Jump to content

Big Bud guy

Members
  • Posts

    3,193
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Big Bud guy

  1. International/standard with wheatland options such as the big fenders and big platform
  2. If I found one cheap enough I would consider buying one. They couldn't have made very many of them. I don't know if they made fewer 4156s or 4186s. That tractor went about two series too long. I guess they did have the advantage of a PTO over their articulated cousins.
  3. I guess the duels was to make up for all of the weight on the left side. However, JD used the same size tire the first year on their 55 and they were dueled on both sides. I think they were 9-24 cub sized tires. Next year they went to a bigger tire.
  4. Watching IH vids this morning. My favorite part starting at 8:40 is their first SP combine. I have a WW II brochure for the 123 and some of the pics match the video.
  5. At least you have a platform to stand on with the F-12/14 instead of hanging off the rear axle on the bigger Farmalls. The original Farmall design got passed up rather quickly by tractors such as the Case CC and Oliver 18-27.
  6. The GPWT was a dog. That’s why they actually got the engine upgrades first before the GP. Took more power power to push a 4 row cultivator vs 3. All I know is JD never built another all fuel flat head engine again.
  7. I don’t know who Broehl is but my info comes from JR Hobbs. Nobody had more access to the archives and old engineers then he did. The power problem was solved in 1931. I still don’t know what ratios have to do with anything. You don’t think it had anything to do with a flat head engine vs overhead? It was the cotton growers that didn’t like the 3 row concept. And JD knew that because the GPWT was developed in parallel with the GP. The GPWT came out almost as soon as the GP and I think they made a few C tricycles but prototypes of course. JD was trying to kill two birds with one stone with the GP. The GP was suppose to be a rowcrop tractor to take on the Farmall but also a regular or standard tractor to compete against the IH 10-20. The GP technically was replaced by the AR because JD kept the GP in production through 1935 a year past the introduction of the A because the GP was still selling decently in non rowcrop areas. It was the GPWT that got axed first.
  8. IH had a little inspiration for the PTO. Image courtesy of Guy Fay and his book Experimental and Prototype tractors.
  9. I never thought of the GP as having a low seat. Its definitely higher then a D. A GPO has a really low seat but that's it. Being only able to cultivate 3 rows was the intended purpose. Keep in mind when Theo was dreaming up this tractor in 1925 , the Farmall Regular at the time was only 2 row tractor because there was only 2 row planters. So making a 3 row tractor gave you 50% more productivity. Being only able to cultivate 3 rows was not a knock on it. Plus JD did offer different front axles if you wanted to cultivate other crops in different row spacings including even number rows. And throw in the GPWT in there if you wanted 2 or 4 row capability. I don't see any correlation on the bore/stroke dimensions between the two tractors. If you want to get technical, the A has a longer stroke vs bore ratio then a D. JD used a flat head 5 3/4" by 6" engine because of the limited space. JD also elected to use water injection to combat pre ignition like the D. Problem was the L head didn't lend itself to the water valve/injection. To eliminate the water valve yet keep the same power levels, JD increased the bore to 6" and lowered the compression.
  10. I liken the GP to the IH 2+2. A great concept on paper but poorly executed.
  11. It took Leon Clausen to argue in favor in front of the board of starting production of the D. He then went over to JI Case and almost ran that company into the ground. Also curious other then 2 cylinders, what warmed over features did the C/GP carry over from the D. The C/GP used a flat head engine, worm gear steering, and powerlift none of what the D had.
  12. If anything JD should have used it for propaganda purposes much like IH did with the HT 340?.
  13. I haven’t seen this show you guys are talking about. Did they say anything about Hart Parr? Truthfully they had more to do with bringing gas tractors to the market then anybody else.
  14. Up until Wiman took over the reins at JD it was company policy to be content being No 2 behind IH. That is fact. After WW II, Wiman laid down the gantlet and made it a goal to overtake IH starting with the NG project. And JD did in remarkably short time no doubt assisted by IH management. I don’t speak for the company of today but JD was always the better managed run company back when IH was around. Just look how they got it into other markets like construction.
  15. The 300 used a 30” separator. The 510 used a 56” separator. Huge difference.
  16. True but you forget were I live. Montana is almost a Mad Max world compared to your liberal state.
  17. Is that a 300? I actually wouldn’t mind one because you don’t see them out here. Too small of a combine. 410s had the 292 along with the JD 4400.
  18. You can’t tell our trucks have been deleted just walking by. The def tank is still there and so is the exhaust muffler. We removed the muffler and reemed it out and reinstalled it.
  19. Except Torgersons deletes the emissions on their own tractors they farm with. We have three 2013 Pete’s that have been deleted. The local independent mechanic had no problem working on them.
  20. I would ignore BigA$$ from here on out. Ive had run ins before with him and he just exists to be a a troll like Gearclash said. That’s why we aren’t getting an answer from him.
  21. That name rings a bell. I think he got kicked off of NAG once already. And if 301 refers to the AC engine then that was laughable.
  22. We aren’t talking about or referring to you. Just a few over at NAG.
  23. Like I said they are special. I like how one them in response bashes Steiger because of my handle. Like that keeps me awake at night.
×
×
  • Create New...