Welcome! Please use the navigational links to explore our website.
PartsASAP LogoCompany Logo Auction Link (800) 853-2651

Shop Now

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

Discussion Forum
:

SMTA tire size

Welcome Guest, Log in or Register
Author 
57ringo

03-27-2003 20:20:46




Report to Moderator

What size rear tires came out on a SMTA Diesel?




[Log in to Reply]   [No Email]
randy hall

03-28-2003 14:48:37




Report to Moderator
 Re: SMTA tire size in reply to 57ringo, 03-27-2003 20:20:46  
if you are looking for total originallity the parts book says 11x38 rim with a 12 or 13x38 tire.hi crops used 8x36 rim with 12 or 13x36 tire or 8x44 rim with a12x44 tire. in any parts books that i have or on all the m's that i have or have had i've never seen a 12" deep drop center rim, although i understand that they are being produced now.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
sammy the RED

03-28-2003 12:44:08




Report to Moderator
 Re: SMTA tire size in reply to 57ringo, 03-27-2003 20:20:46  
Tire sizes were:
12x36
13x36
12x44
11x38
12x38
13x38
Steel Wheels were also available.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Dr.Evil

03-28-2003 10:45:57




Report to Moderator
 Re: SMTA tire size in reply to 57ringo, 03-27-2003 20:20:46  
SM-TAs were most commonly fitted with 12 X 38's or 13 X 38's from the plant. The new size nomencalature for tires went into effect IN 1954, same year SM-TA's were built so the new sizes would be 13.X38's and 14.9X38's. Anything else would have been installed by a prior owner in the last 49 years.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Hugh MacKay

03-28-2003 12:36:12




Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: SMTA tire size in reply to Dr.Evil, 03-28-2003 10:45:57  
Dr. Evil: Better duck your head, like you I said 1954 for the new tire sizes back about 6 months ago. About 4 guys near ate my head off. I believe I was right as I believe you are. Was just being cautious on first post. I forget the people in question but they were saying 1956.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Dr.EVIL

03-29-2003 01:13:45




Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: Re: SMTA tire size in reply to Hugh MacKay, 03-28-2003 12:36:12  
I got all My old tire books from FARMALL....They all say '54. So We're Right! Interesting comments You made about the ground up Your way, frost and compaction. Dad was the first to dual-up His old M's around Home in the early 60's. He even made clamp-on duals for the Super H He planted corn with. After We plowed in the spring We never drove on the ground again without duals except to cultivate, spray or pick corn. Everything got cultivated twice, spraying wasn't a normal practice and You can't run duals on a picker! Manure got spread in the winter when the ground was frozen, or on hay ground or hog pasture in the late summer. Back on the SM-TA tire subject, I never ever saw an M-TA with 11X38's (12.4X38) but I expect IH would build them that way. You look in the parts books and they had a LOT of odd-ball tire/wheel options. In the late 70's & early 80's they said FARMALL could build 1086's for two years and never ever build any two alike just by mixing/matching tire/wheel equipment. Mixing brands, plys, sizes and tread designs. I remember the time a keypunch person mis-typed an attachment code for some 1586's at FARMALL.... they all got 14Lx16.1's on the front and 15.5X38's on the back, We even had a special rim that You could really do that! Talk about a tractor heading up hill all the time!

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Hugh MacKay

03-29-2003 03:42:00




Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: Re: Re: SMTA tire size in reply to Dr.EVIL, 03-29-2003 01:13:45  
I can relate to your remarks on 66 and 86 series tractor and tire equipment some of them came with. My 1066 came with a very wide 15" front tire and 18.4 x 38 rears. I have complained on YT on numerous ocasions on matter of duals being very hard on wide front, especially turning under heavy draft. I don't think those wide 15" tires helped maters either. I had a lot of front end breakage on 1066 and it never had a loader. I always cussed those wee wide front tires and between that and duals front end took a lot of punishment.

I always said that if I ever bought another 100 hp plus tractor it would be 4x4 with rear duals. I think the larger tires of the 4x4 front plus fact on heavy draft they would be pulling. I think the tractor would be much easier on itself and indeed the front end. Having said that, if I were not doing pto work, I would go right to the articulated tractor. If your going to run 200 or more hp no point in having hassel of a steering front end.

In fact in this age I can't understand why we don't see articulated tractors down to 100 hp mark. If I were strictly cash cropping corn, beans and wheat as many are today, I would be looking for an articulated 125 hp tractor and not hydrostatic. The only reason I see anymore for buying a conventional tractor is if a substancial portion of work is pto work. I can see a couple of 150 hp 4x4 tractors right from my window. I don't think they have ever had a yoke on their pto shafts.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Dr.EVIL

03-30-2003 06:04:48




Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: SMTA tire size in reply to Hugh MacKay, 03-29-2003 03:42:00  
RIGHT ON Hugh! Back in the "Old Days" when I spent countless hours on 4010's & 4020's (Neighborhood was mostly Green) some WFE, some NFE, I developed a habit of jerking the steering wheel because the front wheels wouldn't turn the tractors because of weight transfer when pulling...and duals really made them hard to steer. Dad's old NFE 450 was really prone to plowing in the frt end when discing plowed ground! One week I helped My Buddy's Dad replant some wet spots in corn fields, stirred-up irregular shaped spots with a 4-180 White articlulated tractor pulling a 14 ft disc. After the first day my sides were so sore it was like someone punched Me in the kidneys ALL DAY. I had to learn how to drive all over again! Back in about 1980 one of the co-owners of ELWOOD MFG. that made the FWA axle for Farmall told Me a 75-80 HP FWA tractor was going to be the "Tractor of the Future". I thought at the time that was WAY too small for most cropping situations, but would make a great chore tractor. Fact is most new tractors of that size now are FWA proves He was right. VERSATILE made an articlualated 4 WD with 3-point hitches on both ends that was popular in that size as well. I think New Holland still makes it. Even IH was close to the mark with their 2+2's. Rumor has it C/IH/NH may be bringing the idea back again. There's a limit to how much HP You can put to the ground thru a tire without compacting it.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Hugh MacKay

03-30-2003 08:14:55




Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: SMTA tire size in reply to Dr.EVIL, 03-30-2003 06:04:48  
Dr. Evil Your friend at Elwood Mfg., wasn't far off the mark, 75-80 hp is probably the small side, but between there and 150 hp there is a lot of 4x4 tractors around. A friend of mine has several of them, I asked him, "why do you buy 75 to 100 hp 4x4 tractors, your farm is flat as the kitchen floor." His responce," They are smoother and turn so much easier pulling heavy loads".

When I bought my 1066 for dairy farm my heavy work load was NH 890 forage harvester and a 12 ton manure spreader. I only plowed 200-250 acres per year, plowed with 656D as plowing and manure spreading went on at same time. My disc was 20' and cultivator 24', neither were a real heavy load for 1066. They were economical as tillage machines just a few feet wider were a lot more expensive with heavier frames, hydraulics, etc. As I mentioned before, 1066 had duals and those extra wide 15" front tires. Both on disc and cultivator, if you weren't right on brakes turning, I have seen the front wheel on side turning to go completely under soil surface. I had a lot of younger operators and needless to say a few spindles and other front end parts got broken up. Young fellows tend to get daydreaming a bit on long day of discing. I guess we all did that. If you take a good look at that front end and the wallop behind one of those big tractors at or near full throttle, 4 to 6 mph, they could snap that front end right off, if it hit something solid.

I remember one day, I was planting corn with 656. My dad was moving seed, chemicals, etc with 300, and just generally scouting around with pickup keeping things moving. I had a young lad on 1066 and cultivator. He was a great young lad, would go all day and night with you if demand was there. His only problem was he didn't know enough to shut down his social life during those times. My dad came to me said," Mike is in that 10 acre field behind that mobile home, his head is dropping from time to time, he is not being very systematic in aprach, I think he is asleep, he is turning near end of field." My dad was 65 at the time couldn't get Mike's attention, due to his age he didn't feel comfortable trying get on machine moving at 4-5 mph. I went over, didn't try to go in front of duals, I made for hitch area, got on and started thumping on back of cab. What a relief when he stopped. My dad took the tractor and cultivator and we sent Mike off for a sleep. Not without my dad's razing on trying to burn candle at both ends.

I notice farmers around here are moving away from those hopper grain wagons, going to B-train type aluminium grain trailers. Pulling them on fields with hitch dollies and 350 hp articulated tractors, they even have air brake controlls on them. If you look at the rubber on the ground with some of these rigs, probably lower ppsi on ground than grain wagon. I notice they are quite particular on keeping highway tractors off field.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Hugh MacKay

03-28-2003 07:47:46




Report to Moderator
 Re: SMTA tire size in reply to 57ringo, 03-27-2003 20:20:46  
Tim and rusty farmall have both made good points on this matter. A lot has changed in 50 years. Soil compaction has become a concern. Less and less tractors are pulling heavy loads on hard roads. One item we have learned is more rubber on the ground and less weight will pull the same load in the field.

I was at farm just recently, while there one of those 350 hp 8 wheel drive tractors rolled into shop. When he crossed the 3" high threshold that big tractor bounced just like a baloon would. No chloride in that one. There were wheel weights on rear, purely to give same pounds per square inch on ground on both front and rear tires. If those big articulated tractors were not balanced it would create excessive wear on one gear box.

If your goals are to pull heavy loads on hard ground as in tractor pulls keep the tire size down, now there is a limit. I farmed and in the 70s bought a 1066 with duals, no added weight of any kind. My heavy loads were pto. I was working a soil type very vulnerable to soil compaction. I almost never took those duals off. The one exception was hard frozen ground in winter. Those extra pounds per square inch on ground sure count when ground is hard and some frost, snow and ice to boot.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
rustyfarmall

03-28-2003 06:59:55




Report to Moderator
 Re: SMTA tire size in reply to 57ringo, 03-27-2003 20:20:46  
There were an awful lot of super M's in this area with 15-5x38's and some with 14-9x38's. Most likely they did not come from the factory this way but would still be considered historically correct.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Tim Malin

03-28-2003 06:33:32




Report to Moderator
 Re: SMTA tire size in reply to 57ringo, 03-27-2003 20:20:46  
I always considered 13.6 to be darn close enough to original to be called restored. Like Hugh said, 12 inch rims were pretty common, and probably most popular, and a 13.6 goes on a 12" rim, so that's about as much thought as I needed to put into it the first time I really thought about it. Good luck, and remember, there is no such thing as a "perfect restoration." It is all in the eye of the beholder. I agree with those who restore a machine with farmer modifications, because I think the true life of the machine should be the way it was last very, truly used as a farm machine. All opinions is what it comes down to.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Hugh MacKay

03-28-2003 03:52:54




Report to Moderator
 Re: SMTA tire size in reply to 57ringo, 03-27-2003 20:20:46  
There were probably a couple of options; 11x38 now 12.4 and 12x38 now 13.6 I believe wider were available but the tire experts here on YT forums will say no. I suspect the wider tires were being put on outside the US Across the US midwest where most of those tractors were sold, ground was firm and wider tires were not needed. As far back as WW#2 we in eastern Canada were asking for wider tires on Farmalls. Some went to duals, but that wasn't the answer for all situations. Europeans would have been putting wider tires on the British and German built Farmalls at that time.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
[Options]  [Printer Friendly]  [Posting Help]  [Return to Forum]   [Log in to Reply]

Hop to:


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