|
gene: Your right, it damn well wasn't economical, in the early 1960s my dad and I were cropping 225 acres with a 300 as the main power source. I can name you numerous farm jobs where that old 300 was sucking back 3 Imperial gallons per hour. 8' disk was one, 9' haybine was another, baler with thrower pulling wagons was another, I could go on and on. Why do you suppose there are so many H, M, 300, 400, 350 and 450 around today with few hours on them The diesels put them right out of the fields when came to economy. We bought one of the last 560 diesels built and later a 656 diesel. Those tractors were doing a lot of the same work the 300 did and were doing it on 1 Imperial gallon per hour. The baler and haybine were two prime examples. The diesels ran them better and fuel consumption dropped from 3 gph to 1 gph. Our haybine was a NH 460 and the 300 regularly broke 3 to 5 shear bolts per day. I can't ever remember breaking a shear bolt running that same haybine with 560 or 656. Why, the 300 would labour a bit then the governors would hit it an away goes a shear bolt. Those two diesels were steady, never wavered from their pto speed. The 300 pulled and 28 blade 16" blade size disk, while the 560 and 656 pulled a 44 blade 20" blade size disk on roughly half the fuel. Those old gassers were parked many years ago, and the 6 cylinder gassers were even worse. No one that was serious about making money farming could afford to keep those gassers around as a main power source. You take the guy down the page doing a 100 bales in three hours with a Farmall 400, that wouldn't burn much gas, crank that old 400 up to 350 to 400 bales an hour and I guarentee she'll suck back 3 GPH.
|
