Farmall Narrow Front End Questions

I never considered a narrow front end tractor, like some of these I saw, but I watched a guy steering one of those and it appeared that when steering, the narrow front wheels could almost turn 90 degrees - allowing a really tight turn. Must have come in handy at the end of a row!

My question is - why a narrow front end? Are they simply better at row cropping? Why the switch to wide front ends with later models? Did the H or M tractors ever come with a wide front end?

On another note, I noticed that the Farmalls engine was positioned toward the front of the tractor vs some of the old JD tractors - where their two cylinder engine was right at the transmission. It would seem that having the Farmall engine so far out front, that would have helped keep the front down when pulling.

Great tractors!

Thanks in advance,
Bill

More narrow front tractors will fit on a trailer, and more of them will fit in the barn. :-)

In general, the narrow fronts steer with less effort.

J.D. isn't the only tractor with the weight too far back. The Case SC has front wheels that must weigh 400# to keep them on the ground because the engine is so far back.

George Willer

I plan to do serious experiments with our tractor club's help to put actual numbers to the angle at which identical tractors of each type will upset. You're quoting actual numbers. Do you really know...or are you guessing? That's what I thought.

George Willer

George Willer

It would be even better if you didn't encourage others to wrongly believe the narrow front is as stable as a wide front. I certainly wouldn't try to convince anyone that a wide front couldn't be upset.

I can't address the study by Iowa State University because I don't really know whether it was a flawed study or you simply read it wrong.

I only have five narrow front tractors, but I do recognize that they are less stable than my fourteen wide front tractors.

The only two times I was afraid of upsetting was with wide fronts. In both cases it was because spindles broke with elevated loads in loaders. One was a Ford and the other a Case.

I've studied the question for years, and feel that I really do understand it. Safety is important to me.

George Willer

I skidded saw logs out of the bush with Farmall 300 narrow front , and would drive right up on top of the pile, unhook and swing logs 90 degrees. Those logs were were treee length for skidding and we cut them anywhere from 12' to 18' long on top of pile and yes those piles did get as high as 15'. My dad before me with H nf and later I with 300 nf and still later 560 wf logged many hours in the bush skidding logs and I can tell you the worst accident we ever had was someone ran over a chain saw with a set of Canadian ring chains on 300. We built logging winches for the Farmall before the days of skidders. My dad, my brother and I were the only ones ever to operate those tractors in the bush. In 1975 I did indeed buy a Forestry skidder as I could not run the risk of tractors nf or wf in bush, with hired operators.

You are not that far away, so if you want to find a couple of 300's one nf and one wf, both set on 72" wheel tread, one set of wheel weights and factory recomended calcium chloride in tires. You lead the way with WIDE FRONT, I will follow with NARROW FRONT, and I garrentee you I will come into the finish line with my front tires within 30' of your drawbar. I will pick up Paul in MI and he can come along to hold all bets if you wish to put your money where your mouth is. You choose the course entirely and we will walk it ahead of time, as I should be as familiar with terrain as you are. I am not going to do this in cold weather either, if I'm going to drive to Ohio it will be also to enjoy the country side in full growth of summer.

I agree wholeheartedly on most of what you said. Maybe this would be a good way for us to meet, and probably become good friends, but...

You're wrong about stability, and here's how we will prove it. H's will probably be the easiest to find here in both identical versions, so that's what we will use. Since I'm well past the cowboy age, we'll use a static test that will produce better results anyway. On a level surface, we'll jack one rear wheel until the tractor is balanced on the other one (with suitable restraint to prevent rollover). Then we'll measure and record the angle required. I'm sure you will be surprised.

Tractors in motion are subject to inertia, but inertia and angle produce a similar vector...very slightly in favor of the wide front.

Maybe we can arrange the test for next summer when it can be an activity for our tractor club. You'll enjoy meeting a great group of guys!

Our disagreement is about your characterizing a view contrary to yours as "crap".

George Willer

I also think you will agree that narrow front tractors must be properly equiped. I think a narrow front without wheel weights and chloride would be much more vulnerable than the wide front without We also must remember those old narrow fronts were built in the days of 36 inch corn rows and in my opinion I wouldn't get on one without the weights and set on 72" centers. Yes, I would be pleased to come to Ohio next summer for your experiment. I also think you should look at the effects of rear wheel weight. I think those figures will surprise our friends as much as difference between nf and wf.

I must admit I had some anxious moments after my post. I thought what if George takes me up on this. We are both over 60, I know my reflexes aren't what they used to be, the last time I was on the 300. Again, yes I would be pleased to join you and yes I think the results of making all tractors safer should be made public. There are a lot of narrow fronts around this old iron hobby, lets equip them as safely as possible.

I'll keep you advised as plans progress. If anyone else has a notion to do the same experiment, I think we'd all benefit from a report. It will be much more useful than claiming experience will over-rule physics, as another poster has.

Where are you from? We're in northern Ohio, not far from Cedar Point.

George Willer

I'm sure you were a gentleman then too as well.

I'll keep you posted as things unfold.

George Willer

George Willer

My narrow front tractors are restored show tractors. So what?

George Willer

• a stable one

I have also looked at your picture of the H with duals. I had 18.4 x 38 duals on my 1066 and yes I have seen it slide sideways on hills long before there was any danger of upset. My 12 year old daughter had mastered the Farmall SA and Case 1737 Uniloaders quite well. She was pestering me to let her try something larger. I thought well it may as well be the 1066 with duals, ROPS Cab and seat belt. She was disking with 20' tandem disk. I was removing some old apple trees making field a bit larger, as well as keeping my watchful eye on her. At the headland she was doing some hydraulic adjustments, forgot about the steering wheel. She went at an angle into an 6' deep V shaped drainage ditch. Thanks to those duals the biggest wound was her pride. I had to pull her out with forestry skidder with winch. In 10 minutes I had her disking again. She disked a 100 acres that day. My guess, at about 75 lbs she didn't look very big between the duals of that 1066 in cab. I was satisfied she was safe.

My dad before me taught every kid in the neighbor hood to safely drive a tractor. They were not allowed to just cowboy around but had to be doing some useful farm function. One kid in particular I remember, dad had him raking hay with Farmall 130 at 8 years of age. My estimate average daily 2,000 bales. That kid now 45 went on to become a long haul trucker, has seen every Province in Canada, every State in the US plus parts of Mexico. He has yet to put more than a scratch on a vehicle. My friend the biggest problem is and always been operator attitude and smarts.

As for the Farmalls having the engine farther forward, that's because the JD's only had 2 cylinders that ran parallel with the tractor frame.

Hope this helps.

We run a narrow front on our round baler (which has press rollers) and I don't think we lose any hay to driving over it, and we get less catching on the drawbar.

When square baling, the narrow front is a real asset at the corners, you almost never have to get off to move a bale.

Using a NH bale wagon, the wide front is handy to just barely kiss a crooked bale to line it up for the chute. The only operation where I want a wide front.