1086 front end onto an 806D???

I really never thought that 66-86 series front end was much of an improvement. I had my 2000 loader on both my 560 and 656, never broke a spindle on either. My 1066 never had a loader yet we broke 3 spindles over the years. Did it with duals turning while pulling heavy loads and operators not being quick enough on brakes. 1066 steering control arms came loose at top of spindle, and that damn steering cylinder was crap. Now bear in mind the 1066 always had duals and duals beat the crap out of front ends. Truth is those big Farmalls should have a king pin like industrials or trucks and a minamum 24" tire. IH could have put a 30" tire on those, with king pins, still could have had an adjustable tread axle with no step down. It would have been so much heavier and better for both loaders or duals.

I have a friend farms 600 acres flat as your kitchen floor, dry well drained sandy loam. All his tractor are 4x4. I asked him why one day, I said,"you certainly don't need the extra traction." His responce, "They are so much smoother, they turn easier under load and the wheel doesn't break off on obsticals. That 24" wheel rolls easy."

I have much the same thing with my Farmall 130, used to get hung up plowing snow with 5.00x15 front tires. 6.00x16 look way to big but they roll over rocks, ruts, frozen lumps, etc. so much nicer.

I talked with numerous fabricators, about making up a new front end inner telescoping tube with truck type king pin. We figured it would take a good wide 24 or 30 inch tire to make tractor sit level. Most fabricators were afraid the rest of front end wouldn't stand up to the big tires. Then there was the concern power steering wouldn't handle it. I did get one fabricator to agree to mounting a non adjustable backhoe front axle. I never found a used one that wasn't worn out. New was quite expensive out of parts.

Finally I made up my mind to live with it. I liked the idea of articulated. I didn't like the 2+2, kind of like a locomotive with a volkswagon engine. John Deere were building 75 hp forestry skidders, articulated, short turning radius. I always maintained articulated tractors should started around 90 hp. I really like the idea of that NH bi-directional. I briefly drove a 350hp Deere this spring 20.8x42 duals all around. That tractor would turn on a headland just as short as a 2 wheel drive 1066 and do it at 4 mph and smooth, never had to jump on a brake pedal. Even those 75 hp Deere forestry skidders had 40-20 rear ends, same transmissions and engines as used in their tractors, even 1000 rpm pto to the winch on the back half. How easy they could have made a tractor version with 3 point hitch.

I had a 100 hp Deere forestry skidder, 8 speed power shift. It would give 1066 a hard run on tillage even though 10 was turning 50 more hp. It packed bunker silos like nothing I've ever seen, plus we used it in bush during winter. I always badgered the Deere farm and industrial dealers,about what a mistake they were making just building 150+ hp articulated tractors. What a loader tractor they could have had, bi-directional and their 8 speed power shift. By the way, my Deere went 14,000 hours before need power train rebuild. At 9,000 hours I did the articulation pivots and steering, on average a lot less money per year than 1066 front end. Deere and IH both could have and should have done 90 hp articulated tractors.

Yes, it will bolt right on there.

But like Hugh pointed out, they are two completely different designs as far as the hydraulics go.

Allan

Dealer had a customer who wanted front drive on a new 986. At that time quickest way was bring in a front drive for a new 986 already in stock. The dealer also had a customer having front end problems on a 656 with loader. They installed the new 986 front end on the 656 and put the 656 front end on a used 300.

I can't fill you in on particulars, I just happened to be at dealers the day they were making this change. When I was there they already had 986 front end bolted up to 656 and were trying to decide whether it would be better to tap into the 656 hydrostatic steering and plumb it to 986 external cylinder, or go with hooking 986 ty rods to 656 center steering control arm. I'm not sure which way they went on that, I saw the 656 later, believe steering cylinder was there but can't be certain. I do know the customer with 656 was quite happy with the change. In fact the last time I was by there about 10 years ago the 656 with loader was still on that farm. He was the kind of guy that didn't fool long with troubles, they got traded off very quickly.