# 1839 inline upgrade to 1840



## Foragegrower (Nov 11, 2016)

So looking to possiabily upgrade to an 1840, however I'm having a hard time spending a ton of money to purchase this 1840. I'm trying to wrap my head around the small differences and why the changes can't be adapted to my current 1839? To start I see augers are reversed flighted, which I see no reason 1840 augers won't work. Next the stuffer, and the part I'm most interested in, we all know the stuffer is the most challenging on these balers, but why couldn't the 1840 stuffer work? Big 1840 twine boxes are easy enough to add. Help me out please, also if someone could tell me about advancing a tooth on stuffer that would Grreat


----------



## Lewis Ranch (Jul 15, 2013)

Twine box is the only noticeable difference when running 3 1839 balers and 1 1840 side by side in the fields.


----------



## Vol (Jul 5, 2009)

The bale chamber has been extended and this is in harmony with the new stuffer entry angle. That is what I have been told.

Regards, Mike


----------



## somedevildawg (Jun 20, 2011)

I wouldn't do a thing to that 1839 other than bale hay........


----------



## Foragegrower (Nov 11, 2016)

All the talk from agco is the 1840 is a lot more capacity then the 1839, sounds all well and good but do these small improvement really make it? After baling with our 1839 for 8 years or so and putting 300000 bales or more through it, it's been a great machine aside from stuffer bolts shearing, that's were I thought maybe upgrade the stiffer assembly may have curd this issue?


----------



## Trillium Farm (Dec 18, 2014)

Foragegrower said:


> All the talk from agco is the 1840 is a lot more capacity then the 1839, sounds all well and good but do these small improvement really make it? After baling with our 1839 for 8 years or so and putting 300000 bales or more through it, it's been a great machine aside from stuffer bolts shearing, that's were I thought maybe upgrade the stiffer assembly may have curd this issue?


That's it, the improvements are better/longer chamber, better pick-up and stuffing, Rollers turning towards the baler, twine capacity, central lubrication and 1 more bolt on the wheels (5). Upgrade if you need it or the baler is misbehaving otherwise as somedevildawg said keep on baling and do it when needed.


----------



## Maxzillian (Sep 11, 2014)

AGCO has a reversed auger kit for the 1839, basically changes the drives on the pickup and you switch the augers from one side to the other. The 1840 and 1839 actually share the same augers; just a difference in assembly and drives. That said, reversing the augers is only really necessary if you're having problems with breaking stuffer shear bolts in long straw. The down-turning augers can pinch crop into the pan, making it harder for the stuffer to pull it from the pickup. Meanwhile the up-turning augers keep it fluffed up and loose in front of the augers; easier for the stuffer to pull from. Otherwise, this problem may rear its head as ugly looking bales (lots of tufts sticking out the top and bottom).

If you have that problem and want to get by cheap, bend up some steel that will bolt under the wrappers, the steel needs to have a break behind the wrappers so that it kicks up and acts as a lower stripper for the augers. That'll keep crop from getting too deep into the pan.

I wouldn't lose any sleep over the longer chamber and retrofitting a knotter fan would largely involve just changing the shielding up top or rolling your own setup. Twine boxes shouldn't be too hard if they don't just bolt in.

I'm not sure if the stuffer can retrofit; it's a different crank, fork assembly, link and wrappers. I THINK the frames are largely the same in this area, but I can't be certain.

The later 1840s did get an upgrade to 6 bolt wheels, but I believe that was necessary due to the longer chamber putting more side loads on the wheels when pulling something like a Bale Baron.


----------



## Foragegrower (Nov 11, 2016)

I've read on here about changing the stuffer timing by 1 tooth and that fixes stuffer issues?


----------



## Maxzillian (Sep 11, 2014)

Advancing it one tooth can help the AGCO (not necessarily the older Hesston) large square balers in high moisture conditions and some stover, but I haven't heard of anyone doing that with the small squares and having any success. Like I mentioned earlier, the problem has to do with getting hay out of the pickup; timing controls the relation to the plunger when it gets thrown into the chamber. Advancing it may have an effect on bale shape, but I don't think it'd stop the shearbolts from breaking or improve capacity.


----------



## SmallStrawMan (Feb 9, 2016)

Did anyone ever figure out if the stuffer is interchangeable? I have an 1839 I bought used and baled with this season; it seems like a good unit, but i went through gobs of stuffer shear bolts. The problem was always a bit of tough straw would be rolled up from the down-turning augers and when the stuffer came down it would roll under the forks and pinch. I priced the auger reversing kit, which seems a little pricey at $750, what parts are you actually getting? I know if it is completely dry it bales like a dream, but I live in Indiana, so we're almost always rushing the hay/straw to beat a rain.

I just called another dealer and gave them the same part number and they said $150... So now i have to figure out whats going on...


----------



## Maxzillian (Sep 11, 2014)

I'd worry about changing over to the up-turning augers before diving into the stuffer. The kit is made up mostly of the sprockets and idler brackets needed to reverse the augers; otherwise your existing augers are reused; just swapped left for right.


----------



## SmallStrawMan (Feb 9, 2016)

Maxzillian said:


> I'd worry about changing over to the up-turning augers before diving into the stuffer. The kit is made up mostly of the sprockets and idler brackets needed to reverse the augers; otherwise your existing augers are reused; just swapped left for right.


I called another dealer and they are saying Massey part #700739401 at $6xx dollars, so no one seems to be on the same page. I thought it just seemed a little steep for some sprockets and brackets... especially considering its a fix... maybe there is new augers in that part number, the parts guy is supposed to call me back tomorrow with a breakdown.

It has been a while since we baled obviously, therefore I was looking at this 1839 in the shop and the stuffer really decreases clearance between the start of its cycle and the top (which I think was just as much of a problem as the rope the down-turning augers created). I wish I would've taken pictures this summer, but If I had got something out of my pocket that day it would've been a lighter to torch it .... It just seemed like, in my head, that it would make sense to correct that somehow as well.... They claim the 1840 has better capacity so wouldn't it help too? Just hypothesizing... it may not even be possible, but that's what I am trying to figure out.


----------



## Vol (Jul 5, 2009)

Maxzillian said:


> I'd worry about changing over to the up-turning augers before diving into the stuffer. The kit is made up mostly of the sprockets and idler brackets needed to reverse the augers; otherwise your existing augers are reused; just swapped left for right.


Max, is it a straightforward process to install the upturning kit?

Regards, Mike


----------



## paoutdoorsman (Apr 23, 2016)

SmallStrawMan said:


> I have an 1839 I bought used and baled with this season; it seems like a good unit, but i went through gobs of stuffer shear bolts. The problem was always a bit of tough straw would be rolled up from the down-turning augers and when the stuffer came down it would roll under the forks and pinch.


SmallStrawMan, are you using the Hesston/Massey shear bolts or some other bolt. The gentleman I bought my 4590 from this winter said he had issues shearing bolts early on in his ownership, and had the service department out to have a look and see if something was wrong. The only thing they found was that he was using standard grade 8 bolts, and they concluded that was the problem. He skeptically switched to using the Hesston shear bolts and his problem went away. When I cleaned out the toolbox, the evidence lined up with his word.


----------



## SmallStrawMan (Feb 9, 2016)

paoutdoorsman said:


> SmallStrawMan, are you using the Hesston/Massey shear bolts or some other bolt. The gentleman I bought my 4590 from this winter said he had issues shearing bolts early on in his ownership, and had the service department out to have a look and see if something was wrong. The only thing they found was that he was using standard grade 8 bolts, and they concluded that was the problem. He skeptically switched to using the Hesston shear bolts and his problem went away. When I cleaned out the toolbox, the evidence lined up with his word.


Yup, I used the Massey bolts... and when you had to clean the pickup back out, you almost wished they weren't so tough...


----------



## Maxzillian (Sep 11, 2014)

Vol said:


> Max, is it a straightforward process to install the upturning kit?
> 
> Regards, Mike


It's pretty straightforward, but requires a good deal of disassembly which I think eats most of the time. There is one bracket you have to weld on the right side, a bracket you replace on the left and some holes you have to drill to mount new auger strippers. There really isn't a whole lot to the kit which I do think makes the price seem pretty high, but any normal farm shop would have a hard time replicating the left bracket and I have my doubts that the original one could be modified to work.


----------



## jd-tom (Jun 15, 2010)

I traded 2 years ago and upgraded my 1839 to an 1840. I was having the problems like others have had with the 1839 shearing stuffer bolts in long, heavy straw. The 1840 took care of that problem.

Now, was it worth trading just because of that? Probably not from a strictly dollars-and-cents perspective.

But the older I get, the more I am inclined to trade and keep my machinery current, especially my hay equipment. My hired help is running the baler most of the time, and I didn't like subjecting them to constantly having to stop, unplug the baler, and replace stuffer shear bolts. They ended up baling at a snail's pace, just because it was easier to drive slower than unplugging the baler in 90 degree weather. But then our productivity went way down, which was frustrating to me because I knew that baler was capable of a lot higher capacity then that (and the reason I bought the largest one of the lineup in the first place!) And we were also having a problem with one side of the knotter in the really heavy straw. It would randomly mis-tie for no apparent reason. I had that side of the knotter apart numerous times, replaced any parts that looked like they had ANY wear on them, but just couldn't get on top of that problem. When we were back in the hay, no problems at all. So I felt I could justify trading, especially after I had done my homework on this forum, asking questions like this. The consensus at that time was that those who had already done a trade like this felt there was enough improvements on the 1840 over the 1839 to make the upgrade worthwhile, and I would agree, based on my experiences.

At least Agco/MF/Hesston is still making meaningful improvements to their small square baler line. John Deere has been selling the same basic baler with very few meaningful improvements since 1970. I think they have even gone backwards a bit as far as the metalurgy of some of the wearing parts on their newer balers vs. their older ones (cheapened them up).

I don't have any experience with New Holland balers so I can't comment on their R&D efforts in the past 40+ years


----------



## SmallStrawMan (Feb 9, 2016)

jd-tom said:


> At least Agco/MF/Hesston is still making meaningful improvements to their small square baler line. John Deere has been selling the same basic baler with very few meaningful improvements since 1970. I think they have even gone backwards a bit as far as the metalurgy of some of the wearing parts on their newer balers vs. their older ones (cheapened them up).


Yeah I will agree with that. A friend of mine has an 1837 (which has up-turning augers already) and he doesn't have a lick of trouble from it. Based on his and your guys recommendations, I guess I'm gonna put the stuffer modification on the back burner for now. I went ahead and ordered the reversing kit for my 1839. I already have too much time in some other customization I did that I kind of hate to trade it off, so hopefully it will bale away now. Dad still thinks I ought to trade it for a 348





  








IMG 5098




__
SmallStrawMan


__
Jan 20, 2017


__
2











  








IMG 5097




__
SmallStrawMan


__
Jan 20, 2017


----------



## Maxzillian (Sep 11, 2014)

That's some nice work on the knotter shield and I have to wonder why I don't see more people put a lube distribution manifold on those things...

You're not wrong that you can gain some capacity by adapting to the newer stuffer, but I think as far as your bang-for-the-buck is concerned the reversed augers are better. At the very least that'll greatly reduce how often you need to dig out the baler; give them a shot and if you still feel you need more speed then look into the stuffer.


----------



## Lewis Ranch (Jul 15, 2013)

Is the lube sytem avaliable after market?


----------



## slowzuki (Mar 8, 2011)

The JD multi-luber is very expensive for what it is. Love it on my 348 though!


----------



## SmallStrawMan (Feb 9, 2016)

Lewis Ranch said:


> Is the lube sytem avaliable after market?


I bought it from a company called KM specialty out of Chandler, IN if memory serves me correct... they have all the parts and ship right to you... It is a Lincoln part and guarantees even grease distribution so you don't have to worry about one not taking grease... took a good bit to get the hoses to form as they are stiff and you have to heat them to form. Sure makes it nice to grease... whenever you stop you can grease the whole baler in 5 min without wondering if you missed one.


----------



## Wethay (Jul 17, 2015)

Don't over lube the knotters, hear that all the time. I'm guessing a lot of people think 3 to 10 shots of grease per zerk. I hit the knotter zerks every couple hours but only enough to see any bit of grease coming out. That lube system looks real nice, looks like you took the time and effort to do it right. Always was afraid that the distribution block would distribute to the zerk that took grease the easiest, nice to hear they don't.


----------



## JMT (Aug 10, 2013)

SmallStrawMan said:


> It is a Lincoln part and guarantees even grease distribution so you don't have to worry about one not taking grease.


Does that mean if one is clogged and won't take any grease, then the whole distribution block (and all the other lines) won't take any either??


----------



## SmallStrawMan (Feb 9, 2016)

JMT said:


> Does that mean if one is clogged and won't take any grease, then the whole distribution block (and all the other lines) won't take any either??


I haven't had that happen. I'm not sure if it would just stall or not, I would say that would be highly unlikely if you are greasing anyhow. There is an indicator pin that guarantees it is working properly, so I just watch it while I pump the grease into the block and It cycles very quickly





  








IMG 6046




__
SmallStrawMan


__
Jan 26, 2017












skip to 1:30


----------



## jd-tom (Jun 15, 2010)

I robbed the Multi-Luber off the last JD 338 that I owned and mounted it on mounted it on my MF 1839 when I bought that new. Then I transferred it to my 1840 when I traded in 2014. Except for drilling a couple of holes in the side of the bale chamber for mounting the reservoir/pump assembly, everything mounted right up. I did paint it black to match the baler color scheme...

When I bought the last 338, I think the Multi-Luber option was in the $800 range. I'm sure that it is well over $1000 by now. Don't think that it is worth that much but it IS really nice to give the handle a few pumps and you have the entire knotter lubricated.


----------



## Maxzillian (Sep 11, 2014)

JMT said:


> Does that mean if one is clogged and won't take any grease, then the whole distribution block (and all the other lines) won't take any either??


It depends. If it is completely blocked, then the divider will stop and you won't pump any grease through it. There are a series of pilot operated valves that switch it from one output to another and as long as a port is blocked, one of those pilot valves won't be able to shuttle. The caveat here is that any air in the line or a partial restriction may allow it to move.

So I think the sure answer here is that you should be able to feel resistance if one of the ports is blocked, but it's not a guarantee that it will stop all lubrication. I think the simple answer here is that you should still occasionally inspect the lubrication points and make sure there are signs of fresh grease.

The first few pages of this document illustrate how the divider block works:

https://www.lincolnindustrial.com/Catalogs/_English/00-MAIN_Catalogs/Quicklub.pdf

You can also pair up outputs to double the grease at a point, such as where the knotter heads ride on the shaft.


----------



## mbpeel (Dec 12, 2019)

Reviving an old post but does anyone happen to have some photos of the auger reversing kit on an 1839? Just wondering if its something I could make up myself?

I'm in Australia and we're heading into our hay season.

Thanks in advance


----------

