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

Farmall & IHC Tractors Discussion Forum

706 VS 656

Welcome Guest, Log in or Register

Author

05-12-2004 13:53:53

Report to Moderator

Next year I plan on finding a 706 or a 656 tractor. I want you guys to give me your opinion on the two with all the pros and cons. it will mainly be doing hay about 15 acres. Gas or diesel doesn't matter to me. If it was heavy tillage i'd go diesel. My heart leans toward the 706. Thanks for your input!!

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

Allan

05-13-2004 16:40:44

Report to Moderator

Re: 706 VS 656 in reply to GS, 05-12-2004 13:53:53

GS,

There is a fair looking 706 on the Photo Ads. Seems to be a nice low hour tractor.

Tricycle front tho.

Allan

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

05-13-2004 17:02:37

Report to Moderator

Re: Re: 706 VS 656 in reply to Allan, 05-13-2004 16:40:44

Tim Gray in ohio. I seen that but funds are lacking this year since i just bought 61 acres.

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

Big Jim

05-13-2004 06:58:28

Report to Moderator

Re: 706 VS 656 in reply to GS, 05-12-2004 13:53:53

Do you have any hills on your acreage? A 656 will have the old style TA which is freewheeling in TA. This would eliminate 5 useable speeds if you have hills, thus leaving only 5 forward speeds. With a 706, you will get 8 forward speeds plus the new style TA. I know that a 706 is probably more tractor than you need for your acreage, but if you get a diesel, the difference in fuel consumption isn't much. Both the 656 and 706 are really good tractors. Both are over 30 years old, and are still used on working farms all over the USA.

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

Hugh MacKay

05-13-2004 02:08:03

Report to Moderator

Re: 706 VS 656 in reply to GS, 05-12-2004 13:53:53

GS: I farmed with tractors all the way from Super A to a 1066. Had as many as 8 on the go at once. Never used anything heavier than 656 or 560 in the hay field. That larger class of tractor are longer wheel base, heavier, etc. Haying has never been a big horse power job on the farm, big man power would be more apropriate. Some of the tractors I have used in the hayfield are SA, 130, 504, 300, 560 and 656. On my farm the Farmall 300 still holds the record of having baled the most hay in a single day at 4500 bales.

One other item the 656 is not just a 560 with new sheet metal. The change over from 560 to 656 was a complete engineering change in tractor configuration, making them more user friendly for mounted equipment. It doesn't matter whether it be fast hitch or three point, you can't get height of lift with the operator in the way. I always call the 656 just a Farmall M with comfort, and some extra power thrown in. I better not forget that extra power, last time I did and the guys were going to lynch me.

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

Novel Idea Guy

05-13-2004 09:42:24

Report to Moderator

Re: Re: 706 VS 656 in reply to Hugh MacKay, 05-13-2004 02:08:03

That's what I meant by "new sheet metal." The underlying mechanics, and even the engine is the same basic design as the 560.

Gotta say, the light little tractors are fine and dandy if you live on flat land, and/or aren't trying to move wagons that hold more than 75 bales. No way I'd haul loaded 9x20 wagons down the hills around upstate NY with anything less than a 706. Did it with an M, once.

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

Hugh MacKay

05-13-2004 13:36:47

Report to Moderator

Re: Re: Re: 706 VS 656 in reply to Novel Idea Guy, 05-13-2004 09:42:24

Nova Scotia wasn't exactly flat, and the time my 300 baled the 4500 bales it was pulling a NH S-69 baler with thrower and 22' wagons. I will admit my land was not excessively hilly. With wagon, hay and baler your only talking about 1.5 times the weight of a working 300. When you get 3 times the weight of the tractor behind it then you have a load.

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

05-13-2004 14:28:38

Report to Moderator

Re: Re: Re: Re: 706 VS 656 in reply to Hugh MacKay, 05-13-2004 13:36:47

Hugh you kinda answered another question i had. i wasn't sure if the 300 or 350 had enough guts to run a kicker and wagon but i know they are underrated. My ground isn't very hilly. i do have some slight grades but nothing to bad. guess i just wanted more of the upgrades and user frindly gadgets on a 656 or 706. Thank a bunch to all you guys!!!

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

Hugh MacKay

05-13-2004 18:51:30

Report to Moderator

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 706 VS 656 in reply to GS, 05-13-2004 14:28:38

GS: We ran both the NH S-69 baler with thrower and wagons, and also the NH 460 9' haybine for a couple of years before getting the 560. After that the 560D did most of both jobs, however we still often baled with 300 if 560 was still on haybine. Of course as well as running these machines a bit easier the 560D and later 656D were much more fuel efficient. It didn't take us long here in Canada to shine up to those diesels. Our governments fuel tax system has always caused us to pay about 40% more for fuel. I see the guys crying last week about $2.00 per gal gas. Guess what if you convert our litres to US gallons and Canadian dollar to US we are already over the $3.00 mark. That my friend was the real item that sidelined those old Farmall gassers here. They are quite heavy drinkers anyhow.

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

05-13-2004 19:01:29

Report to Moderator

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 706 VS 656 in reply to Hugh MacKay, 05-13-2004 18:51:30

hugh i'm from pennsylvania and i guess we cry cause we haven't seen those prices before. Ya its expensive and with time we will be complaining about 2.50/gal and so on. I appreciate all your comments cause you seem to be very knowledgable on all the ole IH,s. I know diesel would be better but gassers cost a little less for me. i'm not doing heavy tillage so it probably won't matter much. ----THANKS AGAIN!!!!

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

Allan

05-13-2004 10:23:27

Report to Moderator

Re: Re: Re: 706 VS 656 in reply to Novel Idea Guy, 05-13-2004 09:42:24

NI,

I gotta agree with you on this one. I lived all my life on the flat land until I moved up here in the hills 6 years ago.

The vertical real estate changes one's whole view and outlook on the different tractors/models. It really makes a big difference on which one you choose.

Allan

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

Novel Idea Guy

05-12-2004 20:34:30

Report to Moderator

Re: 706 VS 656 in reply to GS, 05-12-2004 13:53:53

Sorry, there's no comparison between the two. The 706 is just a whole lot more tractor. Both gassers have practically the same engine, but you get the modern hydraulic TA, hydraulic brakes, all the good stuff with the 706. The 656 is basically just a 560 with different sheet metal.

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

Allan

05-12-2004 17:31:38

Report to Moderator

Re: 706 VS 656 in reply to GS, 05-12-2004 13:53:53

GS,

Can't speak for the 706, but I think the 656s are one of the best mid-sized tractors IH ever made and just about perfect for your haying operation.

I know you don't care about the fuel, but I cannot imagine stopping all the time to pour gas into anything larger than a 40 horse tractor, price of fuel not withstanding. Just my opinion.

Hope you find what you want,

Allan

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

K.B.

05-12-2004 16:44:15

Report to Moderator

Re: 706 VS 656 in reply to GS, 05-12-2004 13:53:53

656- pros- nice size, easy to handle, tons of them out there.
cons- no power brakes, has the old-style TA.

706- pros- power everything, way overbuilt.
cons- gashog, early models don't have enough engine.

Really, you can't go wrong either way.

[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