# Need advise on tractor purchase to pull round baler



## MT357 (Mar 11, 2020)

I am looking for a good used tractor with a loader to use primarily for haying, ie, pull the disc mower, round baler, and to load hay. May use it to pull a disc and cultapacker about once every 5 years or so to replant the alfalfa fields.

Just looking for something reliable and simple to maintain. I am only raising hay on 80 irrigated acres now but I am trying to purchase another 80 to 160.

I have found the following tractors in my price range, but I have never been around any of them, we have always have had Fords. You comments good or bad are appreciated.

This is a list of the tractors I am looking at with the model #, hours, and price. All are clean and have loaders and a cab.

International 1086, 8800 hours, Torque Amplifier transmission, $8400

International 966, 4600 hours, 8 speed Torque Amplifier transmission, $9100

International 856, 8600 hours, 8 speed Torque Amplifier transmission, $6000

Case 1070, 8100 hours, Power Shift transmission, $4400

White 2-105, 6500 hours, Hydraul-Shift, $9200

John Deere 4230, 8400 hours, Partial Power Shift, $8700

John Deere 4020, 11000 hours. 200 hours since overhauled, Full Power Shift transmission, $8700


----------



## 8350HiTech (Jul 26, 2013)

I hate to be that guy but none of these jump out as being particularly loader-friendly as far as their transmissions, so to me it would depend how much of it’s use will be for loader jobs. There is a lot of functional value in each one though for the money, just a lack of comforts and convenience.


----------



## Tx Jim (Jun 30, 2014)

Do any of these tractors listed have a cab? A cab will help preserve tractor operator's lungs especially when pulling a rd baler.

I'd pick the the 4230 with the 16 speed trans & hyd(wet) traction clutch. I've read good reviews about those White & Case tractor models but I'm unaware of # of forward speeds each has. 4020's have been good tractors but Powershift trans only has 8 fwd gears. I've read good reviews about these White & Case tractor models but don't know # of forward speeds of each brand nor have I ever drive either brand..

I'm not attempting to offend loyal IHC tractor owners BUT I definitely after having driven a IHC 986 several yrs back wouldn't pick it or the other IHC's because to me they are not operator friendly enough to suit my ornery old body.


----------



## MT357 (Mar 11, 2020)

I have been pulling my old John Deere 510 for 20 years without a cab, that's one of the reasons for the upgrade. Picked up a lightly used Vermeer 604 SuperJ and now I am looking for a tractor with a CAB to pull it. Tired of looking like a coal miner at the end of the day.


----------



## MT357 (Mar 11, 2020)

I found a John Deere 4520 with 4100 hours, cab, loader, but not a lot of creature comfort. $9000


----------



## IH 1586 (Oct 16, 2014)

MT357 said:


> I found a John Deere 4520 with 4100 hours, cab, loader, but not a lot of creature comfort. $9000


You don't want those older cabs and the 4520 only came with 1000 pto. No experience with Case or White. All the others listed I would not want to have a loader on. The most comfortable one listed for all day running on a round baler is the 4230. I am bias on JD though. Just purchased my first quad range last year. Not sure how I would like to run a loader on it but of your current listing it may be the best.


----------



## Gearclash (Nov 25, 2010)

The three Internationals will all have the same basic drivetrain. Of them, the 1086 will have the nicest cab by far but there are generally more complaints about shifting them than the older Internationals. The 1086 will be the only of the 3 with a factory turbo.


----------



## Tx Jim (Jun 30, 2014)

MT357 said:


> I found a John Deere 4520 with 4100 hours, cab, loader, but not a lot of creature comfort. $9000


Ditto what IH 1586 stated about 1000 rpm only pto on JD 4520. I remember when 4520's were new & I certainly wouldn't choose a 4520 for a rd baling tractor.


----------



## r82230 (Mar 1, 2016)

Thinking that I'm spending your money here are my thoughts:


Double your budget (add about $10K) and buy a newer 80-100HP tractor with cab, or
Buy two of your older tractors listed.

Rational for #1, possibly more dependable and a working A/C with a cab, while baling could be important (I'm assuming it gets warm in YOUR area, during haying season).

Rational for #2, a backup tractor for baling, could be important (I'm assuming that you are as lucky as me, with breakdowns happening at the most un-opportune times).

I've RB without a cab, RB with a cab with no A/C, RB with a cab with a non-working A/C and RB with a cab with a working A/C. By golly, I will never go back to the first three listed options again, except in a emergency case only.

My barely two cents today, but it seems to be more fun spending someone else's $$$. 

Larry


----------



## IH 1586 (Oct 16, 2014)

r82230 said:


> Thinking that I'm spending your money here are my thoughts:
> 
> 
> Double your budget (add about $10K) and buy a newer 80-100HP tractor with cab, or
> ...


I did the round baling with cab no ac and had a thermometer on phone, I believe it was 120 in there last I looked. Was not fun. Would open side window when going the correct way with the wind to avoid the dust. I got it working the next season.


----------



## Hayman1 (Jul 6, 2013)

Fairly young farmer died from heat stroke from baling in cab w/o air about 5 years ago. I believe he had some underlying health issue but still it's serious business.


----------



## danwi (Mar 6, 2015)

If your doing 80 acres of hay and looking at going to 240 I wouldn't want my mowing and baling tractor to have a loader on. If any of those tractors have had a loader all their life look good at the front ends spindle and wheels and bearings and if they did loader work they may be on a second or third clutch with those hours. Just for mowing and baling the 1086 and 4230 would be ok followed by the white, If I was going case I would look for at least a 90 series a little better cab. One thing I do when I take the loader tractor to the other farm to rake hay and then load bales latter so I only have to take one tractor Is I will set the bale forks on the side of the field when raking so I have less weight on the front of the tractor.


----------



## Beav (Feb 14, 2016)

We used a case CX-80 and AC-185 with out cabs and a loader to round bale with, IMO having the loader on the baling tractor is bad for 3 reasons.

1. hard on front end of tractor

2. have to slow down when baling because the loader bounces

3. Can't load bales and bale at same time.

That being said none of those tractors would work for me to old, cabs suck hot, loud and uncomfortable, they are reasonably priced for what they are and they at not even average loader tractors. We bale 250 acres of hay 20000+ sm squares and 300-500 4x5 round bales JD 7400 runs the disc-bine JD-6420 runs sm square baler & accumulator, NH t4-95 runs tedder, 4221 rotary rake and round baler a JD 5055 runs a 3200 gt rotary rake.We use a telehandler and skid loader to move round bales and run a grapple. With as much hay as you are considering one tractor to do all those jobs is not going to be easy. We may have more equipment then most but 2 of the 3 partners work full time off the farm. Good luck but I think you need two tractors, 60 to 80 hp loader tractor and 100 to 160 hp tractor to bale with.


----------



## MT357 (Mar 11, 2020)

Found a Case 1896, cab, loader heat and AC. Thoughts


----------



## chevytaHOE5674 (Mar 14, 2015)

Case 1896 has a Cummins 5.9 in it which is a great motor. The powershift trans is good when working but of it ever needs work parts are expensive and hard to find, replaced a few shifting solinoids in them. Don't leave the powershift in reverse with the pto running while stationary for any length of time or you will be rebuilding it. The shifting doesnt make for a great loader experience but it'll get the job done. If it's been taken care of and in good shape they are decent old horses.


----------



## 8350HiTech (Jul 26, 2013)

chevytaHOE5674 said:


> Case 1896 has a Cummins 5.9 in it which is a great motor. The powershift trans is good when working but of it ever needs work parts are expensive and hard to find, replaced a few shifting solinoids in them. Don't leave the powershift in reverse with the pto running while stationary for any length of time or you will be rebuilding it. The shifting doesnt make for a great loader experience but it'll get the job done. If it's been taken care of and in good shape they are decent old horses.


Agree, decent baler tractor but not terribly desirable loader tractor. Aftermarket powershift parts are readily available unless it gets so bad a cast housing needs replacing. So don't let it get that bad.


----------



## Wrenchhead1968 (Feb 7, 2020)

4230 with soundgard cab would be the most comfortable by far of all said tractors.Texjim hit the nail on the head with the wet clutch.i pull a jd567 with my jd 4040 with quad range, grew up running dad's 4430 with the quad range, and have a 4230 with quad range for smaller jobs. Each and everyone of our quad ranges have had to been rebuilt. Very expensive. They always got damaged by hired help or when we would borrow the tractors out to friends and neighbors. I swear to God I will never ever borrow my 4040 out ever again I borrowed it to A neighbor and "D" range was knocked out. You absolutely cannot shift from any of the ranges on the fly. A through D you must be completely stopped. My dad always says slip the clutch if you have to that's tough as hell. He is correct , When I rebuilt mine my clutch was in excellent condition although I did put a new one in when I had it split. Be prepared to spend $10-$15,000 if you ever have to open up A quad range transmission on them 30 and 40 series John Deere tractors. You'll find all kinds of stuff to fix in there besides the transmission . Things like the draft control that isn't working correctly. I had to utilize limit chains on my 4040 for my desk board in order to have some type of heights control. We have a Miller loader on the 4430 for quite a few years nothing wrong with it. A lot better than trying to operate my uncles 1066 with the loader on it. I do love that 1066 that's an awesome tractor I would rather have a loader on a quad range tractor than a powershift you can move the shifter straightforward and straight back. We have loaders on our 4020 tractors as well I don't like powershifts they are to jerky, and not very handy for loader work I like The Synchro shift for loader work. Sure there are a lot better tractors out there with reversers and all kinds of different colors that are better but this is what I grew up on and that's just my two cents worth. I wouldn't buy that 4230 and put a loader on it if it had a loader on it it's whole life. Look at the frame holes on both sides of the tractor make sure they don't show a lot of wear. If you do test drive that 4230 check for blow by, bubbling in the antifreeze when you started up right away, most importantly make sure A,b,c,d ranges all work correctly if the range is a little finicky to keep it in do you ranges all work correctly if the range is a little finicky to keep it in "D" range I would walk away. I really like having my road gear. I had to run my tractor with C range only for about four years fine and dandy if you're working right around the yard but if you got to go anywhere them tractors are pretty slow as it is . I think it would probably be a pretty decent tractor for that price and would hold up well with the loader on it just take your time when you're shifting and use the clutch a lot don't be slapped shifting from 1 to 2 and from 3 to 4 back-and-forth try to run it as smooth as you possibly can and use the clutch to do so you only get so many shifts between one and two and three and four if everything works good on the tractor and you're the only person that runs it and you come to a complete stop before switching ranges it will last you a very long time . I'll bet you dollars to donuts the draft is not going to work correctly and will not adjust so plan on having to use limit chains to keep your disc mower at the right height. Definitely not the most ideal tractor for a FEL but it will work. If you're like anybody else on a budget. You will not regret the comforts of a sound guard cab they were top-of-the-line in their day.


----------



## chevytaHOE5674 (Mar 14, 2015)

8350HiTech said:


> Agree, decent baler tractor but not terribly desirable loader tractor. Aftermarket powershift parts are readily available unless it gets so bad a cast housing needs replacing. So don't let it get that bad.


Soft parts like seals and clutches are easy to get. Rebuilt one last year and needed a planetary shaft that was chewed up from a spin and welded bearing race. Not available new, and used was nearly impossible to find. Took a week of calling and searching to find one at an insane price.


----------



## Texasmark (Dec 20, 2011)

MT357 said:


> I am looking for a good used tractor with a loader to use primarily for haying, ie, pull the disc mower, round baler, and to load hay. May use it to pull a disc and cultapacker about once every 5 years or so to replant the alfalfa fields.
> 
> Just looking for something reliable and simple to maintain. I am only raising hay on 80 irrigated acres now but I am trying to purchase another 80 to 160.
> 
> ...


I had a 4230 diesel, Soundguard cab, partial (2 gear)P Shift.....like when plowing at the end of the row, slap the shifter lever, tranny drops a gear, make the turn slap the lever again, back in the previous higher gear....really neat, 2wd, no loader; JD 530 (5x6) baler; elevation 800', slope-2% grade, hot summer day, AC going full blast, could feel the baler behind the tractor on the grade as the bale grew to maybe 5% from time to tie.....not a problem, just started feeling the tractor addressing the higher loading.

4010 JD, 2wd diesel, JD 152 loader as I recall loader, may have been running a Hesston 5560, 5x6 if I remember the number correctly, don't remember having any problems with the tractor haying....baler sucked. Front tires were 9.5 x 15 or 16 recalling. Bucket came with loader and was large, forget dimensions, had 4 pin hookup to change bucket to spear and a real bear for changing alone. Remembering bad impressions: Tires were too small for the loader on soft ground.

4020 JD, 2 wd propane, Koyker loader, forget bucket size, must have also been the Hesston baler, don't remember anything that stuck in my mind so apparently it worked ok, other than propane as a tractor fuel was NOT the way to go!!!!!!!!!


----------



## VA Haymaker (Jul 1, 2014)

MT357 said:


> I am looking for a good used tractor with a loader to use primarily for haying, ie, pull the disc mower, round baler, and to load hay. May use it to pull a disc and cultapacker about once every 5 years or so to replant the alfalfa fields.
> 
> Just looking for something reliable and simple to maintain. I am only raising hay on 80 irrigated acres now but I am trying to purchase another 80 to 160.
> 
> ...


The 856 was IMHO one of IH's finest tractors, however, an engine rebuild is expensive.

The 1086 is a very good tractor, I'm guessing the hours are correct. The levers in the cab and the whole cab layout is either loved or hated. They are very much a tractor you can rebuild and maintain long term IMHO.

If the 966 were open station, it would be a good tractor. I don't think their cab was very good and certainly noisy. I'd be concerned about the hours, 4,600 or 14,600.

I know nothing about the Case tractor.

For what you're doing, I don't think I'd want a 4020 with loader.

The 4230 is a good tractor IMHO. I believe it has a wet clutch which would be nice doing loader work. Perhaps Tx Jim can chime-in and a question is - is the front end stronger than the 4020 which it replaced?

IMHO the White 2-105 is one of the best tractors of it's time built. If the hours are original, it would peak my interest more than any of the others you have on the list. Great engine and bullet proof transmission.

I have a Massey Ferguson 1105 and feel it is a very good tractor. Good cab ergonomics, visibility and lots of room. I know nothing about them as far as decent loader tractors. My MF dynos at 117 hp. The 1135 is more hp and a very good tractor too. They are IMHO a good bang for the buck and the Perkins 354 engine is thrifty on fuel and good on power. Multipower (kind of like a TA) is robust. BTW - the White 2-105 has the Perkins 354 engine too.

Make sure the AC is working on any of the tractors you are going to buy.

Good luck,

Bill


----------



## Maxpower (Nov 28, 2017)

Your tractors seem a lot more expensive then they are here in Michigan. Are these dealers or craigslist/facebook, have you found the local auctions? Maybe it's a regional thing but there's so many tractors here in the 4-6000 hour range I don't even look at anything with 8000. And yes I look at cheap old stuff. I currently run a Case 970, my only complaint is that it's pretty loud inside the cab. Sure would be a lot nicer to have something newer with AC.

I also agree, I wouldn't want a loader on my baling tractor. My Ford 3600(40hp) with a loader moves round bales just fine. Maybe consider a smaller loader tractor for that kind of stuff.


----------



## Tx Jim (Jun 30, 2014)

Bill

Yes 4230 has a wet clutch & a heavier frt axle than a 4020. My 4255 has a very similar wet clutch that has been utilized by me to rd bale for 26 yrs that has conservatively baled 100,000 rd bales plus plowed 1000's of acres & clutch is original. As I've previously stated IMHO there is no comparison for operator ease of operation & comfort of a JD 20-55 series rowcrop tractor compared to an IHC 66 or 86 series tractor(BTDT). I think Massey Ferguson are good tractors although I was never fond of their hyd systems.


----------



## Ushuaya (Jan 21, 2021)

The only thing I can do is recommend you
https://www.growgardener.com/the-best-garden-tractor/ where you will find information about the top five tractors.I have been using a Husqvarna GTH52XLS garden tractor for two years now. This one is perfect for me because I have a lawn greater than 2 acres with tricky terrain. It is the largest and most powerful garden tractor with a 52-inch cutting deck and 24 horses under the hood.Another advantage of this tractor model is its ergonomic design, comfortable cup holder, cruise control and comfortable seats complete with armrests!


----------



## dvcochran (Oct 1, 2017)

Tx Jim said:


> Do any of these tractors listed have a cab? A cab will help preserve tractor operator's lungs especially when pulling a rd baler.
> 
> I'd pick the the 4230 with the 16 speed trans & hyd(wet) traction clutch. I've read good reviews about those White & Case tractor models but I'm unaware of # of forward speeds each has. 4020's have been good tractors but Powershift trans only has 8 fwd gears. I've read good reviews about these White & Case tractor models but don't know # of forward speeds of each brand nor have I ever drive either brand..
> 
> I'm not attempting to offend loyal IHC tractor owners BUT I definitely after having driven a IHC 986 several yrs back wouldn't pick it or the other IHC's because to me they are not operator friendly enough to suit my ornery old body.


My biggest knock on the older JD tractors like the ones listed is the extreme difference in gearing when going from forward to reverse. Requires a Lot of gear jamming and is a killer for loader work. I agree they should be tolerable for mowing. An open station for baling in dry conditions is not preferable.

That said, I am sure many of us started on an open station tractor; but that has been a few years and especially in comfort, technology has been our friend.


----------



## Tx Jim (Jun 30, 2014)

dvcochran

Have you ever driven a JD tractor with quad-range trans? IMHO shifting from Fwd to Rev on a JD QR trans is very similar to shift a sync shuttle although not exactly. Yrs back I had a FEL on my 4255 & moved a lot of rd bales with it. Shifting from fwd to reverse/vice versa wasn't a problem & my tractors still operates with original Perma-clutch @ 11400+ hrs. I had to sell the JD 158 loader due to financial problem created by drought & poor hay production per acre,


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

Buy the one that uses the least fuel. It's going to be $5/g this summer. Robinette just rejoined paris accord and canceled keystone XL


----------



## Tx Jim (Jun 30, 2014)

My JD 4255 uses 3.2 GPH pulling my rd baler which is fairly decent for an older tractor.


----------



## Stxpecans123 (May 18, 2020)

Tx Jim said:


> My JD 4255 uses 3.2 GPH pulling my rd baler which is fairly decent for an older tractor.


You sure about that?
Nebraska test/tractor data says at around 3.2 gal/hr your only making about 25pto hp. Been around plenty of those tractors to say no that isnt correct. No way jose


----------



## Gearclash (Nov 25, 2010)

Stxpecans123 said:


> You sure about that?
> Nebraska test/tractor data says at around 3.2 gal/hr your only making about 25pto hp. Been around plenty of those tractors to say no that isnt correct. No way jose


I don't very quick doubt what Tx Jim says. I run a 115 pto hp CIH in front of a 5x6 round baler (Jim's is 4x6) and I when I checked average fuel usage on a tank of fuel it was in the neighbor hood of 3.5 gal/hour. Nebraska would say I was only averaging about 45 hp for that tractor. Looking at Nebraska's numbers for my tractor all I can say is I don't think I could get the fuel consumption that high if I tried.

For a few years I ran a New Holland TM120 and that would suck .9 gallons per hour more than the CIH that ran beside it. Same balers. NH felt like it had 40 hp less, on paper it had 20 hp less.


----------



## Tx Jim (Jun 30, 2014)

Stxpecans123 said:


> You sure about that?
> Nebraska test/tractor data says at around 3.2 gal/hr your only making about 25pto hp. Been around plenty of those tractors to say no that isnt correct. No way jose


Yes I'm 100% positive. I checked fuel GPH on both my tractors on several occasions that I utilize to pull my JD 467 rd baler. I had a gallon meter on my storage tank prior to someone stealing the 12 volt pump & meter. As stated my 4255 used 3.2 gph & my Kubota M7040 utilized 2.5 gph making 5.5 diameter pulling baler 5-6 mph depending on smoothness of each Coastal field. I operate my baler at 480 rpm's to help conserve fuel & neither tractor has EPTO.


----------



## Stxpecans123 (May 18, 2020)

Tx Jim said:


> Yes I'm 100% positive. I checked fuel GPH on both my tractors on several occasions that I utilize to pull my JD 467 rd baler. I had a gallon meter on my storage tank prior to someone stealing the 12 volt pump & meter. As stated my 4255 used 3.2 gph & my Kubota M7040 utilized 2.5 gph making 5.5 diameter pulling baler 5-6 mph depending on smoothness of each Coastal field. I operate my baler at 480 rpm's to help conserve fuel & neither tractor has EPTO.


Ok I think you should either check your watch or your fuel meter. I have a Kubota m8540 and no way in hell you could bale for 10 hours on a tank of fuel. Best I ever done I like 6 or 7 hours tops. Now it holds 29 gallons of fuel. So your saying your m7040 can bale at 5 or 6 mph for 11.5 hours before refueling? Maybe I need to get a Deere baler, maybe that heavy Vermeer baler I am dragging around is killing my fuel burn. Are you making tight bales? 
Was this during daylight savings time????


----------



## Stxpecans123 (May 18, 2020)

Gearclash said:


> I don't very quick doubt what Tx Jim says. I run a 115 pto hp CIH in front of a 5x6 round baler (Jim's is 4x6) and I when I checked average fuel usage on a tank of fuel it was in the neighbor hood of 3.5 gal/hour. Nebraska would say I was only averaging about 45 hp for that tractor. Looking at Nebraska's numbers for my tractor all I can say is I don't think I could get the fuel consumption that high if I tried.
> 
> For a few years I ran a New Holland TM120 and that would suck .9 gallons per hour more than the CIH that ran beside it. Same balers. NH felt like it had 40 hp less, on paper it had 20 hp less.


I take it this CIH tractor was some sort of maxxum? I don't doubt a 5140, or a mx series or a new maxxum burning 3.5 but the 4255 is a whole other animal.of burning of fuel more in line with a 71xx series magnum but from my experiance the deeres at that time were harder on fuel than even the magnums.


----------



## r82230 (Mar 1, 2016)

Stxpecans123 said:


> Ok I think you should either check your watch or your fuel meter. I have a Kubota m8540 and no way in hell you could bale for 10 hours on a tank of fuel. Best I ever done I like 6 or 7 hours tops. Now it holds 29 gallons of fuel. So your saying your m7040 can bale at 5 or 6 mph for 11.5 hours before refueling? Maybe I need to get a Deere baler, maybe that heavy Vermeer baler I am dragging around is killing my fuel burn. Are you making tight bales?
> Was this during daylight savings time????


Keep in mind Jim's only running at maybe 85% of full throttle (IIRC 460-480 PTO speed), that could very well make a difference, along with the only hills he possibly encounters are fire ant (once again going off my memory  ).

Larry


----------



## Stxpecans123 (May 18, 2020)

I wonder what part of Texas, Texas Jim is from, I farm the area between Shiner, cuero and gonzales Texas.


----------



## IH 1586 (Oct 16, 2014)

Stxpecans123 said:


> Ok I think you should either check your watch or your fuel meter. I have a Kubota m8540 and no way in hell you could bale for 10 hours on a tank of fuel. Best I ever done I like 6 or 7 hours tops. Now it holds 29 gallons of fuel. So your saying your m7040 can bale at 5 or 6 mph for 11.5 hours before refueling? Maybe I need to get a Deere baler, maybe that heavy Vermeer baler I am dragging around is killing my fuel burn. Are you making tight bales?
> Was this during daylight savings time????


I would not discount what TxJim is saying. Based on my own personal fuel observations achieving those levels are easy to do.


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

Stxpecans123 said:


> Ok I think you should either check your watch or your fuel meter. I have a Kubota m8540 and no way in hell you could bale for 10 hours on a tank of fuel. Best I ever done I like 6 or 7 hours tops. Now it holds 29 gallons of fuel. So your saying your m7040 can bale at 5 or 6 mph for 11.5 hours before refueling? Maybe I need to get a Deere baler, maybe that heavy Vermeer baler I am dragging around is killing my fuel burn. Are you making tight bales?
> Was this during daylight savings time????


I believe TX Jim. I had an M7040 and made round bales with it for 2 years before stepping into a bigger tractor. Its a fuel-sipping miser of a tractor.

It will be a great choice for flat land round baling if one doesn't want to spend a lot on fuel.
Its a tough little bugger and a great starter tractor for a small, new, or even the experienced hay farmer.


----------



## Gearclash (Nov 25, 2010)

Stxpecans123 said:


> I take it this CIH tractor was some sort of maxxum? I don't doubt a 5140, or a mx series or a new maxxum burning 3.5 but the 4255 is a whole other animal.of burning of fuel more in line with a 71xx series magnum but from my experiance the deeres at that time were harder on fuel than even the magnums.


MX135. Looking at the NE tractor tests, the fuel use between the MX135 and the 4255 is not very far apart, the MX135 having a slight edge in fuel economy. The MX135 has a 65 gallon fuel tank and it will bale for 2 days before filling provided the days aren't stupid long.


----------



## Tx Jim (Jun 30, 2014)

Stxpecans123 said:


> I wonder what part of Texas, Texas Jim is from, I farm the area between Shiner, cuero and gonzales Texas.


Coyote Flats voted into existence in 2010 which is 30 Miles South of Ft Worth. No hills except Gopher & Fire-ants which causes the need for slower ground speeds!!!

I utilize electronic speed/hour meter reading & fuel tank gauge readings to calculate GPH of fuel used & as stated operate around 85% throttle in <16% moisture baling 4X5.5 diameter bales making 2-3 bale per acre hay.

I'd guess pulling the extra weight of a yellow baler over my green baler increases your tractors fuel consumption a little.


----------



## Tx Jim (Jun 30, 2014)

Stxpecans123 said:


> . Are you making tight bales?
> Was this during daylight savings time????


I'm making bales as tight as my worn out 467 baler will make. I have not weighed any of my balers bales in a few yrs. Please explain what DST has to do with making hay? I only bale hay during ""day time"" because in my old age ""my battery"" goes down with the Sun!!


----------



## Hayman1 (Jul 6, 2013)

Tx Jim said:


> I'm making bales as tight as my worn out 467 baler will make. I have not weighed any of my balers bales in a few yrs. Please explain what DST has to do with making hay? I only bale hay during ""day time"" because in my old age ""my battery"" goes down with the Sun!!


I'm with you Jim, my charge cycle gets longer every year


----------



## matador (Jun 18, 2014)

I know it's an old thread, but those White 2-105's were really good tractors. We have one and love the thing. Ours is old, tired, and the engine is pretty much done with life. We're floating the idea of having a replacement engine put in it next year. For it's size, it's just a super handy tractor, and they're really reliable. I'd rather be baling with that than our Allis 7040 honestly


----------

