need recomendation for tractor

For an 80 horse tractor I like the John Deere 4020 or the IH 966. I agree with Nat tho, they would be a bit of overkill for the items you have listed.

Allan

casey

People always have a tendency to read the numbers wrong.

On the business end of things, a 766 will come in at about 70 horse, a 966 around 80 and a 4020 John Deere will pull in the high 70s. Heck, a 1066 will only pull just over 100 horse at the drawbar.

That PTO power really doesn't mean a lot on a plow, packer, disc, etc. But it is always good relative coffee shop fodder. :>)

Allan

If it's drawbar pull farming you want to do, then just head for one of those 400 hp articulateds. If you think your going to farm with with the tractors you have and compete with those babies, your going to find yourself in finincial lala land.

Ifn you are going to blow make sure you got your staement straight or you look foolish.

On one side of the road was a feller working his fallow with a 986 and an old 15’ disc. Over on the other side of the fence was one of your articulated wonderments all tripled up and he had to be pulling a good 30 or 35’ of disc and his new, shiny 2005 diesel pickup sat at the end of the field.

Yep, the big guy was covering more acres that’s for sure, but I’ll just bet that little feller with the 986 was happier and odds are that he was better off money-wise, because he was working for himself and not the banks, the financial intuitions or the implement companies. These big boys these days have prostituted themselves right into being indentured servants of the money boys.

Compete you say? No, I’ve been there and I’ve done that. Took me a lifetime and one mighty long trip to the poorhouse to figure out that this is not a competition sport. Start competing with your neighbor and you are hurting no one except yourself.

I’ll work with my own money, thanks and I need to impress absolutely no one. I like my scrawny little tractors.

Allan

I know two brothers with two articulated tractors, two conventional tractors and two combines. I can tell you these guys are not working for the banks. In fact they don't even need the bank except a place to store money. The machines I listed represent less that 1/4 hp per acre worked on that farm, and yes these guys are your real competition, even though they may be 2,000 miles from you. If your not competing you will be left in the dirt. Now if competition to you is buying tractors to look at rather than use, that's your problem.

The practice of buying tractors to look at must have been quite common across North America back in the late 70's 80's. Just look at the numbers of 1970's tractors around with 5,000 to 10,000 hours currently on them . Had those tractors been bought for economic reasons, they would all have 35,000 plus hours on them by now and sitting in the scrap yard.

My late Uncle farmed close to 100 acres in the 1950, milked about 20 cows. His only source of tractor power was a Farmall Super A. He raised 9 children and always had time for an active social life. You see old Uncle W was beating that 1/4 hp per acre even in the 1950s.

Where are you at, we all know you have 170 hp give or take a bit, with 966, 686 and H. From the crops you are talking add another 100 hp for a combine. As I see it unless you are cropping 1,000 acres you may as well stay right where your currently living and use the tractors for nothing but ornaments.

There is a side benefit to truck driving. I can tell you where many old tractos are parked. Just surprise you how much more you see from one of those big rigs than from my car. I currently have a shopping list as well as inventory that doesn't cost me a cent. Not hard to make money if you can convince someone else to invest in inventory.

Any day I need a truck I have one available, (actually a choice of two) so here I am with no capital investment, no inventory investment, sure beats farming. Not so sure I would want to do it for a living.

By the way if you see that rain, send some along. We are now six week into a no rain situation. Crops are off to a good start but we do need rain, in very near future. I mowed my grass on Wed. and brown started showing up.

casey

Kinda sad really. I witnessed a lot of friends thinking that way back in the eighties. We farmed (played at it according to some) with nothing very big while many locals really and truely laughed at us. One neighbor guy died in his trailer (lost everything) another close friend let everything go back but his family farm and he is still making payments to hold on to it. Still one other fellow that we hired to harvest for us (the 300U wouldn't pull a chopper) is cleaning stalls at the state fairgrounds now. He lost over 1,000 acres that was given to him in an estate. Course they all had big articulated stuff. We still have the 300U and if I could frame it and hang it on the livingroom wall I would. About the time I was ready to graduate highschool we got a 966 that I still have and an Allis 190XT. Dad splurged! They were used when we got them but dad paid cash.

966: 88hp draw bar, 100hp pto

1066: 108hp draw bar, 125hp pto

4020: 84hp draw bar, 95hp pto

yes the numbers are close but i don't know of any 1066's, let alone any of the others that are near stock levels. my neighbors 966 is dynoed at 125hp pto so that would put drawbar around 110-115. pulling identical discs this spring the 766 stayed right with him and he couldn't pull away. from what i have seen and heard IH sent very few tractors out set at the rated hp levels!

casey

You have me at a disadvantage 'cause you are out there in the field now and I haven't been on these old tractors tuggin’ hard since they were new.

However, we are now some 30 years downstream and I think just the opposite effect is true because I remember them as "new" tractors; also, I think that a good many of 'em have been 'doctored' over the years instead of actually being turned up at the factory. I.E. My red mech, when he put the new engine in my 966 here a month or so ago, asked me how much I wanted him to turn it up. I told him none; and to just leave it alone.

Anyway, all I know is that when I had the old 966 and the 766 in the fields and doing the same identical work, if I crawled down off the 9 and onto the 766, it was like someone threw the air brakes on. The 766 was really quite anemic compared to my old 966. It was at least one gear difference.

I can't speak for the 1066s, 'cause I have never owned one. I always thought that blower would make it more susceptible to engine problems. As it turns out, the opposite is actually true because of that upper end oiling problem and the cooling effect of the higher air-flows. :>(

Dunno,

Allan

Something is just plain wrong here. Have you still got the line sheet or a serial number on the 1066 that you had?

The only way you can drag 160 "reliable and continuous" horses out of a 414 engine is to stroke it out to a 436.

Also, the 1066 did not sell with the CAT III option; it just was not offered in this model.

Everything you say and mention about this tractor just does not add up to it being a 1066. For whatever reason, I think you must have had a 1466.

Did it have the high-back seat?

Allan

Another item you may wish to investigate is archives here at YT. A discussion back few years suggested some 66 series tractors came off the assembly line with wrong engines. I can't tell you if these guys knew what they were talking about. I wondered at the time if these 1066's turning out 160 hp may have in fact got 436 engines. It was suggested that farmers who actually got smaller engines were compensated. You can bet your bottom dollar guy with larger engines never complained. I know I never complained about my extra horse power. Would you?

One item I do know is my tractor broke a rocker arm less than 100 hours from new. I called the dealer and was advised he had a complete new rocker arm assembly in stock as there had been a recall on 1066. They had hoped my call wouldn't come until busy season was over. Technician explained to me that early 1066 had the same rocker arm assembly as 966. This made sence to me, both engines being 414 cu inch. He explained that turbo was creating extra stress on rocker arms. I do remember as he made change there was a significant difference both in arms and shaft the rocker arms go on. What did surprise me was I would have thought this problem would have been discovered and corrected before 1975. Lets face it there were a lot of 1066 on the go by 1975.

The tractors engine was rebuilt in 1983 with close to 10,000 hours on it. It fell victim to cavitation. Crank had to be turned plus sleeve kit. IH dealer did the rebuild, never heard any great calls of 436 discovery. But then a 436 kit probably about same money as 414. Who knows? I do know where the tractor is today, but at 1,300 miles, I don't think I'll be checking it out. Just not that important to me.

I sat down with IH dealer and we speced that 1066 out piece by piece. I have a copy of 1975 IH Canadian buyers guide right in front of me, and it lists both 1066 and 1466 as Cat II or Cat III hitch. It lists 1566 as Cat III and Hydro 100, 966 and 766 as Cat II. I have never seen a 1066 with Cat II hitch. The dealers here brough them all in with Cat III. One item you should remember, US and Canadian Buyers Guides were different as was standard equipment. I had a farmer relative in New England back those days and we often compared those guides.

And no my 1066 did not have a high back seat, however here in Canada that was an option on all of them even the 666. Now if your not satisfied I think I can find that serial number, not certain but think I still have a list of my equipment.

casey

There aren't many 80HP tractors in the era that this board deals with (<1972). 706, 756, 766, 806, 826, 856, 966 are all in the 70-100HP range, row crop style, and complete overkill for the jobs you listed unless you have really tough ground. None have a gear that's really slow enough for roto-tilling, if that's your game.

I read this board daily and have come to respect and look forward to peoples input and knowledge regarding Farmall/IH . With a few recommendations I thought I could start looking around and getting some pricing ideas. I currently run a '49 farmall SA, '68 JD 3020, and a 79 JD 1630. Also a '48 Panhead, and a '67 f100. Seems like I spend alot of time staring anxiously at gauges and wondering "what was that noise". Is it too much to ask to find the perfect tractor, a bit newer, close to home, low hours, trouble free, and cheap. Maybe I should start looking under cabbage leaves.

Tony did tell me his choices back 20 years ago were IH hydros, a gear drive Deere similar to his Fords with not quite as slow reduction. He chose the Fords. His thinking, back then was gear drive would be lower maintainence than hydro. He felt the Deere was still just a bit fast. He knew full well he had to get it right as these were going to be around for a lifetime.

He tells me there are 20 to 30 year old Deeres and Fords around with deep reduction transmissions. A site you might try is called iron solutions, mainly dealers but about 9,000 tractors for sale at any given time across North America. There quite a few European tractors that fit this bill, problem is do you have a dealer. There lies the key, dealer support no matter which product or where you live.