TRACTOR PARTS Allis Chalmers Case & David Brown Farmall & International Ferguson Ford & New Holland John Deere Massey Ferguson Massey Harris Minneapolis Moline Oliver & Cockshutt Kubota / Yanmar

TRACTOR MANUALS

Allis Chalmers	Case	Farmall IH	Ford 8N,9N,2N	Ford
Ferguson	John Deere	Massey Ferguson	Minn. Moline	Oliver

Tractor Talk Discussion Forum

What's better 1066 0r 4440

Welcome Guest, Log in or Register

Author

PJB

12-14-2004 15:16:07

Report to Moderator

What's a better tractor a IH 1066 black strip or JD 4440 ???? Which has more pull???

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

Brian Rett

12-20-2004 14:23:59

Report to Moderator

Re: What's better 1066 0r 4440 in reply to PJB, 12-14-2004 15:16:07

I would say go with the 1066 because normly the cab conditions are good and the till up feilds pretty darn good. They also have a good road speed. I know this because I drive one

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

yo from ontario

12-16-2004 17:34:35

Report to Moderator

Re: What's better 1066 0r 4440 in reply to PJB, 12-14-2004 15:16:07

My brother in law had a 966 and his uncle had a 4240. Every fall at silo filling time they put the Deere on the harvester and the IH on the blower if field conditions were good; the Deere being more comfortable. But when the field conditions got really tough they would switch because the IH would outperform the Deere when it came to the crunch. You folks can say what you want, I don't like either one!

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

Mitchissippi

12-15-2004 12:13:15

Report to Moderator

Re: What's better 1066 0r 4440 in reply to PJB, 12-14-2004 15:16:07

I ran 4440's on a neighbor's farm for 6 years. I've owned a 1066 for 9 years.

I like them both. Can't tell you which would out pull the other.

We bought the 1066 for about half the price of a similar 4440. We use ours for chore work and land maintenance and it has served us very well. It will bring what we gave for it nine years ago today.

I didn't want a 1086 because I did not like the view off the back of the tractor and the layout of the levers.

I've spent many 10 hour days on both the 10 and the 44. The JD is WAY more comfortable than the IH to me.

Both are dang good tractors!

Mitch

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

Cliff Neubauer

12-15-2004 09:09:48

Report to Moderator

Re: What's better 1066 0r 4440 in reply to PJB, 12-14-2004 15:16:07

A 5088 would really be a better comparison to a 4440 than a 1066/1086 as far as price is concerned. Even a 5088 will be cheaper than a 4440 and it is way more tractor. When compared to the Deere a 5088 has a better engine, transmission, cab, hydrualics, hitch, front axle and it has the two speed pto. I ran a 4440 quad range last summer loading round bales with a loader and it didn't impress me at all compared to our 1086 or 5488 and after hearing the Deere guy's brag them up all these years I was a little disapointed in it.

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

G/MAN

12-15-2004 13:34:10

Report to Moderator

Re: What's better 1066 0r 4440 in reply to Cliff Neubauer, 12-15-2004 09:09:48

I would disagree with just about every part of that post. Of course, comparing the 5088 and the 4440 on any terms, price or otherwise, is a little suspect, as the actual John Deere counterparts to the 88-series IH tractors would be the 50-series, which were head and shoulders above the 88s. As far as 5088 vs. 4440, the 5088 was not and is not way more tractor. Better engine? Did the 5088 have the DT466? If so, that's a darn good engine, but so is the Deere 6466T, and the Deere has more torque at rated RPM because they produce approximately the same horsepower at a lower speed. Transmission? No way. IH only had one tranny option to Deere's two, both of which are pretty bulletproof. The powershifts can be rough-shifting, but IH never even built a full powershift, and the 88-tranny was a wannabe Deere Quad-Range, only 10 years later. The wet-type Perma-Clutch in the 4440 QR is nigh on to indestructible. Cab? The only advantage (if you call it that) was two doors. Of course the doors are not well-made and tend to fall apart after 20 years or so, but at least they were easy to lift off if the A/C quit. I won't even get into how much handier it is to have every control except for the PTO right at your right hand with your arm comfortably on the armrest, compared to IH having levers all around you. Hydraulics? The Deere SCV is infinitely better - one integrated component compared to individual valves, couplers and the lines to connect them on an IH. Hitch? The Deere hitch is way stronger, in addition to the fact that you can mount lift-assist cylinders for more lift capacity. The load and depth controls are also superior to the IH unit. Front axle? The Deere axle is more rugged (I've never seen a knee extension break on a Deere the way I've seen welded tubes on IHs), and has way fewer moving parts than the IH, along with the superior steering motor setup instead of a steering cylinder hanging down. And of course the 4440 also has 540 and 1000 PTO shafts, albeit not at the same time. But then again I've never seen anyone run a 540 and 1000 shaft at the same time, either. More parts to break. And this is all coming from someone that cut his teeth on IH 66s and 86s, and has worked on 88s. I hated Deeres forever before I got to operate them and started working on them, at which point I started realizing just how much better they were. The simple fact is that IH was too late on everything.

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

ToyMan

12-16-2004 17:55:02

Report to Moderator

Re: What's better 1066 0r 4440 in reply to G/MAN, 12-15-2004 13:34:10

G/MAN. I agree with some of your points but on some others I don't.

88-tranny a wannabe Quad-Range? The 88-tranny is fully synchronized. I believe the quadrants in the Quad are not. The HI/LO in the 88-tranny is two clutch packs (similar to what Deere did in the 15 powershift I believe). The Quad HI/LO is an older planetary style (similar to what IH did on the older mechanical T/As).

Lift assist cylinders are optional for the 5088 (standard on the 5288 and 5488).

The hydraulics on the 50 series is a power priority system. The number 1 is built to run a hydraulic motor. You don�t need a power-beyond kit.

Only 200 difference on the rate RPMs. Big deal. The 436 does it on less fuel.

I believe both are very good tractors. I just don�t see how the Deere is head and shoulders better (including the 50 series deeres).

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

G/MAN

12-17-2004 07:42:18

Report to Moderator

Re: What's better 1066 0r 4440 in reply to ToyMan, 12-16-2004 17:55:02

You don't need a power-beyond kit to run a motor on a Deere easier, but it's an easy addition and allow you to retain use of your other two or three remotes along with motor control. If IH used two clutch packs, that would similar to the front section/clutch pack of an 8-speed Deere powershift made from '64 clear through the 40-series. They use two clutch packs as well, as do the 50-series and newer 15-speeds. Could be that's where IH got idea, don't you think? Lift-assist cylinders were available on Deeres starting with the 30-series. See anywhere IH was really ahead of Deere or innovating anything?

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

ToyMan

12-17-2004 09:58:43

Report to Moderator

Re: What's better 1066 0r 4440 in reply to G/MAN, 12-17-2004 07:42:18

Not sure how you got all of that out of my post. The point I was try to make is that I don"t see the 40 and 50 Deeres being head and shoulders better than the 50 series IH.

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

G/MAN

12-17-2004 10:19:34

Report to Moderator

Re: What's better 1066 0r 4440 in reply to ToyMan, 12-17-2004 09:58:43

It's pretty simple. Using the #1 remote on an 88 gives you one less remote to use for cylinders. The two clutch packs had been found in Deere trannies for better than 15 years. And a smaller engine running faster to produce the same horsepower is higher-stressed and will wear out faster. That's what I got out of your post - simple facts.

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

ToyMan

12-17-2004 16:43:17

Report to Moderator

Re: What's better 1066 0r 4440 in reply to G/MAN, 12-17-2004 10:19:34

You have shown me the light. Thank you, thank you. I didn"t realize deere had the two clutch packs 15 years prior. That must make them better.

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

G/MAN

12-18-2004 07:44:04

Report to Moderator

Re: What's better 1066 0r 4440 in reply to ToyMan, 12-17-2004 16:43:17

I couldn't say if it makes them better, but the 8-speeds are pretty bulletproof, and used that design from the get go. Just commenting on how IH may have gotten the idea from them. Since all the technology was there, it's hard to believe IH never produced a full powershift. Perhaps they lacked the capital and R&D money to design and retool for a completely new transmission.

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

ToyMan

12-18-2004 12:59:52

Report to Moderator

Re: What's better 1066 0r 4440 in reply to G/MAN, 12-18-2004 07:44:04

I believe you are right. From the stuff I have read money was a problem and a big chunk of the R&D money they did have was going in construction to try and compete with CAT (another big mistake). I think the original plan was to have the 88 series come out in 76, but the only thing that made it was the cab (like you stated, the 86 is just a 66 with a new cab).

The other thing I find interesting is that IH was testing a hydro/mechanical transmission in 85. I believe it was going to be introduce in 87. I�m surprised they didn�t use this transmission in the Magnums along with the 18 speed powershift.

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

G/MAN

12-20-2004 07:38:37

Report to Moderator

Re: What's better 1066 0r 4440 in reply to ToyMan, 12-18-2004 12:59:52

Yep, a lot of the Binder guys try to claim that IH going belly up was due to the farm economy and the strike. I've also heard that they spent a BIG pile of money doing warranty work and recalls on the 2+2s. But the main problem they had was trying to play in to many sandboxes at the same time. They tried to compete with Deere in ag, with Cat in construction, in the truck and pickup markets, etc. Try to do to many things and you end up not being able to do any of them very well. Although they did build darn good straight trucks. I'll give them that.

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

Cliff Neubauer

12-15-2004 16:09:10

Report to Moderator

Re: What's better 1066 0r 4440 in reply to G/MAN, 12-15-2004 13:34:10

You need to check your numbers. The 5088 has the DT-438 engine that had over 35% torque rise from the factory, I don't think Deere touched that until the 7000 series came out. The Deere engine is a good one but without a cross flow head it doesn't have the performance that the IH has and cost alot more to work on. The IH transmission is much heavier built than either of the Deere's and the same basic tranmission is still used on the MX Magnums. The IH's used a wet clutch as well and they almost never need replaced. The IH transmission is much easier to shift and from an operator's standpoint the clutch on the IH puts the Deere to shame. I guess you've never been in an 88 series cab because the only controls not on the right hand console are the park lock lever and the throttle. At Nebraska tractor tests the 88 series cab was quieter than Deere's and I think it has better visibility. When it comes to hydraulic's I'm pretty sure the 40 series Deere's have around 20 gpm at 2,500 psi to the remote valves, the IH's have 27 gpm at 2,750 psi and try adjusting the flow rate from the cab on a Deere. Off the top of my head I don't recall the lift capacity on the 3pt of the 88 series but it was close to 10,000lbs and the drawbar's on the IH's are alot stronger (try putting a 750 bushel grain cart on a 4440). The standard IH front axle was weak but the high capacity front axle offered on the 88 series is much heavier than the Deere's, they have used the same front axle on 2wd tractor's clear up through the current MX Magnum tractor's and I've never heard of one breaking. I won't say that there have been less repairs made on IH tractor's than Deere's but keep in mind that JD still hasn't built as many tractor's as IH did and they've had 20 years to catch up. I'm not saying that the Deere's aren't good tractor's but you'd better have some real numbers to back it up if your going to tell me that IH never built anything that compares to them.

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

G/MAN - Hey Cliff...

12-16-2004 10:36:32

Report to Moderator

Re: What's better 1066 0r 4440 in reply to Cliff Neubauer, 12-15-2004 16:09:10

Shall we do a little 5088/4450 comparison, since that would be the proper Deere to compare your 88 to, instead of a mid-70s 40-series? I noticed you kind of skimmed right over that little fact in your replay. And BTW, your flow specs are low even for the 4440, let alone the 46 or 48. Maybe you'd better find some REAL numbers, instead of supposing. I'm also laughing about the "high capacity" front axle. Why didn't they just put a decent axle in them as standard equipment? I don't care if they do still use them, they're still overly complicated and have twice as many moving parts to wear out as a Deere.

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

Super A

12-17-2004 06:31:46

Report to Moderator

Re: What's better 1066 0r 4440 in reply to G/MAN - Hey Cliff..., 12-16-2004 10:36:32

5088/4440 is a correct comparison. When IH introduced the 50 series they had a independent firm test them beside comparable JD's--the 4440 and 4640. The 5088,5288,5488 came out in '81 and the 4450 came out a couple years later. I don't know about all the numbers but Cliff's stats on HP, torque, etc. are correct.

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

G/MAN

12-17-2004 07:37:19

Report to Moderator

Re: What's better 1066 0r 4440 in reply to Super A, 12-17-2004 06:31:46

Uh, no it's not. The 4440 was an updated 4430 with the addition of the 6466 engine and some stronger components and more iron in the chassis. And the addition of the hydracushion seat. If the new IH was a favorable comparison against 5 year-old Deeres, then the 50-series Deere was certainly a favorable comparison to the 88s when the 50s came out a scant 2 years later, wouldn't you say? So did IH compare the 86s to the 30-series Deeres? Probably so. But, I can see IH wanting to test 5 year old competitor's iron against their latest and greatest. Unfortunately, they didn't introduce the various series simultaneously, because if they had, the 50-series Deere would have buried the 88s so deep they never would have gotten out of the hole. 86-series or 88-series, IH never had a tractor that would run with a 4840 or 4850. And if you doubt that, go find yourself a 1586, throw two 300 gallon saddle tanks on it, a 12-row 30-inch MOUNTED planter on the back and lets hit the fields.

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

Super A

12-17-2004 08:38:24

Report to Moderator

Re: What's better 1066 0r 4440 in reply to G/MAN, 12-17-2004 07:37:19

Was Deere not building the 4440 in 1981? If so then it is a fair comparison. I think the idea was to compare what was sold new at the time. I was thinking they started that series in '76 or so and built them at least thru '83 or so. I'm not trying to bash Deere, we have a 4255 at home right now and it's a fine tractor. But some of your points are not 100% correct.

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

Super A

12-17-2004 08:46:25

Report to Moderator

Re: What's better 1066 0r 4440 in reply to Super A, 12-17-2004 08:38:24

PS What were the improvements in the 50 series JD's over the '40s? Different decals, black cab posts, and headlights in the nose? ;) I recall there were some big changes in the injection pumps from the 50 to the 55's but I can't recall earlier than that.

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

G/MAN

12-17-2004 10:30:09

Report to Moderator

Re: What's better 1066 0r 4440 in reply to Super A, 12-17-2004 08:46:25

Yes, the 4440 was still being sold in '81, but had been on the market for a number of years, and as I said, although it was much more tractor than the 4430, it hadn't brought anything completely new to the scene apart from the 4440. The large-frame 4640 and 4840 were a completely new animal, but that's a different discussion, and probably not one any IH fan wants to get into, as IH didn't have anything to really compete with those big dogs when they came out. And apparently Cliff was basing his comparisons on what they sell for used now, not what was competing against what, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. The big changes in the 50-series were the switch to the 15-speed powershift and the introduction of MFWD. The tranny C1 and C2 clutch packs were moved from the front of the trans housing to the flywheel, and a two-speed unit was installed to give the 15 speeds. The PTO clutch was moved to the large gear that drives the shaft. It had been located in the clutch pack on the 20s, 30s, and 40s. The Investigator II instrument package and digital tach/speedometer/clock/PTO tach also came along with the 50s, as did the switch to brown interior upholstery. The A/C system was changed a bunch, from the Frigidaire A-6 compressor to the newer aluminum units and high- and low-pressure switches and lights instead of the superheat switch used on the 20s, 30s and 40s. The headlights in the hood look pretty, but after a few years don't do much lighting as the lenses discolor and get scratched. The real work lights found in the hoods of 55s and 60s are way better.

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

G/MAN - oops...

12-17-2004 10:32:17

Report to Moderator

Re: What's better 1066 0r 4440 in reply to G/MAN, 12-17-2004 10:30:09

That should read "hadn't brought anything new to the scene besides the 6466 engine", not 4440.

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

G/MAN

12-16-2004 07:43:54

Report to Moderator

Re: What's better 1066 0r 4440 in reply to Cliff Neubauer, 12-15-2004 16:09:10

You need to read more closely. I asked if the 5088 had the DT466, I didn't say it did. I've not only been in 88s, I've overhauled one. The serviceability with that blow-through fan is terrible. I had to pull the front cover and replace the cam. What a joke using the front cover to support the engine. I had to remove the front axle to remove the front cover. The crossflow head argument is useless, unless you're talking pulling, and even then it doesn't hold much water. IH never had an aftercooler, did they? And with the intake and exhaust on the same side, access to the nozzles is much easier on a Deere. I can have the nozzles out of a 4440 before you even get to the ones on a 5088. Deere brought out those SCV boxes that the 88s are supposedly superior to in '70. It only took IH 12 or 13 years to come up with something that would compare, and I notice you didn't comment on the fact that they still used separate valves and couplers. The flow-control is also a moot point. If you want super-precise flow control for an orbit motor, you install a power-beyond kit and a needle valve. Is a 5088 power-beyond capable? Same with the cab. It only took IH over a decade to come up with a cab that was quieter than one Deere first built in '73. I also challenge you to come up with production numbers proving that Deere hasn't built as many tractors as IH did. I've heard that "5 million" claim time and again, and it doesn't carry much weight with me. Deere built 1.2 million two-cylinders and has built over 1 million tractors in Mannheim alone. And 300,000 4010s/4020s. And a similar number of 3010s/3020s. That's nearly 3 million right there, without taking into consideration the hundreds of thousands of 30s, 40s, 50s, 55s, 60s, 4000s, 5000s, 6000s, 7000s, 8000s, 9000s, etc. It took C-IH from 1987 to 2003 to build 100,000 Magnums. Deere has built over 60,000 8000s since '96. Why do you think they introduced the MX you're bragging about? Because the 8000, which C-IH ridiculed to no end, took their good old Magnum to the cleaners in sales. MX = 8000 clone. Wasp-waist. Cornerpost display. Big square cab. Copy, copy, copy. Of course IH was always more interested in touting how many tractors they'd claimed to have built. If they'd have spent that promotional money on the tractors themselves, maybe they'd still be in business. It's pretty much a foregone conclusion that Deere has caught up to IH in production, and probably did so long ago. And of course Deere is still building tractors, and hasn't been bought out and merged. I need the numbers? I can get you pretty much any spec on any Deere tractor ever built. Shall we see who can bring more numbers to the argument?

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

supermpuller4

12-16-2004 08:44:02

Report to Moderator

Re: What's better 1066 0r 4440 in reply to G/MAN, 12-16-2004 07:43:54

We have been over this on the bashing board many times, 1 million IH tractor was a 1947 M, 3 million tractor 1955 300 ,4 million 1964 806, 5 million 1974 1066. JD made 3 millionth tractor in mid 80's.If you don't like these numbers just go and look at the 5 millionth 1066 its all painted up and sitting in a museum, no one question these numbers when they were posted fron 1947 to 1974 and its too late now for the JD boys to cry about them.

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

G/MAN

12-16-2004 10:29:41

Report to Moderator

Re: What's better 1066 0r 4440 in reply to supermpuller4, 12-16-2004 08:44:02

Nobody cares about the supposed numbers, except for you homeless IH boys that have no corporate legacy left to hold on to, other than what happened 20+ years ago. IH could claim to have built 100 million tractors, and there would be somebody gullible enough to believe it. Heck, your own numbers prove how IH started lagging behind. 8 years to go from 1 million to 3 million. 9 years to add another million. Another 10 years to add that last million. What's that tell you? The vast majority of the tractors they built were built before 1965. Considering how long they built tractors, those numbers aren't impressive at all. Same deal with the powershift IH never had. It doesn't make a bit of difference if they had one under development at the time of the buyout and if it DID make it into the Magnums. International-Harvester never had a full powershift. They didn't even have to innovate anything. The technology was already out there for the taking. And here's Cliff comparing a 5088 to a 4440, when he should be comparing it to a 4450, which was easily more tractor than a 5088. The 88s were IH's "state of the art" tractors in the early 80s, but he's comparing them to what was essentially an updated and beefed up 4430, which came out in '73. How about that 4450? Bigger engine, two tranny options (including a 15-speed full powershift), caster-action MFWD, and the list goes on and on. But, like I said, IH was a day late and a dollar short from the late 50s on. Had they introduced the 88s in the early to mid 70s, they would have had something - even without a powershift. The 86s were nothing but updated 66s with a new cab, and their cab design was limited by the fact that it had to fit on what was essentially an old chassis, instead of building something new from the ground up like Deere did with the 30s. You just keep looking through those IH-red glasses and dreaming about your 85-hp M&W kitted stock "M"s.

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

Cliff Neubauer

12-16-2004 14:56:22

Report to Moderator

Re: What's better 1066 0r 4440 in reply to G/MAN, 12-16-2004 10:29:41

The 88 series was built from late '81-'85 so they competed against both the 40 and 50 series Deeres. The reason I was comparing them to the 40 series is because they are closer in price than the 86 series so if you were buying a used tractor they would be more comparable. I find it interesting that you say IH didn't inovate anything, what about the hydro transmissions, IH was the first company to make them work and nobody else offered them in full size tractors. Deere didn't invent the powershift transmisson either, I think Ford gets the credit for that. I find it interesting that you bring up the Caster Action MFD, most of the good points you bring up on the 50-50 series Deeres were good enough that Deere dropped them with the 7000-8000 series tractors meanwhile even though the name on the side of the tractor may be different there is still a big portion of the 88 series tractors in production today.

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

G/MAN

12-16-2004 15:38:51

Report to Moderator

Re: What's better 1066 0r 4440 in reply to Cliff Neubauer, 12-16-2004 14:56:22

IH didn't invent the hydrostat. They were the only one to put it in a tractor (at least until it more recently became popular in compact utilities), but is that such a good thing? They were fine for light-duty tillage, haying and the like, but as a heavy-use workhorse, forget about it. They were far from popular. Hydrostats are about as inefficient as power transfer gets. Too much of the power gets lost as slippage and heat. They're also usually big $$$ to repair, and are much more sensitive to oil contamination than a powershift or gear transmission. Nobody else offered them because nobody else deemed them worthy of production. As far as Deere goes, the Caster-Action MFWD axles went away when the 7000s and 8000s came out because it was no longer needed to provide a tight turning radius, as those new tractors were designed from the ground up with MFWD in mind. It had been added to a pre-existing chassis style when installed on the 50-series, and the caster-action was required to get a decent turning radius. Everybody knows that. Most of the points I bring up about the 50-series were good enough to stay on the iron for another 10+ years, and the fact that the same basic layout and chassis design endured from the 30-series clear through the 60-series and remained hugely popular is all that needs to be said about those tractors. Large-frame 55s and 60s outnumber Magnums by a fair margin around here, and 8000s outnumber MXs by 10 to 1 or more. And yes, there is a large successful CNH dealership right here in town, so it's not an issue of availability. Had IH come up with a few clean-slate tractors like Deere did with the 4010, 4430, the large-frame 4640 and 4840, 7000, 8000 and 9000, they might still be in business. You can only rehash something so long before you're better off building new, and IH was the king of rehashing.

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

Super A

12-17-2004 06:37:09

Report to Moderator

Re: What's better 1066 0r 4440 in reply to G/MAN, 12-16-2004 15:38:51

You call the JD 30 series "clean slate??" How, because of the Sound Gard body???? Take that off and you have a 4020 with new tin!! JD built the same @*#$( tractor for almost 40 years!

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

G/MAN

12-17-2004 07:31:23

Report to Moderator

Re: What's better 1066 0r 4440 in reply to Super A, 12-17-2004 06:37:09

What about the Quad-Range and Perma-Clutch? True, a quad is a synchrorange with a hydraulically-actuated two-speed in essence, but it was certainly head and shoulders above the TA. Deere was smart enough to make their two-speed hydraulically actuated, so it was either in or out, not mechanically actuated so it could be slipped excessively like the torque-amplifier. And the Sound-Gard is what made the 30-series revolutionary - no doubt about it. Instead of plopping a cab on an existing chassis - i.e. the IH 66 series, it was engineered into the total tractor package. And IH stuck with a dry clutch when clearly wet clutches were the wave of the future. How many 100+ horsepower tractors are built with dry clutches today? How many UNDER 100 hp for that matter? For 40 years? Yep, the same basic layout - front-mounted hydraulic pump, two tranny options continuously except for the 4840, 4850, 4955 and 4960 which were only available with powershift, same basic cab structure with continuous improvements to enhance comfort and performance, etc. But that 40 year-old platform sure sold good, didn't it? That's whay irks you IH boys more than anything. As good as you think IHs were, they weren't good enough.

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

supermpuller4

12-16-2004 13:19:58

Report to Moderator

Re: What's better 1066 0r 4440 in reply to G/MAN, 12-16-2004 10:29:41

You really get upset when someone points out IH sold more tractors than JD, and they haven't made a tractor for 20 years, don't worry JD will catch them by 2010 or so.

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

G/MAN

12-16-2004 13:37:30

Report to Moderator

Re: What's better 1066 0r 4440 in reply to supermpuller4, 12-16-2004 13:19:58

The problem is that any time somebody doesn't agree with you and sets you straight, you automatically think they're upset. Don't flatter yourself into thinking you can upset me. You can believe whatever you want to believe, but I'd put a $100 bill down that Deere caught IH in production long ago. 1.2 million two-cylinders (conservative estimate based on serial numbers), 600,000 New Gens just in the 3010/4010/3020/4020 alone, and 1 million tractors out of Mannheim alone is 3 million, and that's not counting what Waterloo has built since '72, and a bunch of other plants. And seeing as how Deere passed IH in total sales in '58, there's no doubt who's built more farm equipment total over the years. It takes more than tractors to farm, you know. If Deere was as stuck on production numbers and making a big deal about building X amount of tractors, we'd know exactly how many tractors Deere has built. I guess they figured building the tractors was more important than telling the world how many they'd built. But hold onto your big red dream, lol.

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

supermpuller4

12-16-2004 13:51:27

Report to Moderator

Re: What's better 1066 0r 4440 in reply to G/MAN, 12-16-2004 13:37:30

Keep dreaming GMAN, I just got my new Old Power and Pride magazine going to check out the project M part 2, talk to you later.

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

G/MAN

12-16-2004 15:23:32

Report to Moderator

Re: What's better 1066 0r 4440 in reply to supermpuller4, 12-16-2004 13:51:27

I thought all you had to do was stick an M&W kit in an "M" to get 85 horsepower. That ought to win most pulls, shouldn't it? Catch you later.

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

Walter Squires

12-15-2004 14:08:32

Report to Moderator

Re: What's better 1066 0r 4440 in reply to G/MAN, 12-15-2004 13:34:10

AMEN..G/MAN

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

Walter Squires

12-15-2004 07:24:51

Report to Moderator

Re: What's better 1066 0r 4440 in reply to PJB, 12-14-2004 15:16:07

Well when you take into account the front axle is MUCH better on the Deere, Closed center hydraulic system, much better 3 point set-up, better seat, HI-LO over a torque amplifier, MUCH better shifting, no comparision on the Sound Guard Body over a IH cab, Selective control valves work 20 times better I belive I'll vote for the Deere.
Yes, each one will pull a plow and load hay equaly well, I just think the Deere will do it with less repairs and less operator fatigue.
I run a shop for 10 years and trust me the green parts are NO MORE expensive than the the red ones in fact I could always buy bearings at JD a lot cheaper than at IH, You could order parts by 4:00 PM and have them by 10:00 AM the next day at Deere, try this at IH, Case, Case IH, CNH or what ever their name will be next week, I put in TA's 20 to 1 over HI-LO's, Maby there is a reason the Deere tractors brings more at the auction than the other colors.
Only my opinion dont shoot me.

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

JDknut

12-15-2004 03:41:10

Report to Moderator

Re: What's better 1066 0r 4440 in reply to PJB, 12-14-2004 15:16:07

The 4440 is WAY more tractor than anything else in its HP class and even in classes a few HP above. Just look at resale prices.

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

Hugh MacKay

12-14-2004 19:08:42

Report to Moderator

Re: What's better 1066 0r 4440 in reply to PJB, 12-14-2004 15:16:07

PJB: I once loaned my 1066, no black stripe, and with 8,000 hours, never any rebuilds to the owner of a new 4640, who had a slight misfortune with the 4640. He had my tractor for 3 days using it on his forage harvester. When he brought it back, I asked how it worked for him. His grumpy responce," It makes the damn Deere look sick."

Now one must remember Deere was new, less than 100 hours and someone at factory didn't completely do their job. That 4640 probably did improve after break in however 1066 did have 8,000 hours on it. My friend I would never compare a 1066 or 86 with a 4440, maybe with a 4640, that if we are talking power. Comfort I would give to the Deeres.

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

BobMo

12-14-2004 17:33:55

Report to Moderator

Re: What's better 1066 0r 4440 in reply to PJB, 12-14-2004 15:16:07

I don't know if your wanting to buy or start a discussion but from an economical point why don't you just get (3) 1086's that are nearer the equivalent of the 4440 but a 1/3 the cost and see what will pull more. I don't bleed green or red but, I don't believe in wasting money either because that is truly bleeding green..... ....

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

G/MAN

12-15-2004 07:38:47

Report to Moderator

Re: What's better 1066 0r 4440 in reply to BobMo, 12-14-2004 17:33:55

Most 1086s I've seen are running about 1/2 the price of a 4440 in similar condition, not 1/3. And then of course you'd need 3 operators to go in those 3 1086s. They don't drive themselves, so how 3 tractors could outwork 1 is kind of a moot point in my opinion, if you don't have the labor to operate them. The 4440 has better hydraulics, easier wheel spacing adjustment, a better hitch, a better cab, better controls (try shifting with your left hand and reaching behind you to turn on the PTO in an 86 some time), a bigger engine, two transmission options to the one for the 1086, a nearly indestructible wet-type Perma-Clutch in the Quad-Range tractors, and many other advantages. In all fairness to the 1086, they were and are good tractors, but were little more than an updated 1066. The lack of a full powershift really hurt IH.

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

James2

12-14-2004 17:23:24

Report to Moderator

Re: What's better 1066 0r 4440 in reply to PJB, 12-14-2004 15:16:07

I am not by any means a JD fan, but if dollars are not an issue than there is no comparison between a 1066 and 4440. The 4440 not only has a better transmission/controls, the vastly superior cab makes it a slam dunk for JD. To chose a similarly priced and identical mechanical condition 1066 over a 4440, I would just have to loath the local JD dealer and be in love with the CaseIH competitor.

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

Jim J

12-14-2004 16:44:01

Report to Moderator

Re: What's better 1066 0r 4440 in reply to PJB, 12-14-2004 15:16:07

The 4440 will burn a lot more fuel than the 1066.

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

Hound

12-14-2004 16:34:14

Report to Moderator

Re: What's better 1066 0r 4440 in reply to PJB, 12-14-2004 15:16:07

In terms of money the JD will cost more, but it will be worth more, down the road. The JD (assuming sound guard cab) has a better cab, like said before, you'll be in better shape after a couple of days inside it. Mechanically, overall I'd tip my hat to the JD. What are your local dealers like? You'll need parts for both, more $$ at the deer dealership though..... sounds like the 4440 to me. Hound

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

paul

12-14-2004 15:42:10

Report to Moderator

Re: What's better 1066 0r 4440 in reply to PJB, 12-14-2004 15:16:07

If I were given for free, I'd take the JD. If I had to pay for it, all I could afford is the 1066.

I'd say a 1086 is a closer match to a 4440, the 1066 is older & the cab is not up to a comparison. The JD has better shifting, but costs more. For long days of heavy tillage, the cab noise & comfort is important. Shifting doesn't matter much. Amount of funds you have does.

I'm sure glad I have my TW-20 and don't have to decide. :)

--->Paul

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

[Options] [Printer Friendly] [Posting Help] [Return to Forum] [Log in to Reply]

TRACTOR PARTS	TRACTOR MANUALS

We sell tractor parts! We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today. [ About Us ]

Home | Forums

Copyright © 1997-2023 Yesterday's Tractor Co.
All Rights Reserved. Reproduction of any part of this website, including design and content, without written permission is strictly prohibited. Trade Marks and Trade Names contained and used in this Website are those of others, and are used in this Website in a descriptive sense to refer to the products of others. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy

TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER: Tradenames and Trademarks referred to within Yesterday's Tractor Co. products and within the Yesterday's Tractor Co. websites are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Yesterday's Tractor Co., our products, or our website nor are we sponsored by them. John Deere and its logos are the registered trademarks of the John Deere Corporation. Agco, Agco Allis, White, Massey Ferguson and their logos are the registered trademarks of AGCO Corporation. Case, Case-IH, Farmall, International Harvester, New Holland and their logos are registered trademarks of CNH Global N.V.

Yesterday's Tractors - Antique Tractor Headquarters

Website Accessibility Policy