# John Deere 4630?



## Goatman (Jun 11, 2010)

Recently found a John Deere 4630 for sale. I'm not fimaliar with the 4630s. Any thoughts on these?


----------



## Toyes Hill Angus (Dec 21, 2010)

my grandfather had one in the '80s, he put 7000 hours on it without problem. He always said it was a tough trade off about the auxilliary fuel tank on the front... without it you didn't have enough fuel to work all day and with it there was not enough weight toward the end of the day due to using up the fuel and not having a weight rack. You counld only mount one or the other. He also said that it didn't like to start in the cold. other than that it was a good horse


----------



## man of steel (Feb 1, 2010)

No 540 PTO.

Small shaft 1000 but don't quote me on that


----------



## OkhayBallr (Dec 18, 2009)

I think the 4630 is a very nice sprayer for the size, 4 link suspension would be nice!!!


----------



## ne_mn (Nov 25, 2010)

I think they only had a 404 in them, no 466. Mechanical seat, not hydraulic and smaller axles than a 4640. Not a bad tractor for their time.

x2, pretty sure its a small 1000


----------



## Goatman (Jun 11, 2010)

Thanks for your imput guys! The 4630 ended up being a little more rough than we wanted to have. Our neighbor now has his 4430 for sale...he said that it put out 133 on the dyno. How well would this pull a small chisel? Or any other thoughts on the 4430?


----------



## Rodney R (Jun 11, 2008)

4430's were good tractors, and were rated at 125hp, so 133 has not been turned up. Depends on locality, but the rule of thumb for our ground was 10hp per shank. We pulled a 13 shank 3pt chisel for years with our 4430.

Rodney


----------



## Goatman (Jun 11, 2010)

Thanks Rodney. It had 8500hrs on it. Was overhauled 4500hrs ago and rear end completely went through about ten years ago. I know the last couple of years it hasnt had much hard work done with it, just pulling light equipment like a hay rake. Do you think we can get another 500hrs out of the engine in it now?


----------



## hillrunner (Jan 23, 2011)

Hard to say, that 404 could last another 4000 hrs or it could go tommorow. All depends how it has been treated and maintained.


----------



## Toyes Hill Angus (Dec 21, 2010)

44 and 4630 are nearly the same tractor, both 404s, I beleive the main difference is that the 46 has an intercooler to get the extra power. If you can find a 40 series they have the 466 and start much better. IMO 4440 is the best tractor EVER built, any colour, any day. There are other good ones out there but the 4440 is in a class of its own... except for maybe the 4020 in its day


----------



## midniteplowboyy (Jul 1, 2010)

We have two 4430's and a 4440, there great tractors, only problem with them really is age causing leaks here and there from the gaskets, O-rings and hoses getting old. I wish they still made tractors that good, they've made them nicer but dont think there as dependable. For pulling a plow how much more does a guy need, well better A/C, but they steered and handled easy, good hydraulics and had a good easy clutch. I always dreamed of having a 4430 with a hydrostat for PTO work like cutting/baling hay and loader work.

Why was it overhauled @4000hrs? I'd think it should have lasted to atleast 8k. One of ours is at 10k, it uses a little oil and starts a little harder than it should but it dont smoke, it really hasn't had any major problems, but it needs rebuilt front to back, everything is getting some wear in it. The other one we rebuilt the engine around 15k, its over 18k now, everything on it has been rebuilt over the years.

For a pulling tractor I'd rather have a 4440, their a little more updated and beefier. I like the 4430's better for hay and loader work though, their a little smaller and more nimble feeling. The 4440 is a little bigger/heavier all around, the 4240 is pretty much a 4430 with a 466 and less hp. The 466's do start better, but theirs nothing wrong with the 404's, I always thought they ran smoother.


----------



## Goatman (Jun 11, 2010)

We continue to search for the right one. We would prefer a 40 or newer if the price is right.


----------



## barnrope (Mar 22, 2010)

The 4630 is a lot larger and heavier than the 4430 or 4440. The 4630 will do a little better on fuel economy than the 4440. The hood on a 4630 is much narower than the 4640 alowing for good visibility. The biggest downfall of the 4630 is the lack of a 540 PTO.


----------



## Toyes Hill Angus (Dec 21, 2010)

really barnrope, you think the 46's are better on fuel than the 44's,that must have been a sick 44 you are comparing to because the same cid (cubic inch displacement) engine making more power is going to burn more fuel as a rule, and this was my result with the two machines that used to be on my grand father's farm. The Inter cooler on the 404 in the 46 did give more effientcy to the engine in the sense that you could pound a more dense,cooler air charge into the cylinders, allowing the engine to burn more fuel and make power and not just make smoke. Besides wich who ever claimed the old JD's were good on fuel is nuts, fuel was cheaper and you didn't make power without fuel so they took alot of it.


----------



## Goatman (Jun 11, 2010)

I would think the 44 would be better on fuel as you mentioned, Toyes Hill Angus. Would another 10 years newer of a tractor make that much difference...like a 4455 compared to 4430? I believe the 55 has more power, but is it more effeicent?


----------



## barnrope (Mar 22, 2010)

My experiences have been that the 4630, with the intercooled 404 has been better on fuel than the 4440s with the non-intercooled 466. I custom bale and row crop and run a 4440 on a NH 1431 discbine and another on a Vermeer 605SM baler. The 4440 tractors are legendary.... ecxept for their fuel economy. The 4630s are more economical, but not quite as dependable in my opinion.


----------



## Toyes Hill Angus (Dec 21, 2010)

you're right the 4440 is legandary, and so is the fuel consumption when used for all she has!!! Nothing like it has work as good or used the fuel per HP (imo). The old girls used fuel, for sure but how many other tractors are there out there that were built in the earliy '80s that can sell for near 40 grand. They use fuel to make power, sold for 130 pto HP and I would eat my shirt if a weel maintained 44 didn't put out 150 on the dyno with 7000hrs showing on the clock, as I said well maintained. We still have one with 14 000 hrs (grandfather), when the 7800 was new a dealer wanted to sell one in the worst way to us. They brought it out, moved the rate controller for the liquid fertilizer over and the planter monitor, hooked it up to the 12 row 7200 planter with 3 notill coulters per row plus a trash wheel, and it would not do the job (lots of traction, no power). Next day they brought the dyno to the farm and run the 7800 and the 4440, that's when we found the problem. The 7800 made 146 HP like it should, to save alot of head scratching they hooked up the 44, it made 184 hp with 7800 hrs on original, unadjusted, out of the box engine. And you could never run a full day without needing to get fuel at some point.65 gallons isn't enough to run more than 10 hrs. my two cents...
and although the 404 is a good engine, the 466 is great.


----------



## NDVA HAYMAN (Nov 24, 2009)

I have a 1981 model JD 4240 that I keep on a 16' NH 1475 MC. It has a 466 engine with around 6700 hrs. Never had one minutes problem with it. When running in hay, she will burn about 4.5 to 5 gallons of fuel per hr. I think it holds about 45 gallons when full. I have loved this girl since the day I bought it and would not take anything for it. Love those old " Iron Horse Tractors". I also had a 4440. One tough tractor and could not be beat.


----------



## eight (Feb 2, 2011)

What are yall's thoughts on fuel consumption of a 4040? Seems to me it burns more fuel than a 4430 or a turbo'd 4240. I figure this is because it has no turbo, so uses more fuel to make the same power to pull the same implements.


----------



## Edster (Feb 23, 2010)

Not trying to be a smart arse by any means here guys. Hasn't anyone ever heard of TractorData.com ???? Go to the test section and you will find the Nebraska test data, which includes fuel consumption data.

Here's the one for the 4040------TractorData.com John Deere 4040 tractor tests information

Nice thing about JD is 90% of their models have been tested so all the info is avaible.


----------



## Goatman (Jun 11, 2010)

I was about to mention tractordata.com. Great place! Seems like Im on there all the time lookin up tractors


----------



## eight (Feb 2, 2011)

Tractordata gives full load fuel consumption. I was wondering more about part load. You rarely get close to the consumptions listed there. For example, an 8450 burns about 6gal/hr in the field at nearly full throttle, but somehow is tested at 12gal/hr on tractordata. Easy to check the 8450 because it plows all day for days. 4040 is more of a utility tractor, short days, light loads.


----------



## Ridgerunner (Jul 10, 2009)

If you look up a tractor on www.tractorhouse.com, often the listing will include a link the Nebraska test results. However, every 4040 I looked up linked me to the 4240 test results. Maybe you can google the 4040 Nebraska tests.


----------



## Ridgerunner (Jul 10, 2009)

If you look up a tractor on Used Tractors For Sale at TractorHouse.com: John Deere Tractors, used farm tractors and farm equipment, tractors for sale, Case IH, New Holland, Agco, Kubota, often the listing will include a link the Nebraska test results. However, every 4040 I looked up linked me to the 4240 test results. Maybe you can google the 4040 Nebraska tests.


----------

