|
GS: I will probably get tared and feathered on this Farmall forum for what I have to say, but here goes. I have been a Farmall man all my life, have now owned 16 of them, most bought new or near new. In the mid 1960s I was looking at buying a new 656. I looked long and hard at hydro, and decided it was not for my dairy farm. I already had a 560D gear drive. In the end I bought a 656 gear drive. In 1975 I bought two tractors, 100+ hp. The first one a 1066 gear drive with cab, air and duals. Again I looked awfully hard at a hydro 100. I wanted a tractor for shuttle work and some drawbar field work. I looked at the specs and in particular how much engine it was taking to give horse power. I turned my back on the Farmall for that second tractor and went Deere with a power shift. That machine was hammered on shuttle work from 3 and 4 foreward to reverse, no clutching, just drop the foot accelerator and shift, for more hours than I care to remember. It was only a 100 hp but would lug a 20' disk harrow on 20% less fuel than the 1066. That machine went 13,000 hours to it's first rebuild of engine and transmission. The Deere power shift transmission will cost every bit as much to rebuild as the IH hydro, but it will run 3 times the hours. Just look at where hydros were sold when new. Wasn't livestock farmers, grain farmers, etc. A full 65% of them went for precission spraying, vegetable seeders and harvesters. What possible advantage could they be on a haybine or a baler. I have baled 4000 to 5000 bales per day with an old Farmall 300, 5 speed with TA for more days than I even care to remember. No my friend unless you have precission work that requires speed changes of 1/10 mph, hydro is just an inefficient way to farm.
|
