Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Farmall504#20

Whats the worst IH tractor ever built ? In your opinion

Recommended Posts

I think people calling out the 560 as the "worst IH tractor ever" need to take a step back and think about it as though today were 1959-60 instead of looking through the prism of their 20/20 hindsight. I think some folks may have a tendency to subconsciously compare a tractor like that to things that came along later and, well... You just can't do that. It's like comparing a '59 ford Galaxy to a 1970 Boss 429...

Consider what a step forward the 6 cylinder was. The 560 was just a stepping stone to get them through to the '06 series that was on the way. There was nothing "wrong" with that tractor except, perhaps, the rear end issue which was just a shameful engineering oversight, IMO. They just tried to use what they already had without beefing it up to accommodate the increased HP. It was a very costly oversight, at that...

We have nice early 560D that we use a fair amount and it's one of Dad and my favorite tractors. They have a nice HP to weight ratio and handle nicely for what they are, IMO.

There were certainly some machines built that would fall into the "poor" category but I don't think you can fairly put the 560 in there.

-FT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I owned a 560D and loved it, having said that they are a pain to start on a good day, the T/A was known for very short life, the rear end was weak at best, the head cracked within a few thousand hours. It is what it is, I still really like 560's but I know what I am getting into.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im gonna have to say all of the 24 series, 624, 724 and 824 that were equiped with an agirmatic transmission. it took 3 acres to turn them around, dead slow hydralics, the "shuttle" shift in them was very jerky and you almost needed a 3rd leg to get on and off the cluttered up things. Thats my opinion,

Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anything after a 450 that had a gas engine...........I don't like the 4/560's in either form..........And the 86's just stink!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My grandfather traded a farmall 450 on a 560 in 1970. My dad would have been 23, they used it a week and my grandfather said it wasn't nothin but noise. He called the dealer and told them to put a new clutch,brakes and tires on the 450 and BRING IT BACK. My dad is the reason the 560 stayed. Sure it was bigger, looked cool compared to the 450, but just noise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem to miss my point...

...they are a pain to start on a good day

Yes... Compared to about ANYTHING that came AFTER them, they are a bit of a pain..! Is holding glow plugs for a little bit really worse than fooling around with a gas-start diesel that you had to let run on gas for several minutes during cold weather before you could switch it over to diesel?

...the T/A was knowing for very short life

You are the first person I have ever heard make that claim... At least the first that would say that they were any more prone to TA trouble than anything before them.

... the rear end was weak at best

I think that is a rather gross overstatement. Once they rectified the early problems, I don't think they had much trouble at all unless people "horsed them up". (which I know is bound to happen)

... the head cracked within a few thousad hours.

Again - Apples to Oranges. You are comparing them with the many great tractors that followed them. How about comparing the cracked head ratio to the gas-start diesels that preceded them instead?

What's more - I have had many 282D's in different machines over the years and I have never once had one crack a head. Might have something to do with how the tractor is used/abused..? Some people could break an anvil, ya' know...

I'm not trying to wage a one-man crusade to defend the 560's reputation (such as it is) but I do think that we need to look at it fairly in that it was a significant step forward from it's predecessors in many ways. Many.... CERTAINLY not all...

-FT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1468 & 1568 would have to be right in there. As of now, they're highly sought after as a collectors item (esp. a 1568 Blackstripe), but as an actual farm tractor, the DV550 was not meant to be shoved into a farm tractor in any attempt to "take the place" of the DT436. You'd have thought IH would have quit with the 1468 & never made the 1568, had they been thinking clearly.

As much as I like a 4100 or a 4156, and would like to have one someday, they'd have to be in there as well. Quite crude looking, when you take a good look at them & the linkages on them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOTS OF 460 / 560 / 666 / 686 HAD REAREND PROBLEMS.

Lots of them didn't too.

I got one with over 7500 hours, some of them working about as hard as it could be worked, and the rear end and TA are original.

Has not had the head off either and it's had an M & W turbo on most of it's life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1468 & 1568 would have to be right in there. As of now, they're highly sought after as a collectors item (esp. a 1568 Blackstripe), but as an actual farm tractor, the DV550 was not meant to be shoved into a farm tractor in any attempt to "take the place" of the DT436. You'd have thought IH would have quit with the 1468 & never made the 1568, had they been thinking clearly.

As much as I like a 4100 or a 4156, and would like to have one someday, they'd have to be in there as well. Quite crude looking, when you take a good look at them & the linkages on them.

As "crude" as a Versasiht?, If so, they were indeed primitive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need to clafify what we mean by "worst"

Do you mean "poor design" ?

Do you mean "unreliability" ?

Do you mean "outdated design"?

IH, in my opinion, keep some designs in production way past their "use by date"

I know some people will disagree but I believe Gas Diesel engines were kept in production well past their time.

The Gas Start Diesel was a brilliant design in the 1930s but very outdated when it was finally retired in the early 1960s (It was still used in some crawler models up to 1962)

Regards from Michael H B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know I will get shot BUT I had considered the 560 and 660 to win this competition as soon as I saw the title to the thread. To me they seemed to fall through the cracks between the old wD9 -600-650 and the fabulous 06-66-86 tractors and that is not saying the 88 are not great .I cut my teeth on a wd9.

I don't anything about the 560 but I believe 660 was a good tractor.

The 660 had some mechanical problems at first but it was vast improvement on its predecessor the 650.

The 650 was really an update of the 1940s "9 series" tractors and was essentially old fashion even when new.

The 660 lead on the the excellent 806.

Some 660s are stil earning their keep as farm tractors today.

I believe if IH had made a "Farmall 660" row-cropper they would have sold stacks of them

My opinion of course, regards from Michael H

P.S. I love the 650, but only as a "collector's tractor"

If I win the lottery I'd like a 660 too! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Farmall 504 gas..... Too much tractor for too little of an engine... When pulling hard, seemed like they were just before bursting into flames. The diesels seemed OK.

1568..... DV550 which was pretty much another LV series 549 gas to diesel conversion and that three speed, can't quite find the right working gear transmission.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any of the hydrostatic tractors. They had no pull power and if the transmission oil and filter weren't changed every year would soon need transmission jobs. I have seen several hydros parted out because the hydro was shot. They all had good engines still . For me that was fortunate because I have over the years bought a lot of good parts from them (like hydraulic valves, hydraulic couplers, fenders, front axle parts, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My vote is the 1468 and 1568. Having owned a 1468 when they were new, I feel pretty comfortable I'm right. It was the most worthless pos I ever owned. The only way you could run it was open the throttle wide open when it came out of the shed in the morning and throttle it down when it was put away in the evening and maybe you got lucky enough to get a decent days work out of it. Now, what I would give to have that particular tractor back. I recently aquired a 1468 for my collection and just driving it down the road reminds me of what a pile of crap they were. Sure looks good though!!!!

jerry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any of the hydrostatic tractors. They had no pull power and if the transmission oil and filter weren't changed every year would soon need transmission jobs. I have seen several hydros parted out because the hydro was shot. They all had good engines still . For me that was fortunate because I have over the years bought a lot of good parts from them (like hydraulic valves, hydraulic couplers, fenders, front axle parts, etc.

I have to respectfully completely disagree with that statement...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any of the hydrostatic tractors. They had no pull power and if the transmission oil and filter weren't changed every year would soon need transmission jobs. I have seen several hydros parted out because the hydro was shot. They all had good engines still . For me that was fortunate because I have over the years bought a lot of good parts from them (like hydraulic valves, hydraulic couplers, fenders, front axle parts, etc.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, of course, and I am not discounting yours...

...But when someone tells me how terrible Hydros are, I always wonder if they have ever actually owned one.

I :wub: my Hydros.... :D

-FT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you used a hydrostatic drive tractor as it was intended to be used, variable load and speed jobs rather than constant heavy tillage work, the hydrostatic tractors were great tractors.

Harold H

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anybody see a theme here..V-8s are not made for farm tractors.

Yep, and it doesn't seem to matter who builds them either!

Deere 8850 4WD V8 ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the 68s but at the time when my grandpa jockeyed equipment we had lots of 68s that should hav been scraped along with those god awful 460s and 560s I hate them with a passion anything older with than a 560 with a diesel motor was alright but still I really dislike any old tractor currently we have 70 old tractors that my grandpa had bought

We have

3 ms, 2 super hs, mv, 400 diesel,450 gas, w-30, b-450, f-30, 770 Oliver, 400 gas, 77 Oliver , 88 Oliver, 2 140s, 140 high crop,2-smtas wf and nf, 706 German diesel wheatland, 2 super ms, 66 Oliver,c,b, 55 Oliver, 504 gas, b414, 400 standard diesel,88 standard diesel Oliver, a farmall,544 diesel, b-275, 3 cub farmalls,f-14,630 John Deere, 66 standard Oliver, w-4,w-6, w-9, 70 Oliver f-20 wd allis,f-12, 10-20 McCormick, and there might be more I can't remember all of them but you guys have no idea how big of a pain they are

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my old 656 hydro pulled a 5 bottom plow (just had to try it) and would easily pull a 4 bottom flip plow (just didn't like to lift it. The Hydro 86 will pull 4 bottoms easily. I'll never say a hydro is gutless True it's not as efficent as a gear drive but only recently has anyone been able to copy what IH did with the new CVT transmissions avalable now. Eason

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of the many older IH built tractors I ever had a chance to use, the F-12 was the most under powered, difficult handling, short of transmission gear speeds and just plain crude for it's time of all the popular tractors of it's time. Virtually all of it's competitors were better tractors. In contrast the models H and M were wonderfully designed machines, their only shortcomings were that they could have been a lot better with a 6 speed transmission and about 4 more horsepower. They were very reliable, handled very nicely, attractive looking, and had a slew of nicely matched implements made for them. I had a Super M for many years and just loved that tractor. In later years it seemed that while most of the IH built tractors were decent there were always some models with bad weaknesses (like the old F-12's and F-14's) that seriously hurt the overall reputation of International Harvester Company built tractors....and eventually contributed to the demise of that once huge manufacturer of farm machinery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would suggest you take a tractor such as a Farmall 656 and look at how many of them have been parted out already and compare that percentage to the gear drive transmission models. Rarely do you find a parted out gear drive in a wrecking yard. On the other hand I have gotten many parts from parted out hydro tractors. I am not suggesting they aren't good if you use them for what they are intended to do. What I am suggesting is that a much higher percentage of them are being parted out when the owner is faced with a $5000 hydro repair job. I have often driven a friends old Hydro 70 and am familiar with it's capability as a loader tractor. However, don't put it in the hands of itenerant hired help and expect it to last a long time. My experience tells me you have to perform regular hydro maintenance like changing the Hy Tran and filters to ensure you get decent hydro life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would suggest you take a tractor such as a Farmall 656 and look at how many of them have been parted out already and compare that percentage to the gear drive transmission models. Rarely do you find a parted out gear drive in a wrecking yard. On the other hand I have gotten many parts from parted out hydro tractors. I am not suggesting they aren't good if you use them for what they are intended to do. What I am suggesting is that a much higher percentage of them are being parted out when the owner is faced with a $5000 hydro repair job. I have often driven a friends old Hydro 70 and am familiar with it's capability as a loader tractor. However, don't put it in the hands of itenerant hired help and expect it to last a long time. My experience tells me you have to perform regular hydro maintenance like changing the Hy Tran and filters to ensure you get decent hydro life.

Don't you have to change hytran and filters in all IH tractors to maintain them??? I would also suspect that many people that think hydros need a 5k overhaul just need inspection and minor repairs. I bought one that they thought needed a new hydro but it was just a couple loose fittings...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My grandfather traded a farmall 450 on a 560 in 1970. My dad would have been 23, they used it a week and my grandfather said it wasn't nothin but noise. He called the dealer and told them to put a new clutch,brakes and tires on the 450 and BRING IT BACK. My dad is the reason the 560 stayed. Sure it was bigger, looked cool compared to the 450, but just noise.

Same exact deal here, only my father couldn't get his 450 back.

So the 560 stayed and is still here. Never knocked the rear end out of it, had 1 t/a replaced that was totally the fault of the operator and the engine has been overhauled 2 or 3 times over the past 15K+ hours (when you find piston skirt parts in the pan....it's time!).

Currently will pull 74hp on the dyno

and still has the original hydraulic pumps and the teledepth works just fine.

So was it a bad tractor?...not really - more like it was just different then its predecessors and that took some getting used to.

I never had understood the operator's platform though - who the **** thought it was a good idea to have a t/a lever on one side and the IPTO lever on the other side of the seat?

Many times I have come real close to falling off trying to climb through that tangled mess in the middle of winter with the tractor covered with snow and ice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would suggest you take a tractor such as a Farmall 656 and look at how many of them have been parted out already and compare that percentage to the gear drive transmission models. Rarely do you find a parted out gear drive in a wrecking yard. On the other hand I have gotten many parts from parted out hydro tractors. I am not suggesting they aren't good if you use them for what they are intended to do. What I am suggesting is that a much higher percentage of them are being parted out when the owner is faced with a $5000 hydro repair job. I have often driven a friends old Hydro 70 and am familiar with it's capability as a loader tractor. However, don't put it in the hands of itenerant hired help and expect it to last a long time. My experience tells me you have to perform regular hydro maintenance like changing the Hy Tran and filters to ensure you get decent hydro life.

So when you use a high dollar finish sander to try and do heavy metal grinding and it burns up because it wasn't intended for that purpose.... Does that make it the worst tool that was ever built?

By your method of measurement, shouldn't it have be capable of doing the job because it was a tool for removing material just like a grinder..?

When you use a tool for an unintended purpose or in an unintended way, the result is not likely to be favorable. That is NOT the fault of the tool.

-FT

BTW:

"Rarely do you find a parted out gear drive in a wrecking yard"

Are you kidding? The salvage yards are FULL of them...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites