|
Al: Canada is a bit larger than you obviously think. I did a lot of custom work, my 1066 and Deere were really only ever home long enough for planting and filling silos. On that earlier statment you made, I have never complained about the hours of service from my 1066 engine. Lets get this clear, my complaint was that IH in it's wisdom put these tractors on the market in some parts of the country without water filters. We all know cavitation is a fact of engine life when it comes to wet sleeves. At least I know now, but I didn't know when I bought the 1066. I lived in an area where forestry is a big industry, and these guys were using those same IH, Deere, Cummins and Cat engines and putting an average 3,000 hours per year on them, and quite regularly getting 15,000 to 20,000 hours to first rebuild. My point has always been, cavitation problem in those IH engines, not equiped with water filters, all occured at about 8 years of age, regardless of whether they had 2,000 hours or 10,000 hours. I didn't feel too badly about mine at 10,000 hours. How do you think the guy with 2,000 hours at 8 years felt? Take yourself for example, you must have looked after the water filter and antifreeze well for 8,400 hours in 28 years. I have said that looking at the performance of my 1066 in the 8-9,000 hour range, it was going to make 15,000 hours to first rebuild. I think if cavitation had not occured my 1066 would have made it. From that perpective, yes I was disappointed. I am and have looked at this, on the 40 or 50 tractors I was personally aware of, and my complaint has always been, just one of the many IH screwups. In the 50's we waited much too long for better TA and IPTO, fast hitch may have been fine but was killing sales, then the 560 rear problem. 06, 56, 66 and 86 were good tractors, had they improved those nickel and dime things about them. Sure Deere had nicer shifting transmissions, part of the problem of low torque. I'm sure you like I can remember many a long day when you put the 1066 in 3rd or 4th and never shifted anything all day but foreward-reverse and TA. If I were going to start farming again today, I would want 56, 66 or 86 technology. I'm fooling in more time right now with new technology than I care to mention. 5 year old Mack highway tractor. Computer is supposed to eleminate the need for stupid old country mechanics. It will not pull well above 50 mph. It doesn't matter whether trailer is empty or 45,000 lbs on it. It will pull just the same, and climb the same grades at the same speed. I maintain it has to be in the electronic accelerator feed and sensors that control governors. In high gear it is governed at about 1800 and lower gears about 2100. Computer says I'm wrong, nothing wrong with those electronics. They have been into the after cooler, turbo, air to air exchanger, all power related items. I cant get it through their skulls, this is not power. The truck will haul 25 ton up the hill as fast as it will empty. Problem is similar technology in on all these new farm tractors built since mid 1980's. Clearly this technology is designed to do nothing more than bleed our pocket books as the industry sees fit. So my apologies for the remark about only doing 8,400 hours in 28 years. If your younger than I and I suspect you are, you best grab a few more 56 or 66 series tractors. You will not make money with new ones.
|
