IH's demise. . . McCardell's strike

Ultimately I don't think it was IH products that killed the company, it was management, or lack thereof! Deere wanted to license the Fast Hitch from IH, IH said no so Deere got the three point hitch instead. Had IH let Deere have it, I would bet it would be the standard today. And I say that, not being an overwhelming fan of Fast Hitch. IH fixed the cavitation problem on the 300-400 series engines with the water filter kit. People make such a big deal over the 50 series, and it was the best tractor line of the time, but it should have been introduced in at least 1976 and maybe sooner but IH simply didn't have the money to get it off the drawingboard. As it was nobody could afford to buy one. IF IH could have been doing everything else right, management-wise, they could have built the 1086 until 1988 if they wanted to and still survived. IH should have stayed out of construction altogether, and got out of refrigeration sooner. That would have freed up so much operating capital to improve farm equipment. I think you could make a case for IH getting out of the truck business alltogether as well. Truck ate up a lot of resources IH could have used to advance the farm equipment side. It was almost like two separate companies, competing for resources.

Back to your original question: as to the strike, I don't have any sympathy for the IH employees that lost their jobs. That strike was about union greed, pure and simple. All those guys had to do was read an annual report from IH, Deere, and Cat and they would have seen IH was non-competetive and needed to gets its house in order. Instead they struck over mandatory overtime. OVERTIME!! I could see it if IH was trying to cut their pay, but as it was it was a rediculous issue. I am not sure IH could have survived without the strike, but it was I believe the last nail in the coffin. Once IH sold off ag, they began to recover pretty quickly. Maybe if the strike hadn't ruined management's "feel" on what the market was doing they could have made the necessary changes. The big losers in the strike were IH's customers. IH lost a lot of heavy truck business to fleet buyers during the strike. And I remember first-hand as a kid not being able to even get parts for our IH equipment.

AS to McCardell, I think he was a victim of circumstance. Had the economy not tanked, I think he was on the right track. It is a shame IH couldn't have lured Lee Iococca over, history might have been re-written. But again whoever had come in in 77-78 (I forget the exact year?) was basically charged with trying to save a sinking ship.

My $1.99
Al

It made their freezer and AC business look like a cheap hobby in comparison.

Look at the auto industry, they were going to cram front drive cars down our throats. North Americans moved on mass to pickup trucks. Now you can't buy a 1/2 ton anymore capable of hauling a ton. Heck, my dad used to haul a ton of feed home from the feed store on the fins on the 1959 Chevy Impalla.

The old H and M Farmalls were great tractors, but IH lost it in the 1950's.

Then came the 560 transmission- rear end problems. Fooling with glow plugs.

56 series tractors did redeem them a bit. Then Cavitation of wet sleeves in 66 series tractors. Every manufacturer had the problem, IH chose to do nothing about it.

886 with the 358 German diesel was the final straw in my area. Dairy farmers had bought 766 and early 886 with the American 360 diesel for use on forage harvesters. What a disappointment to the farmer who went to see his neighbors 360 cutting silage then buying a later 886. After that one that area went as green as they get, hasn't even been a CaseIH dealer there for close to 10 years now. John Deere dealer shipped all those 886s to upstate NY.

I'm not sure what you're getting at with the 886. Were they underpowered, or not reliable?

I don't recall there being any in my area, and I'm curious.

I don't know how familiar you are with forage harvesters but often by the time you pull back the TA the load was already in there. It took torque and lots of it to carry you through. It was quite different from plowing or disking, whereby when the load hit you hit thr TA.

Manangement screwed up three ways during and after the strike. First they should have used the down time as the oppurtune time to retool and introduce the 88 series - should never have continued the 86 series after the strike. They could have opened 1981 or 1982 with a brand new tractor with all the time they needed to make sure it came out as a quality product instead of the usual first year glitches most new products suffer.

Second, they lost their nerve and gave in to the union instead of extracting the consessions IH needed to be competitive. Management thought the strike had gone on too long - when in actually they could have waited another year or two easily. Once the recession kicked in and the IH employees saw their brethen being laid off at Deere, Ford, Chrysler, and GM the idea of manditory overtime would have been welcome.

Third, when they fired up the plants they ran overtime to acheive maximum production levels in attempt to build inventories for what management predicted would be banner years. Apparently they didn't consider the fact that a grain embargo and 20%+ interest was devastating the the farmers they hoped to sell to. They went into the worst farm economy ever (including the depression) with their inventories maxed out and no money in the bank. IH could have shut down production till 1981 and been in better financial shape then most farm product manufacturers including John Deere.

In 1981 you could buy NEW 1979 IH tractors and this was after IH had discounted them to the point that they where even the price range of farmers in Mexico. It is still shocking to see how many 86 series tractors are South of the border.

How' bout it, Hugh...any of this sound familiar to you?

IH could have pumped a lot more dollars into improving both IPTO and TA. Imagine 25 years later the 686 still free wheeled on low side. IPTO wasn't anything to write home about until 06 and 56 series tractors. I personally didn't mind glow plugs that much as the only diesels I had been around up until then were pup starts. However guys new to diesel at that time did not have the patience for glow plugs.

The hitch again didn't affect me personally as dad had been a strong trailer plow guy. We had no mounted equipment. However I could see neighbors moving away from IH in droves over this. When your neighbors move in droves it affects the finincial well being of the dealer. Again I missed the 560 fiasco, mine being a 63. 656D gave me new hope IH was catching on, only to be douped by cavitation on the 1066. Dealer told on that 886 German diesel issue he may as well closed the door. That whole area is as green and blue as it could get today. There hasn't even been a CaseIH dealer for close to 10 years now.

The IH ag dealer in 1950 at Truro, NS probably had 80% of the ag market in the area. Car dealers were selling a few Fords. Cockshutt, Massey and Oliver had few farmer dealers. And the Deere dealer was a machine shop specializing in sawmill fabrication. How could it happen, when I left there green and blue were the only real factor and CaseIH dealer was gone. A family dealership that had been in business for close to 75 years gone. The Aggco dealer was selling IH parts only, as near as I could tell.

Maybe they should have accepted the deal with Deere. In my opinion the modern day 3 point hitch on large tractors incorperates as much of IH's fast hitch principles as it does Ferguson's 3 point. Lower link sencing evolved from fast hitch. That one was clearly IH's baby. The telescoping lower link which is a great assist in hitching clearly comes from fast hitch. Many of the larger implements have become semi-mounted so lower links are all that matters anyhow. In essence most tractors over 60 hp today are using what is actually a lot closer relative of fast hitch that it is 3 point.

Had Deere and IH gotten together on that one, yes they would have had quite an impact. Lets face it in 1955 across North America, Deere and IH probably shared 80% of the ag market and quite equally I might add. That old saying," No man can be an island onto himself," was never more true.