Welcome! Please use the navigational links to explore our website.
PartsASAP LogoCompany Logo Auction Link (800) 853-2651

Shop Now

   Allis Chalmers Case Farmall IH Ford 8N,9N,2N Ford
   Ferguson John Deere Massey Ferguson Minn. Moline Oliver

Farmall & IHC Tractors Discussion Forum
:

misconceptions in dispute between george and I

Welcome Guest, Log in or Register
Author 
Hugh MacKay

02-11-2008 05:11:58




Report to Moderator

First let me say, George and I have exchanged e mails over night. See Scotty, it does strenghten your argument that George and I are concerned for the well being of each other.

Unlike most of you, I never believed IH did many things right. In fact I think they did a damn poor job of listening to their customers. You must understand, I've yet to see what I considered to be the perfect tractor, it hasn't been built as of 2008. I've also never seen a tractor that didn't have at least one feature I liked. Had IH done things right, my dad and I wouldn't have had to listen, (1946 to 1954) to the Cockshutt dealer two miles away, chirping up that he could sell us IPTO, all be it a clumsy tractor alongside a Farmall. I could have accepted fast hitch had I a rigid drawbar for trailing implements. 656, 666 and 686 could have had a non freewheeling TA, every manufacturer had that by the mid 60s.

Back to George and the SA, SC, H, etc. dispute. I've never said a SA would work alongside a SC and keep up, and I've never suggested a SC would work alongside a H and keep up. In 1951, less then $200. seperated a SA and SC and less than $200. seperated a SC and an H on purchase price. Most of the complaints I've heard about SC were the torque tube and engine were not rugged enough for the added wheel base over and above the SA. Most agreed the SC should have had more power. Having said that how much would it have added to the price of a Super C to beef up the torque tube, added frame rails same as H and M and finally changed the crank and rods to give C-135 engine. Most of my neighbors buying new 200 and 230 added a 1/2" plate 6" wide from clutch housing to front bolster. Some continued it to rear end to beef up the torque tube. My point is for probably the same dollars, IH could have made the C, SC, 200 and 230 a much better tractor for all around use.

What I do appologize to George for is not making myself clear enough on this stand. I know George would have liked a C-135 in his SC, 200 or 230. I'm almost betting he wouldn't frown on frame rails or a heavier torque tube either. Speaking of new tractors, I did ask George how he'd like to cultivate tobacco with a 2008 model, not being able to see the ground within 10' of tractor. I'm interseted to see his responce on that. I know some you will say tobacco is on it's way out. (maybe) I'm hearing new uses for tobacco. At any rate potato growers are still cultivating and will be into the future. Potatoes don't stay underground, one must keep burying them.

[Log in to Reply]   [No Email]
rich4

02-11-2008 13:45:59




Report to Moderator
 Re: misconceptions in dispute between george and I in reply to Hugh MacKay, 02-11-2008 05:11:58  
You are talking about old tractors, like IH and Ford and John Deere,Etc. 50-60 years ago they did a fine job. They were not Cadilac's, but did their job, there was a sufficient number of different size tractors avalable to do the job required. Most farms had more than one size tractor to fill in the gaps of the many jobs on the farm. Like many have said the dealer is important, if the dealer was not willing to help anyone, then many owners jumped ship to another brand. Perfect Tractor ??? That statement only says what you are going to do with it, more modern Kubotas and John Deere compacts run circles around the old IH, Ford. JD small tractors. They have more choices of Gearing, live hydralics, live PTO, nice 3PT, plumbed for a loader, and 4wd in many cases.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Hugh MacKay

02-11-2008 14:44:59




Report to Moderator
 Re: misconceptions in dispute between george and I in reply to rich4, 02-11-2008 13:45:59  
Rich: You don't say, well I farmed with those old tractors, 9 of them going at one time during the 70s and 80s. I'm the guy that claims the perfect tractor has yet to be built. Tractors have improved damn little since the 60S and 70s. When those old girls stopped it didn't take a six million dollar man to get them up and running.

I've run them all the way from a Farmall Cub to a 350 hp articulated. I can tell you the electronic gadgetry of the last 30 years has taken us backwards. I can take you to a dozen farms that have been without that $100,000. plus tractor for an entire cropping season because of some failure, yes, most of them less than 3 years old. I farmed for good many years with pre 1980 tractors, and never had a tractor down during the busy season.

I rest my case, THE PERFECT TRACTOR HAS YET TO BE BUILT.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
georgeky

02-11-2008 15:15:56




Report to Moderator
 Re: misconceptions in dispute between george and I in reply to Hugh MacKay, 02-11-2008 14:44:59  
Hugh, I agree 100% with that. These new tractors are no improvement whatsoever over many of the older ones. I don't need a damn thing I can't fix myself. If a 656/666/686 had a hi and low tranny along with a new TA that does hold back, that would be as near a perfect tractor as ever built.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Hugh MacKay

02-12-2008 05:46:36




Report to Moderator
 Re: misconceptions in dispute between george and I in reply to georgeky, 02-11-2008 15:15:56  
George: Your right, I've operated many tractors since right up to 2007 models, and I've yet to see any tractor I liked more than my 656. It could have and should have had a TA that didn't freewheel. Those 656, 666 and 686 were comfortable even if your posterior was plunked in that seat 16 hours. Much more comfortable than the larger 56, 66 and 86 series, I believe it was the positionong of seat in relation to steering wheel and pedals. I once planted corn with my 656, close to 48 hours non stop. I should qualify that non stop, every 4 hours a young lad I had working for me, would come with lunch, help fill up with fertilizer and seed, he'd take that fill up, (about 1 hour) I'd eat my lunch, then catch a cat nap on pickup seat.

My 656 went 10,000 hours before rebuild, and the only repairs in the 10,000 hours was a rebuild of gear shift linkage, one bent valve push rod and one hydraulic pump. There was no damn need of that pump, I shouldn't have listened to an oil guy that told me his oil was Hytran equivilant. 3 pumps within 1 month, 300, 560 and 656. Other than that it was tires, filters, oil, grease, antifreeze and fuel. I've exchanged info with many 656, 666 and 686 owners, my tractor was not unusual. Unless someone was careless the diesels were all that good. Most of the 56 series tractors were just that good, just a more perfect Farmall M.

Speaking of a more perfect Farmall M, about 5 years ago, and this story is in the YT archives. I was dump trucking about 10 miles from here, up and down the same road in planting time. Two old guys were planting corn, Farmall 300 on a 4 row corn planter and the other guy doing tillage and broadcast fertilizer with a Super M. I stopped and watched him one day, pulling one of those 8 ton, tandem axle fertilizer spreaders that most folks use 100hp plus on. He was hiking along in 4th gear, smoking his pipe, basically unconcerned the old Super M would have any difficulty on the hill in the field, he had no need to be concerned, the SM climbed the hill never missed a beat and I could still see fertilizer above the sides, so he did still have weight on.

5 miles down the same road was and new dead articulated Deere, 46' cultivator with wings down, and parked diagnol to shape of field. During the day about 6 Deere service trucks came and went. Another big Deere came in and tilled around it, then a 16 row corn planter planted around it. It sat there for two days, before it was gone. Next morning there was a guy with a 3020, 3 point field cultivator, 3 point fertilizer spreader and 4 row planter, planting the close to 2 acres the dead Deere had occupied. Can you even imagine making the payments on that big beast, having it set there the two best days of planting season. If that had been me, you'd have heard me yelling at mother Deere all the way to KY. That is my point, we never had that happen 30-40 years ago, un heard of back then. In the past 5 years I've heard more stories about farmers being without their main horse power for days at a time in the busy season, all makes too. All I can think of, there must be one hoard of wimps farming today.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
georgeky

02-11-2008 08:50:51




Report to Moderator
 Re: misconceptions in dispute between george and I in reply to Hugh MacKay, 02-11-2008 05:11:58  
Wow! I was just showing the boy who ask about dual wheels on a SC that it could be done, and would not likely hurt his tractor. I was just poking at Hugh a little as he and I have had this SC/SA debate going for some time.

They are both fine machines and hold up very well within their limits. The SC happens to fit my needs much better as I do raise tobacco, and use a 2 row transplanter to set it with. This in itself makes the SC much better for me and many tobacco farmers as we can cultivate 2 rows at once instead of one with the SA/100/130/140. Many of which are still being used to cultivate tobacco here in KY.

Duals would not work for ground work such as disking as the C-123 would NOT have the power to pull a disk wide enough to harrow out the tire tracks. Nor would the C-135. It however does work very well for mowing which is the onkly time I use the dual setup.

Like I told Hugh I have seen folks who could tear up an anvil with a rubber mallet. I also see where using any tractor on frozen ground is hard on them if not used with a little common sense and extreme care.

There is NO confict about this subject, just simply two old farts as Hugh says voicing their opinions on two fine old tractors of yesteryear.

By the way tobacco is here to stay. It makes to much money for the gov't to get rid of. Keep in mind I am not advocating the use of it as it can NOT be good for you.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Bud W

02-11-2008 06:48:20




Report to Moderator
 Re: misconceptions in dispute between george and I in reply to Hugh MacKay, 02-11-2008 05:11:58  
I can attest to the fact that you can break a SC into a number of pieces without too much difficulty. My Dad droped the frontend of his 1952 model in a ditch in the late 50's breaking the torque tube , one engine mount , the front bolster and ripping everything attached to the steering linkage off the tractor. I still have the tractor. This is where I took a free tractor added about $8000 and now have a great looking $3000 tractor ( it was Dad's first tractor and I was with him when he bought it-sentimentality can get expensive )

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
HughB

02-11-2008 06:45:04




Report to Moderator
 Re: misconceptions in dispute between george and I in reply to Hugh MacKay, 02-11-2008 05:11:58  
A comment on the C135 engine. During the high winds last week we had two trees blow down. One a big old pine tree. We cut the tree in half about ten feet above the roots. hooked on to it with my 2404 with the C135 engine. I will admit to holding my breath as to what was going to happen when I let the clutch slowly out. Would the front end rear up or would it be to heavy for the tractor. In low range and low gear it had no problem with the top half of the tree. With a little coaxing we got the other half loose and pulled it with no problem also. It is my understanding that the 2404 was basically a “C” with different sheet metal and the C135 engine. I put a lot of hours in on a C when I was younger ( yes, I am also and old F....!) I think the C with the C135 would have made a fine tractor. Also Hugh and George where not having an argument. If you read this website regularly you would know that. George, I am glad to see you are back. I was beginning to worry.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
georgeky

02-11-2008 09:07:28




Report to Moderator
 Re: misconceptions in dispute between george and I in reply to HughB, 02-11-2008 06:45:04  
Hi HughB, I haven't been anywhere. I have just been busy here, and haven't been posting much as of late. Been watching the cows fairly close as they are calving. Also been spending some time in my shack out back reloading ammunition. That is a favorite winter time hooby of mine. Like to keep plenty on hand for emergencies and such. Been doing a little rabbit hunting and trapping as well. Them there varmints are gooood with biscuits and gravy. Just wish I had a fresh ripe tomato to go with the B&G. Don't eat store bought tomato's. Just as soon eat a boot heel. Taste about the same I would guess. Didn't realize I was missed.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
hughb

02-11-2008 10:14:15




Report to Moderator
 Re: misconceptions in dispute between george and I in reply to georgeky, 02-11-2008 09:07:28  
GeorgeKy: Haven't had any Rabbit or such in about 50 yrs. But B & G, at least once a week! Biscuits in a can are a poor excuse for the real thing. Couple of places here in Alabama where you can still find home made biscuits.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
georgeky

02-11-2008 11:07:09




Report to Moderator
 Re: misconceptions in dispute between george and I in reply to hughb, 02-11-2008 10:14:15  
I eat all the wabbits I can catch or shoot. I catch more than I shoot in an old fasioned box trap with a figure 4 trigger. Gramps taught me to make these when I was a youngun. I make fresh biscuits myself or I wouldn't get any. The wife does the can trick. Not as many rabbits here as there use to be, but I still manage 12 to 15 every winter. The hay roller, fescue, and coyotes I guess have been hard on the rabbit populations here. When I was a kid you could kill your limit on most any farm around, but those have been cleaned up since the hay rollers came on the scene. Fescue replaced the Lespedeeza, clover, and various other grasses and legumes we use to have. It helps with erosion, but causes some reproductive problems in rabbits as well as other critters.

Come on up, and I will build a fire, and drag the Dutch oven out for a batch of biscuits. They are better fixed this way. I do a lot of old outdoor cowboy cooking when weather permits.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Hugh MacKay

02-11-2008 07:11:14




Report to Moderator
 Re: misconceptions in dispute between george and I in reply to HughB, 02-11-2008 06:45:04  
Hugh: Your right, George had not been present lately. At our ages one does have some concern.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
CNKS

02-11-2008 05:53:18




Report to Moderator
 Re: misconceptions in dispute between george and I in reply to Hugh MacKay, 02-11-2008 05:11:58  
Any tractor should be used for it's designed purpose. Although he didn't have the following list all at once, my dad vegetable farmed with something like a 15-30 (culitvated with mules), F20, an IH crawler (don't remember the number)2 B's (replaced the mules, just as IH intended), 2 H's, and in later years after he went broke and did the farming for others, Ford 8N's, Ferguson 30's, a WD6, and I think a 404 after I left home. Never had an A, as B's were more suited to the type of cultivation we did. I am sure a C would have been better because of the easily adjustable wheels as he had several different row widths. All had their advantages and disadvantages (not much advantage to an 8N, except the 3 point). Our neighbor had a smaller acreage and farmed with an F12, replaced by a C, replaced by a Super C. I never heard of him ever breaking anything on the C, which holds up fine unless you forget and drop the front wheels in a ditch. When IH brought out the C (IMO an excellent tractor when used for what it was designed), they were still in their learning curve -- problem was they did not learn fast enough, which ultimately led to their downfall.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Hugh MacKay

02-11-2008 07:04:51




Report to Moderator
 Re: misconceptions in dispute between george and I in reply to CNKS, 02-11-2008 05:53:18  
CNKS: One of the unique features of our farms in Atlantic Canada, most of them consisted of 60% softwood forest and softwood forest ment construction spruce and construction spruce was Amerian dollars. Yes, a cash crop that was very necessary dollars in our cash flow. I'd be willing to bet that 90% of those that survived the 30s did it as a result of that forest cash flow. Rosevelt was spending his way out of the depression by building infastructure, and that infastructure gobbled up Eastern Canadian spruce. My dad turned to the forest on the 30s, never missed a days work during the depression. At 23 years of age in 1935, was able to buy a new Ford coup with a flat head V8, and paid cash. They did it with horses, and one of biggest agricultural crops was hay to feed all those horses. So great was the horse business in the 30s, my gradfather made a business of rounding up wild western horses on the great plains of western Canada and north western US, shipping them to Eastern Canada for use in the forest industry. Our barns in those days had 34 horse stalls, and breaking those horses was wild. I just remember the end of it in the 40s, as kids we were not allowed out during horse breaking. My grand mother thought my grandfather was a cruel man with some the antics that happened during horse breaking. I've seen her out the door more than once giving her opinion.

After the war was over most returned to the farmland, keeping the forest as back up for cash flow. A lot of folks down that way bought a Ford tractor, kept one horse and could use either for family transportation. I can remember in the late 40s we had a car, going to the village, very common to pass several Ford tractors in 2 miles, with a wooden platform on the hitch, and muma perched behind papa, several sacks of feed and groceries. You would encounter as many horse and buggy combos. With the 50s prosperiety came to our area, most of those folks bought a car or pickup. The horse was on his way out, and most folks wanted a better tractor than the 8N. I'll bet our IH dealers took hundreds of 9N, 2N and 8N on trade for C, SC, etc. Since the horse was gone they took those C and SC to the woodlot in winter. Bear in mind our constant freezing temps often put 5' of frost in the ground where it was travelled. Not much cushion for a tractor around the stumps and frozen ground. W4, H and 300 stood up well, but C and SC busted a lot of spindles, torque tubes and engine blocks. I took my 130 to the bush one winter, hauled 158 cords, busted both front axle spindle housings and one final drive. You can understand how fragile a C or SC would be with a longer wheel base.

For that reason, we always thought the C-SC should have had a heavier torque tube, frame rails same as H and M and it should have had more engine.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Red Mist

02-11-2008 05:35:30




Report to Moderator
 Re: misconceptions in dispute between george and I in reply to Hugh MacKay, 02-11-2008 05:11:58  
My dog ain't in this fight. I just hope you and George stay friends and don't hurt each other's feelings. I like both of you.
mike durhan



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
georgeky

02-11-2008 09:18:31




Report to Moderator
 Re: misconceptions in dispute between george and I in reply to Red Mist, 02-11-2008 05:35:30  
Hi Mike, my feelings are not easily hurt over such things. An old friend of the family(Dads best friend) who is no longer with us use to tease me all the time when I was a 12 year old and up about my old C. He claimed it had bicycle tires on it. He farmed with 2 3000 Fords which wouldn't pull much more than the C would. This is from actual experience with the 3000 as dad also had one at one point. Anywho as far as I am concerned this doesn't bother me in the least. Hugh is not the first who didn't care for C/SC's, just as I don't care for the old two banging JD's it will go on and on as long as two people have different likes and dislikes about anything. Not a big deal to me. Take care.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
[Options]  [Printer Friendly]  [Posting Help]  [Return to Forum]   [Log in to Reply]

Hop to:


TRACTOR PARTS TRACTOR MANUALS
We sell tractor parts!  We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today. [ About Us ]

Home  |  Forums


Copyright © 1997-2023 Yesterday's Tractor Co.

All Rights Reserved. Reproduction of any part of this website, including design and content, without written permission is strictly prohibited. Trade Marks and Trade Names contained and used in this Website are those of others, and are used in this Website in a descriptive sense to refer to the products of others. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy

TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER: Tradenames and Trademarks referred to within Yesterday's Tractor Co. products and within the Yesterday's Tractor Co. websites are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Yesterday's Tractor Co., our products, or our website nor are we sponsored by them. John Deere and its logos are the registered trademarks of the John Deere Corporation. Agco, Agco Allis, White, Massey Ferguson and their logos are the registered trademarks of AGCO Corporation. Case, Case-IH, Farmall, International Harvester, New Holland and their logos are registered trademarks of CNH Global N.V.

Yesterday's Tractors - Antique Tractor Headquarters

Website Accessibility Policy