|
LenRahilly
11-06-2006 13:32:52
|
|
Re: M Or Super M in reply to Likes The Farm, 11-06-2006 06:16:08
|
|
|
Previous comments are right on. The hydraulics on H and M are not "live," and that is a disadvantage under certain conditions. The clutch must be engaged for the pump to run. Approaching a fence while cultivating corn, you pretty much had to stop, shift to neutral, engage the clutch, raise the implement, shift back into gear and make your turn. This might not be a problem where there is plenty of room to make the turn, such as in an open field where you are disking.
I spent a good 20 years helping my father on his farm with 2 H's. They are lovely to drive, at least in comparison with what preceded them (F-20, a real bucking bronco), but a little underpowered for what was claimed for them ("full two-plow tractor," said the IHC propaganda; maybe true, but you could rarely get the H out of second gear (about 3.5 mph), even with 2 12's; same story with the 7-foot double disc, which the F-20 on 36" rubber would yank around in second or third (about 4 and 4.5 mph).
Never farmed with an M or Super M, but a few years ago a relative bought a Super M for bushhogging, and I got to use it enough to develop a feel for this tractor. It has a torquey engine, and in an open field it was as easy to drive as an H. BUT, for the kind of maneuvering that was sometimes required when using the bushhog, I found the Super M to be a bit clumsy. No power steering, and the extra weight of the tractor compared to the H made the steering definitely stiff, especially at the low speeds you sometimes use in this maneuvering. My father's H was just barely able to handle a 5' bushhog in heavy going, but the Super M made light work of this same machine.There IS a feeling of being on top of the world when you are sitting up there looking out over that big macho hood and listening to the throaty roar of that husky engine.
I was just starting to drive tractors when the H and M came out, and I remember thinking that they were the most beautiful machines ever built. I still think that the lines are exquisite, especially the overall balance in the design of the H (the M would have to be a bit longer to have this balance in its appearance). I WAS disappointed with the power of the H when my father bought one in the early 50s; I had been driving an F-20 on rubber--a brute to ride on, but lots of torque compared to the H.
A strange problem: the clutch pedal on M and Super M is pretty far out to the left because of the very wide transmission and platform. The driver is always exerting pressure both forward and outward. After a good many years, the result can be a very sloppy clutch pedal that encourages the driver's foot to slip off. I think that a machine shop can fix this with a bushing, but don't have experience myself with this repair. Other contributors may want to comment on this.
Overall, both the H and M were very well made, and I don't know of any specific mechanical weaknesses. Others may have something to say here, too.
An aside: I knew a fruit-and-vegetable farmer who bought only tractors like the Super A, Super H, Super M, late John Deere A and B, and so on, because they were cheap to buy. He had them fixed up and maintained by a local mechanic, and apparently found them to be a very economical way to mechanize his operation. This fellow really knew what he was doing, so I assume that his use of the older machines saved him money.
|
|
|
