most of the time. There were some hills where it was a challenge but none the less that old girl did the job.

Needless to say I would not be inclined to ever do it again, and as soon as the Magnum was off the plows it was in the disk and the 23' Brillion packer was hooked on then as well and we were back in business as usual. As far as tires go the 766 did the work on 18.4-34's that are loaded and it has two sets of wheel weights, and the front bracket was empty. Our magnum even though its a little bigger than a 1066 pulls both the 16'disk and the 23'packer together on 18.4-42 duals with no additional rear ballast but it does have a fully loaded front weight rack. We have both heavy topsoil low ground and steep shaley knobs on our farm, so we cover the gammet as far as varying soil conditions. The magnum handles both with ease, before that we had a 1270 Case with 20.8-38 duals with cast hubs on both inner and outer wheels and it two handled both at the same time just as well. In fact there are times I think the old Case handled the two better than the newer tractor. There are times if were are just doing some touchup work that the duals are not on the tractor, but then usually we are not sinking the disk hard and the packer is not on either and it does fine. If that 1066 was on my farm I wouldn't be afraid for a minute to put a 20' disk behind it, but then again your soil might be heavier, but in our topsoil it would be NO problem.

Just my two cents on it.

A Rockland Rotaveyor puts hydraulic loads on a tractor that makes a folding wing disk look like a tinker toy. It's load on the 3 point hitch is in excess of 8,000#. We had to put 2,400 lbs. of front end weight on 1066. Even with that my operator had to be damn careful on turns, rough ground or hills. More than once that day I saw the front end 2-3 feet off the ground, even when you let the clutch out gently the front wheels lifted.

Well, the tractor came home from that, no broken axles, no busted hubs or wedge locks, no flat tires. I owned it for 16,000 hours, 9,000 of them after that day never replaced any of those things you mention. It did sell the salesman's machine for him, in fact at the end of the day he took my two operators out to dinner and also gave them a damn nice bonus.

Sure the 22' disk will be close to his limit, that is all the traction you can get out of 4-20.8x38 tires, don't matter how much weight you use. Weight only increases soil compaction. Been there and done that. May I also suggest if your breaking wedge lock wheels, you haven't read and followed the manual. If your not using axle duals on that much hp your a dummy.

Not sure I agree with Gary's reasoning, now I realize you are talking 686, however my 656 never hit 2 IMP GPH on 44-20" blades. My 1066 did burn more than 6 IMP GPH on the 88 blade disk. Probably closer to 8 GPH

This is why I call large chassis 66 and 86 series two wheel drive tractors, YESTERDAY'S TRACTORS. They were not near as efficient as the tractors that preceeded them. If you folks are so all fired up about efficiency and getting good hourly pay for your time, split the tractor in the middle, put on 8-20.8x42 and install 350-400 hp engine. Then just buy up bigger chunks of Iowa and Nebraska.

Gary is talking in relative terms (country-speak) to make a point.

Dunno, he sure makes sense to me.

Allan

Hope I haven't stepped in a pile of hot and gooie here. Salesman was a bit skeptical. :>(

It's a done deal anywhoo.

Allan

Harold H

Thought I had this all figured out. Was gonna put the duals on the little 686 and use this 14' disc that I have. It pulls it just fine.

Then, I happen to spot the bigger disc. Just wondering if I ought to make that darned old 1066 earn it's keep around here.

Silly tractor has been rebuilt from stem to stern but just sits save for those years that I have to plow.

Don't like to have 'em "parked", as I don't think it does 'em a bit of good.

Allan

Thanks, I appreciate the help. Yeah, I turned it up to 145 hp.

Allan

Last year I was working some ground with my 966 and the field cultivator.

Stopped right square in the middle of the field and turned that sow up to handle the "humps" a little better. Made a world of difference.

But yeah, both the 966 and 1066 will hog that fuel.

Kinda the reason I had planned on using the 686 for the heavy stuff this year. That darned thing will run all week on a tank of fuel. :>)

Allan

If you run that 686 and it only burns 3 gal an hour on that disc, you will get about 3 acres disced on a gallon.

Now if you put a 20 footer behind the 1066 you will burn about 6 gallon an hour and get about 2.5 acres per gallon.

So 40 acres will take 13 gallons on the 686.

The 1066 will take 16 gallon to disc that forty acres

Your savings of about $14.

But you would spend 5 hours on the 686 and only 3 on the 1066.

Is your time worth more than $7.00 an hour as well as putting 5 hours of wear on the 686 and only 3 hours of wear on the 1066.

Your call.

Gary