Branson Tractors.....

[Texasmark]

The 8050 doesn't have a 4b Cummins, 3500 cc isn't much of an engine for a 80 hp tractor. Otherwise the tractor looks good. I thought going with a Kubota tractor was risky in the service department.

I noticed the cc's also 3409 cc = 208 cubic inch for 80hp, pretty small. (A M9540 95hp Kubota has 230 cubic inch) I have tried to find more info on the engines.

In 1995, Kukje established its diesel engine manufacturing plant, and in 2002 established an agreement with Cummins to build and supply engines for them. So the rumors are true, Branson tractors have an A series Cummins Diesel as their power plant, but how good is it as it sure isn't the 4b Cummins.

"Branson tractors have an A series Cummins Diesel as their power plant, but how good is it as it sure isn't the 4b Cummins."

Er ah sir, my 2400, 24 engine hp is a 3 cylinder swirl chambered A 1100 N (A series Cummins Licensed engine) and my 6530, 65 engine hp, 4 cylinder direct injected, naturally aspired is a "B" 3.3 NA. As I said elsewhere, there are different ways to get HP out of an engine when the end item design criteria has to be met. Also as I said before I am running the same implements with my 6530 4wd that I ran with my JD 4230 100 engine hp that was a high cube moderate rpm vs my Cummins moderate cubes and high rpms. Lots of disinformation floating around the www for whatever reason!

 

[Texasmark]

The 8050 doesn't have a 4b Cummins, 3500 cc isn't much of an engine for a 80 hp tractor. Otherwise the tractor looks good. I thought going with a Kubota tractor was risky in the service department.

I noticed the cc's also 3409 cc = 208 cubic inch for 80hp, pretty small. (A M9540 95hp Kubota has 230 cubic inch) I have tried to find more info on the engines.

In 1995, Kukje established its diesel engine manufacturing plant, and in 2002 established an agreement with Cummins to build and supply engines for them. So the rumors are true, Branson tractors have an A series Cummins Diesel as their power plant, but how good is it as it sure isn't the 4b Cummins.

"Branson tractors have an A series Cummins Diesel as their power plant, but how good is it as it sure isn't the 4b Cummins."

Er ah sir, my 2400, 24 engine hp is a 3 cylinder swirl chambered A 1100 N (A series Cummins Licensed engine) and my 6530, 65 engine hp, 4 cylinder direct injected, naturally aspired is a "B" 3.3 NA. As I said elsewhere, there are different ways to get HP out of an engine when the end item design criteria has to be met. Also as I said before I am running the same implements with my 6530 4wd that I ran with my JD 4230 100 engine hp that was a high cube moderate rpm vs my Cummins moderate cubes and high rpms.

Additionally, as stated before, why would Kukje go to the trouble and expense of getting licensed by Cummins Corp. to build their engines if they weren't going to use them, and Cummins builds thousands of engines a year in high HP categories so they certainly are capable. Lots of disinformation floating around the www for whatever reason!

 

[greybeard]

Branson is a 3-way cross. Farmtrac/Montana/Branson. (actually a 4 way..maybe even 5,6 or 7 way cross) Montana came about thru LS, which itself was a division of LG Cable/LS Cable..depending what time period you look at. LG (Lucky Goldstar) is part of LG Cable, a Korean company..makes everything from TVs to refrigerators to farm equipment. They made tractors for LG, LG-Fiat and LG-New Holland, LG Montana, some Indian outfit called TAFE, LongAgri and Farmtrac.

Branson had the manufacturing facilities and Montana had the financing.

And yes. The old saying "There's no replacement for displacement" (cubic inches) is no longer true.
How do you think all the vehicle manufacturers are getting HP out of little 4 cyl engines that used to be seen only in big bore or long stroke engines? 4 valves, better OH cam dynamics, better fuel injection, turbos and even superchargers (or both) mean high revs and high output HP. Torque at low engine rpm suffered some but that was alleviated thru the transmission and final drive ratios.

I really like the Farmtracs and almost bought one but they had some manufacturing quality problems, then went belly up about 2 weeks after I looked at them.

 

[jltrent]

Branson is a 3-way cross. Farmtrac/Montana/Branson. (actually a 4 way..maybe even 5,6 or 7 way cross) Montana came about thru LS, which itself was a division of LG Cable/LS Cable..depending what time period you look at. LG (Lucky Goldstar) is part of LG Cable, a Korean company..makes everything from TVs to refrigerators to farm equipment. They made tractors for LG, LG-Fiat and LG-New Holland, LG Montana, some Indian outfit called TAFE, LongAgri and Farmtrac.

Branson had the manufacturing facilities and Montana had the financing.

And yes. The old saying "There's no replacement for displacement" (cubic inches) is no longer true.
How do you think all the vehicle manufacturers are getting HP out of little 4 cyl engines that used to be seen only in big bore or long stroke engines? 4 valves, better OH cam dynamics, better fuel injection, turbos and even superchargers (or both) mean high revs and high output HP. Torque at low engine rpm suffered some but that was alleviated thru the transmission and final drive ratios.

I really like the Farmtracs and almost bought one but they had some manufacturing quality problems, then went belly up about 2 weeks after I looked at them.

They had one that was almost a clone to my Ford 3600, that for the price was tempting. That big fuel pump (non-CAV) it had on it turned me off somewhat and the going out of business thing ended it IMO. A local dealer had them for a while.

 

[True Grit Farms]

Branson is a 3-way cross. Farmtrac/Montana/Branson. (actually a 4 way..maybe even 5,6 or 7 way cross) Montana came about thru LS, which itself was a division of LG Cable/LS Cable..depending what time period you look at. LG (Lucky Goldstar) is part of LG Cable, a Korean company..makes everything from TVs to refrigerators to farm equipment. They made tractors for LG, LG-Fiat and LG-New Holland, LG Montana, some Indian outfit called TAFE, LongAgri and Farmtrac.

Branson had the manufacturing facilities and Montana had the financing.

And yes. The old saying "There's no replacement for displacement" (cubic inches) is no longer true.
How do you think all the vehicle manufacturers are getting HP out of little 4 cyl engines that used to be seen only in big bore or long stroke engines? 4 valves, better OH cam dynamics, better fuel injection, turbos and even superchargers (or both) mean high revs and high output HP. Torque at low engine rpm suffered some but that was alleviated thru the transmission and final drive ratios.

I really like the Farmtracs and almost bought one but they had some manufacturing quality problems, then went belly up about 2 weeks after I looked at them.

I haven't seen where the torque monsters and those that pull for a living are going with smaller displacement engines. The commercial industry from tug boats, semi trucks, large tractors, and tankers are still using large displacement engines. I was always told anything you can do to a small block you can do to a big block and get bigger results. It's the extra cost that most folks aren't willing to jump on.

 

[greybeard]

Yes, cost, weight, fuel efficiency, and of course, emissions all play a part, especially cost.
Sure, you can turbo/SC big blocks too......at a cost. The old venerable Detroit Diesel is a good example. They all come with a blower by default (eliminating intake valves), but some come with a single and even dual turbos as well, to boost HP on basically the same engine.
I worked on some big in-line 900 full load rpm White Superior engines in the drilling business many times running drill rigs with a 1 million lb hookload rating. Some were NA, others had a huge turbo on them to increase HP. They were all about Cu In and torque. It's all about how much air you can pack into a cylinder..and stoichiometric mixtures. Turbo is always a cheap low weight way to add some HP, big or small engine. So is adding more cylinders of a smaller bore. Some of the other (more modern) rigs of the same capacity used Cat and Waukeshau V8, V12 engines to be able to do the same thing, but they had a much higher maintenance.

Most tugs, locomotives, ships etc are diesel electric now (so are the drilling rigs) and that too adds more torque and better efficiency and it would work for farm tractors as well but the additional power train length, weight and cost of the generator & drive motor make that design unattractive to buyers.
(I did once work on a straight mechanical drive 'baby' tug with a 2 cycle Fairbanks engine...didn't have any kind of transmission between the engine and propeller shaft..just a clutch arrangement. To get reverse turns to 'aft', you disengaged the clutch, killed the engine, shifted a lever which moved the camshaft, and then restarted the engine in reverse rotation. A nightmare to run. There are still a few of these engines in ferries on Lake Champlain.)

 

[Atimm693]

I spent an afternoon running a Ford Workmaster 641, made me really appreciate those little Bransons.

 

[Texasmark]

On the 1000 rpm adapter I mentioned herein, funny thing happened today.

I was looking for a 3rd member cat 1-2 adapter and in that junk box I came across an adapter that I must have bought years ago when I had my JD 4020. To change shafts made a bit of a mess as a small quantity of trans/hyd. fluid spilled out and it didn't just fall out; had to work it out. Apparently I was doing something at 1000 rpm and that was the primary use for that tractor but had the occasion for 540 at times. Seems I bought the adapter as the easy way to exchange.

So, since there is a 21 spline female to 6 spline male adapter then there must be the converse and therefore you can hook your Branson up to a 1000 PTO implement having 21 splines and use the 1000 rpm position of your selector lever.

I think my usage was for a dual blade 8' Mohawk shredder I had. Running the 4020 96 hp at PTO rpms (forget the number but there was a line on the tach marked PTO) was a wast of fuel and a lot of noise. The work for the mower was light, not needing a lot of HP so I installed my 1000 shaft to get the 1000 rpm at rated PTO speed, but only ran the tractor at half the PTO rating rpms to meet the 540 input requirement for the shredder. The more I think about it the more positive that was my reasoning.

 

[chevytaHOE5674]

So, since there is a 21 spline female to 6 spline male adapter then there must be the converse and therefore you can hook your Branson up to a 1000 PTO implement having 21 splines and use the 1000 rpm position of your selector lever.

O you can but a 6 spline female to 21 spline male adaptor....

Is there any situation on God's green earth I would trust running one of them with a 60 lbs dual CV 1000rpm shaft hanging on it....? No Way. Add to the fact it will change the shaft length/pivot point and thus it's equal angles when turning won't be equal.... ie blown up CV joint.

Running a tractor on 1k pto shaft at half throttle with a 6 spline adaptor is common for lite loads and at 540rpm you won't notice any vibrations from the adaptor. At 1k rpm things start shaking bad if they aren't all in balance and tight.

 

[chevytaHOE5674]

For example last year the 1k rpm dual CV shaft on my discbine vibrated so bad at pto speed it would shake the tractor to death and probably start tearing up bearings inside if I ran it like that long. If I dropped the pto rpms to 700 or below it was smooth as glass.

Point being indroducing a pto adaptor and two extra sets of splines with tolerances stacking up is just asking for things to go bad.

 

[Silver]

Most tugs, locomotives, ships etc are diesel electric now (so are the drilling rigs) and that too adds more torque and better efficiency and it would work for farm tractors as well but the additional power train length, weight and cost of the generator & drive motor make that design unattractive to buyers.

I wouldn't be surprised to see in in farm tractors sometime soon. I've spent some time in a diesel electric dozer and I have to say Caterpillar has it figured out quite nicely. The trick was figuring out how to use AC power rather than DC. 60 percent less moving parts, and far more dirt moved per gallon of fuel. The day will come that we will see it on the farm.

 

[Texasmark]

When I ran the JD 1209 moco and 530 baler, there was a peculiar receiver on the front of the device made to connect to the JD drawbar extender for the very purpose of balancing the distances to keep the CV joints doing their jobs quietly. Neat thing about this extender and the 1209, it let you do perfect 90 degree + turns with minimal shaft vibrations.

I never ran the reversed sex adapter of what I ran so I can't speak for that. Just made an assumption as to the existence of such.

I do know that I had no vibration problems with the mower...but it was a light load and I didn't do tight turns as I recall to keep the tractor rears from contacting the mower. Don't remember vibrations and would have stopped had they occurred.

 

[chevytaHOE5674]

All the 1209s I've seen were 540 so you wouldn't see any vibration unless something was terrible wrong. I've seen bent/crooked welded/bad u joint shafts run fine at 540. It's when you spin things up to 1k that things need to be in tip top shape.

As for the drawbar extension that does make the pivots equal with the PTO in the factory position. If you add a pto adaptor you alter the shaft pivot positions without changing the drawbar positions...

 

[Texasmark]

All the 1209s I've seen were 540 so you wouldn't see any vibration unless something was terrible wrong. I've seen bent/crooked welded/bad u joint shafts run fine at 540. It's when you spin things up to 1k that things need to be in tip top shape.

As for the drawbar extension that does make the pivots equal with the PTO in the factory position. If you add a pto adaptor you alter the shaft pivot positions without changing the drawbar positions...

The vibration factor gets worse with the angle (obviously). Problem with the 1209 and 530 baler was that without the extension, first of all the drawbar connectors didn't mate up (and you had to cobble a 3 pt lift pin to get them connected) and second, you couldn't do a clean 90 turn with the moco and the turning radius of the baler was severely limited.

Agree on your comment " As for the drawbar extension that does make the pivots equal with the PTO in the factory position. If you add a pto adaptor you alter the shaft pivot positions without changing the drawbar positions..." but the degree of how bad depends on the degree of wear of the implement and the actual length variances. Like you said also: 540 is very forgiving.