One for DB fans

[Exfarmer]

Is it correct that hydra shift never gives any trouble in 2 wd but is troublesome in 4 wd ?

sadly , very definitely not
The main problem though was oil impurity. If they could have kept the external hydraulics out of the same oil system I think it would have been seen to be a very successful gear box

 

[Drillman]

sadly , very definitely not
The main problem though was oil impurity. If they could have kept the external hydraulics out of the same oil system I think it would have been seen to be a very successful gear box

Sadly some manufacturers still haven't cottoned on to that one.

 

[Exfarmer]

The 16 series were not built to higher HP's because Case did not want the UK tractors to be interfering with sales of the 20 series US tractors which started at about 110 HP ( I think)

 

[Exfarmer]

Sadly some manufacturers still haven't cottoned on to that one.

Its a conundrum , how to have a large oil tank suitable for running external services.

 

[Thomas5060]

What DB should have done, is offered an inbetween model of the 1494 and 1594....using the 1494 engine mated to the heavier 1594 back end

A project for you john?

 

[Drillman]

Its a conundrum , how to have a large oil tank suitable for running external services.

I think it's getting to the stage where the whole tractor concept needs a massive rethink. We're all too used to the small wheels at the front, big wheels at the back concept.

Jcb have tried and succeeded to some extent with the fastrac to come up with something different and better. But i think there is a lot more scope for improvement. It's just the technology isn't there yet.

For example how hard could it be to get a genset,bung a cab on it and 4 electric wheel motors. That gets rid of almost all the drive train and problems that go with it. Bang a linkage and drawbar on the back and another electric motor for PTO drive and it's sorted. A bit of smart thinking would make it modular so it could be upgraded easily if more power was needed in future.

Of course it can't be that simple or it would have been done by now.

 

[John 1594]

I thought 1494 and 1594 had the same back end?
What's the difference then between 1394 and 1494 ?

Nope...

1394...its a 996 back end with a de-tuned 1494 engine. (1390 was pure 996 inc engine, with a posh cab)

1494, basically a 12 series, hydra or syncro, but with wet brakes and a de-tuned 1410/12 engine

1594..1690 turbo back end with lower link sensing and 1690 non turbo engine, again de tuned

 

[multi power]

Its a conundrum , how to have a large oil tank suitable for running external services.

Not difficult, even massey 1200 has own oil tank for external services

 

[John 1594]

sadly , very definitely not
The main problem though was oil impurity. If they could have kept the external hydraulics out of the same oil system I think it would have been seen to be a very successful gear box

And the solution was glaring simple, but never done.

All it needed was another external canister filter same as used to clean the oil prior to it going through the hydraulic system

this filter should have been plumbed between the hydrashift oil pump and the hydrashift control valve. Then there would have been far less trouble. As it was, they though a plain gauze stack filter on the hydrashift inlet port would be sufficient. It wasnt

 

[multi power]

Nope...

1394...its a 996 back end with a de-tuned 1494 engine. (1390 was pure 996 inc engine, with a posh cab)

1494, basically a 12 series, hydra or syncro, but with wet brakes and a de-tuned 1410/12 engine

1594..1690 turbo back end with lower link sensing and 1690 non turbo engine, again de tuned

So a 1494 has wet brakes but smaller back end than 1594
Think I get the idea now

 

[Selectamatic]

I thought 1494 and 1594 had the same back end?
What's the difference then between 1394 and 1494 ?

Not much, 13 was 72hp, 14 was 82hp. The 1394 was the most popular of the two.

The 1494 should have had the chunky back end, but I suppose that would have made it too expensive compared to the competition.

 

[Selectamatic]

Is it correct that hydra shift never gives any trouble in 2 wd but is troublesome in 4 wd ?

Not really. Maintenance trumps front axle every time.

I ex DB test engineer used to tell me that they used to test 6 cyl tractors at about 145hp, the hydra shift would stand it, where as the synchro unit would not.

 

[John 1594]

So a 1494 has wet brakes but smaller back end than 1594
Think I get the idea now

Mix and match from the parts bin!!!

3 main chassis sizes...
you have the 3 cylinder...770/780/885/1190/94

then the smaller 4 cylinder 990/995/996/1390/94,

and finally the bigger ones, 1200/1210/1212/1410/1412/1490/1494/1690/1690turbo/1594/1694

Swap and chop bits as appropriate

 

[multi power]

Not much, 13 was 72hp, 14 was 82hp. The 1394 was the most popular of the two.

The 1494 should have had the chunky back end, but I suppose that would have made it too expensive compared to the competition.

Dry brakes let down the 1394 badly
The only 1494 I ever drove really impressed me, I liked the brakes, and the hydraulics were very good with the tandem pump

 

[John 1594]

Not really. Maintenance trumps front axle every time.

I ex DB test engineer used to tell me that they used to test 6 cyl tractors at about 145hp, the hydra shift would stand it, where as the synchro unit would not.

i wouldnt fancy testing the theory....i got close, and ended up with a big bill at the end of it. The hydrashift could no doubt transmit 145...but the gearing behind it is closely related to the synchro box, and we all know what happened next

 

[John 1594]

Dry brakes let down the 1394 badly
The only 1494 I ever drove really impressed me, I liked the brakes, and the hydraulics were very good with the tandem pump

13s were never my cup of tea either, didnt like the hump in the floor, or the angle the gear lever protrudes from the seat, noiseier than a 14 as well. Dry brakes were useless on ours too. Trading up to a 1490 for loader work was a good move, its just a nicer thing all round

 

[multi power]

Not really. Maintenance trumps front axle every time.

I ex DB test engineer used to tell me that they used to test 6 cyl tractors at about 145hp, the hydra shift would stand it, where as the synchro unit would not.

Maintenance !
Well they mustn't have expected any stock farmers to buy them

 

[Selectamatic]

i wouldnt fancy testing the theory....i got close, and ended up with a big bill at the end of it. The hydrashift could no doubt transmit 145...but the gearing behind it is closely related to the synchro box, and we all know what happened next

He recons that Slow High 3 used to chip gears worse than anything else. Who knows, it's a long time ago by now.

David Brown Tractor engineers were a breed apart. When I worked with a manufacturing company, you could pick them out, each and every one, they were all fantastically good at what they did, and rose above the others. (they were also properly tight with money, possibly because they were Yorkshiremen!)

 

[Selectamatic]

Dry brakes let down the 1394 badly
The only 1494 I ever drove really impressed me, I liked the brakes, and the hydraulics were very good with the tandem pump

But much more expensive.

14's are a rarity compared to a 13.

The final runs of tractors from Meltham were 13's and 15's.

Rumour has it that there were a very few 14's and 16's made as Commemorative Editions (1's and 2's). But the whole thing was a bit of a farce, with stickers sent out to dealers to help them shift tractors towards the end.

 

[John 1594]

But much more expensive.

14's are a rarity compared to a 13.

The final runs of tractors from Meltham were 13's and 15's.

Rumour has it that there were a very few 14's and 16's made as Commemorative Editions (1's and 2's). But the whole thing was a bit of a farce, with stickers sent out to dealers to help them shift tractors towards the end.

half a dozen commemerative 14s and a single commemerative 16 i think

Out of all we have had over the years, the 1494 has been the most reliable, trouble free tractor of the fleet, ive never touched the engine, clutch or back end. Its had a new hydraulic pump, starter, lift pump and alternator, plus a few seals and o rings. Its been worked fairly hard, more before the 15 arrived, its still good, but it will need major surgery to the puh this coming winter, and a new clutch in the next 2000 hrs (its now on 5500 with the original unit

The 15 has had its moments, its previous owner didnt look after it, although it took him 20 years to run up 3000 hrs, and ive added another 3000 in the last decade. Its earnt a lot of money though, far more than its cost to keep going. Admittedly i have, and still do thrash the tits off it when i have to in order to keep the money coming in

We have had a couple of lemons, a 1210 which ate its valve seats and needed a full rebuild, and wasnt that nice a thing to drive when it was done. The 1390 was a pig, it always needed something doing, it done 2000 hrs in 10 years (loader work was all we used it for). It needed a clutch, the brakes were constant trouble and it leaked like a seive. The front axle wasnt strong enough for the loader it had, and the general experience of driving it was pathetic compared to the 1490/94s

The 1494 will always hold top place for a go anywhere do anything tractor in this yard

 

[John 1594]

anyway, without tempting fate...this all feels a bit strange, civilised even.....something is missing