Jump to content

fill me in on 1466 & 1486 rear ends,


BobinIL

Recommended Posts

I am looking for a tractor in the 120-150 hp range for my small hobby farm.  A 1486 would fit my need about right but I keep hearing horror stories bout the rear end problems.  People say they bolted a 200hp engine to a 706 rear end, where does this come from?  Are the ring and pinion of a 14 really the same as a 706?  How hard is it to put new bearings, ring and pinion in a 1486 with a cab?  I assume you have to remove the cab?  How big is this job?  I wouldn't be afraid of a 14 if I knew the history or if it had the rear end rebuilt with documentation.  All I plan on pulling is a 7 shank Glencoe SS an 18ft disk and a 15ft soil finisher.  My other option would be to buy a 1086 it would handle my implements but a 14 would be better.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like a fabricated story made up by a Deere lover to me. I’ve never heard that before. You have to understand, guys could buy a 130-150hp tractor and weight them down to all get out and turn the smoke screw up and all of a sudden have 250hp with a heavy weighted tractor. Latch on too big of equipment and pull it around for weeks on end and wonder why you blew the rear end out. Don’t be afraid of an 86. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 1456 and later 1466/1486 had the final upgrade to the old 806  rear end. The bull gears and pinions had been widened by about 1 inch over the original 706 bull gear. The bull pinion bearings and  axle bearings capacity had been increased. The ring and pinion machining had been changed from hobbing to being done with needling machine tool that produces a very smooth surface. The brakes had been increased in size from 8 inches in diameter to 11 inches in diameter. The axle size had ben increased to 3 1/2 from 3 1/4 inches to ensure adequate axle torsional strength in the Kennedy key area when using the wedgelock wheels. The clutch and several transmission bearings capacity had also been increased.  At this point all of the spare space allowed in the original design had been used up for the larger load bearing components. As such the original design was now maxed out. IH initially rated this design as reliable and suitable for about 135 PTO HP when operating at 2400 RPM and those tractors (1456 and 1466 prior to S/N 15000 worked reasonably well so long as the engine power wasn't turned up to some value above the rated HP of about 135 PTO HP). In 1973 when they were in a HP race with John Deere 4630 IH rerated the tractor for 2600 RPM with 145 PTO HP in a move of desperation since they didn't have a chassis equivalent to the 4630 chassis. This new combined PV really was cutting into the durability of the final drives. What made it worse is some operators were turning the fuel screw up to get 160 PTO HP or more and the indefinite life of the final drives was reduced to a limited life value that could be under 1000 hours or even less . The larger final drives that the 5488 had were long overdue but IH was behind the 8 ball an didn't respond with a large enough tractor to match the 4630. Their feeble attempt with the 1566/1586 was another mess. I remember two of them near me that after running 2 seasons with 20.8-38 duals on them both were torn down for replacement of the intermediate gear bearings. One was traded off afterwards and the other ended up at a salvage yard by the time it was 6 years old. Truth was IH was negligent in dealing with the horsepower race that occurred in the mid 1970's. The 5488 was long overdue by the time it showed up in 1981. Even so as Dr Kahle the design boss said it needed one more year of development before being sprung on the market. That is why there were a bunch of significant design changes during it's 4 year production run. But he got his 3 years for development of the Magnum and the Magnum was a huge success. At this point all was forgiven and the successful first generation Magnums are considered amongst the best tractors IH or CIH ever built. This is my view of the situation after having watched what happened over the last 45 years.    

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, George 2 said:

The 1456 and later 1466/1486 had the final upgrade to the old 806  rear end. The bull gears and pinions had been widened by about 1 inch over the original 706 bull gear. The bull pinion bearings and  axle bearings capacity had been increased. The ring and pinion machining had been changed from hobbing to being done with needling machine tool that produces a very smooth surface. The brakes had been increased in size from 8 inches in diameter to 11 inches in diameter. The axle size had ben increased to 3 1/2 from 3 1/4 inches to ensure adequate axle torsional strength in the Kennedy key area when using the wedgelock wheels. The clutch and several transmission bearings capacity had also been increased.  At this point all of the spare space allowed in the original design had been used up for the larger load bearing components. As such the original design was now maxed out. IH initially rated this design as reliable and suitable for about 135 PTO HP when operating at 2400 RPM and those tractors (1456 and 1466 prior to S/N 15000 worked reasonably well so long as the engine power wasn't turned up to some value above the rated HP of about 135 PTO HP). In 1973 when they were in a HP race with John Deere 4630 IH rerated the tractor for 2600 RPM with 145 PTO HP in a move of desperation since they didn't have a chassis equivalent to the 4630 chassis. This new combined PV really was cutting into the durability of the final drives. What made it worse is some operators were turning the fuel screw up to get 160 PTO HP or more and the indefinite life of the final drives was reduced to a limited life value that could be under 1000 hours or even less . The larger final drives that the 5488 had were long overdue but IH was behind the 8 ball an didn't respond with a large enough tractor to match the 4630. Their feeble attempt with the 1566/1586 was another mess. I remember two of them near me that after running 2 seasons with 20.8-38 duals on them both were torn down for replacement of the intermediate gear bearings. One was traded off afterwards and the other ended up at a salvage yard by the time it was 6 years old. Truth was IH was negligent in dealing with the horsepower race that occurred in the mid 1970's. The 5488 was long overdue by the time it showed up in 1981. Even so as Dr Kahle the design boss said it needed one more year of development before being sprung on the market. That is why there were a bunch of significant design changes during it's 4 year production run. But he got his 3 years for development of the Magnum and the Magnum was a huge success. At this point all was forgiven and the successful first generation Magnums are considered amongst the best tractors IH or CIH ever built. This is my view of the situation after having watched what happened over the last 45 years.    

Dad had a 1586 that got a new trans case because bearing went out they covered it under warranty even though it was barely out of time. Didn’t you read the other thread about a 1066 competing with a 4630? Even so JD had a bigger 2wd tractor yet the 6030.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just remember, some guys can destroy an anvil and the next guy it will last forever. Same with tractors, using common sense it will give you many years of service.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, George 2 said:

The 1456 and later 1466/1486 had the final upgrade to the old 806  rear end. The bull gears and pinions had been widened by about 1 inch over the original 706 bull gear. The bull pinion bearings and  axle bearings capacity had been increased. The ring and pinion machining had been changed from hobbing to being done with needling machine tool that produces a very smooth surface. The brakes had been increased in size from 8 inches in diameter to 11 inches in diameter. The axle size had ben increased to 3 1/2 from 3 1/4 inches to ensure adequate axle torsional strength in the Kennedy key area when using the wedgelock wheels. The clutch and several transmission bearings capacity had also been increased.  At this point all of the spare space allowed in the original design had been used up for the larger load bearing components. As such the original design was now maxed out. IH initially rated this design as reliable and suitable for about 135 PTO HP when operating at 2400 RPM and those tractors (1456 and 1466 prior to S/N 15000 worked reasonably well so long as the engine power wasn't turned up to some value above the rated HP of about 135 PTO HP). In 1973 when they were in a HP race with John Deere 4630 IH rerated the tractor for 2600 RPM with 145 PTO HP in a move of desperation since they didn't have a chassis equivalent to the 4630 chassis. This new combined PV really was cutting into the durability of the final drives. What made it worse is some operators were turning the fuel screw up to get 160 PTO HP or more and the indefinite life of the final drives was reduced to a limited life value that could be under 1000 hours or even less . The larger final drives that the 5488 had were long overdue but IH was behind the 8 ball an didn't respond with a large enough tractor to match the 4630. Their feeble attempt with the 1566/1586 was another mess. I remember two of them near me that after running 2 seasons with 20.8-38 duals on them both were torn down for replacement of the intermediate gear bearings. One was traded off afterwards and the other ended up at a salvage yard by the time it was 6 years old. Truth was IH was negligent in dealing with the horsepower race that occurred in the mid 1970's. The 5488 was long overdue by the time it showed up in 1981. Even so as Dr Kahle the design boss said it needed one more year of development before being sprung on the market. That is why there were a bunch of significant design changes during it's 4 year production run. But he got his 3 years for development of the Magnum and the Magnum was a huge success. At this point all was forgiven and the successful first generation Magnums are considered amongst the best tractors IH or CIH ever built. This is my view of the situation after having watched what happened over the last 45 years.    

That 5488 was a good tractor and would have been a lot better in my honest opinion if it had the doors open the other way and the fan drawing the air thru the front. Pulling the big baler it was hard keeping hay leaves out of radiator and AC Condenser clean. I really liked the tractor and especially liked the right hand door when hooking up and mounting the baler monitor. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 1486 was a very durable tractor as long is it was not over weighted or over fueled.   We had one for years, used it as primary tillage.  Originally, we had no end of trouble with the TAs and rear end.  Finally took it over to the scales and found out it was WAY overweight for our soil type.   Took the weights all off and never tore it down again.     

Either a 10 or a 14 will toy with the implements you listed.   We used to pull a 26' FC and harrow cart with our 14.    We had a 9 shank Glencoe SS that the neighbor would borrow and pull with his 986.   

ON the 86 series, you don't "remove" the cab.   You just lift it. Its actually easier than taking the cabs off the 66 series once you figure it out.   We had 3 truck camper jackstands that we made brackets for.  Undo the bolts, jack the cab straight up, and then roll the rear end out the back.   We also had a rolling frame made for the front of the transmission.   One reason its easier is the seat and stuff all go with the cab--no need to remove all that stuff to get at the rear end.

There was one time we had a new TA fail less that 5 hours after installation.  All the jacks & stands were sitting there to hand.  My Dad & I pulled the tractor into the shed, cab raised, and split in under 2 hours. (I was pissed....)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also when 14s and 15s tractors came out they were the biggest 2wd IH produced, so all the fair size farmers used them as the main work horse, they worked hard and covered large amount of acres day in and day out. We had  2- 1466  1 -1486  and 1- 1066 which we worked the dog snot out. we were cropping 1700 acres, only had 1 rear end issue .A bolt worked out and got between the bull gear and bull pinion.  I don't know how big your hobby farm is, but if the tractor in in good shape. not overloaded with implements to large for it,  and the fuel not turned up to much you should have no issues

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah they're fine as long as they're not abused but 40-ish years later you have no idea what kind of life any given tractor has led. They can look really nice, or even "honest" (i.e. used but not abused) and still be complete basket cases. Roughly half the 86 series production is 40 or over now not that 39, 38, 37 years makes a whole heck of a lot of difference. We tend to forget the passage of time and ideas/advice that were good 20 or even 10 years ago may not be that great anymore.

Nowadays you need to buy it figuring on having to repair it, use it until it breaks, and make the repair, unless you can find a real creampuff, but you're going to pay for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, BobinIL said:

I am looking for a tractor in the 120-150 hp range for my small hobby farm.  A 1486 would fit my need about right but I keep hearing horror stories bout the rear end problems.  People say they bolted a 200hp engine to a 706 rear end, where does this come from?  Are the ring and pinion of a 14 really the same as a 706?  How hard is it to put new bearings, ring and pinion in a 1486 with a cab?  I assume you have to remove the cab?  How big is this job?  I wouldn't be afraid of a 14 if I knew the history or if it had the rear end rebuilt with documentation.  All I plan on pulling is a 7 shank Glencoe SS an 18ft disk and a 15ft soil finisher.  My other option would be to buy a 1086 it would handle my implements but a 14 would be better.

Bob, what configuration is your soil finisher?

When I used to farm in Michigan, I once owned a 16' Sunflower soil finisher, (can't remember the model number now) It had the walking tandems, disc gang up front, heavy C-Shanks with sweep shovels like a heavy field cultivator, a gang of coil tine harrows, and lastly a gang of rolling bar harrows in back. It was a big tool. I tried pulling it with my healthy low houred 1980 1086 Tri-Stripe, which was dualed up with  4 new Firestones (non radial), chloride fluid in the inboard rear tires, and a set of wheel weights on each side. I would pull the Sunflower in the Spring on Fall tilled ground which had been chisel plowed or I had used my soil saver on. In my soils, I had to run the 1086 in 3rd gear low range with the TA ahead. It did just fine, but was too slow for me in my mind. It was a load running it in the Spring on Fall tilled ground.

The following year I bought myself a 1994 CASE IH 7220 MAGNUM (2WD) with Firestone radials and matching duals, and it was a much better match for the Sunflower finisher. I was able to pull it faster with the 7220 than with the 1086.

I also owned a Krause 7 shank soil saver with a Remlinger S-Tine ridge leveler attachment bolted to the back frame, which both the 1086 and my 7220 pulled just fine.

But, depending on how your 16' soil finisher is configured, and how you will be using it, and what type of soil, it may be a load on a 1086, or even a 1486. It always seemed to me a healthy 1086 could always hang with a 1486 anyways- not counting "cranking them up / twisting the smoke screw" that is. My 1086 was conservatively putting out 155 HP. I also put a muffler eliminator on it when I first got it. It was a great tractor and I never abused it. I never had my 7220 MAGNUM checked to see what it had. But it would easily out pull the 1086.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1486 is an excellent tractor. My Dad bought one new that we still farm with. Tach quit working years ago, but we estimate the hours at 15,000. It has never had the rear end apart. We did not abuse it, but it has four 20.8's and yes it is turned way up! Like said drive with a brain in your head. Find a nice one and you will not be disappointed. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you would be happy with either a 10 or 1486 I pull a16'  finisher and 9 shank Glencoe with both of them. Search and try to find a good one if you can. Here are two of mine.

20180528_202209.jpg

20180424_112801.jpg

20180516_170741.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion George did a very good explanation. It just amazes me how many people ask how much is safe to turn up 40/50 year old tractors. That's just asking for major repairs. Back in the day I think moldboard plowing was extremely hard on rear ends if overfueled.  86 series tractors for the most part had hard lives through the farm crisis. Made to do more, along with neglected routine maintenance. Many people had problems with them because of it, then they get posted as worse tractor owned on some magazine like Farm Show 20 some years ago. They were probably the best comfort tractor IH ever put in production to that time and IH sold many. I've driven 86 series since probably 1979 and I've did my time in them. I used to use them alot to keep hour's off my 8940. I recently aquired a low hour 8920 to take there place. I'm going to start enjoying my older year's in a little more style than sitting in something I've spent over half my life driving.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 856 Custom said:

In my opinion George did a very good explanation. It just amazes me how many people ask how much is safe to turn up 40/50 year old tractors. That's just asking for major repairs. Back in the day I think moldboard plowing was extremely hard on rear ends if overfueled.  86 series tractors for the most part had hard lives through the farm crisis. Made to do more, along with neglected routine maintenance. Many people had problems with them because of it, then they get posted as worse tractor owned on some magazine like Farm Show 20 some years ago. They were probably the best comfort tractor IH ever put in production to that time and IH sold many. I've driven 86 series since probably 1979 and I've did my time in them. I used to use them alot to keep hour's off my 8940. I recently aquired a low hour 8920 to take there place. I'm going to start enjoying my older year's in a little more style than sitting in something I've spent over half my life driving.

You mentioning the 86 series role in the 80s couldn't have been more spot on. Anything through that time period had a rough life.

My Grandpa and Dad farmed with a 1466, a 986 as their 2nd big horse and a 786 as the third big horse tractor. That 986 was ran hard and I know it. I grew up in the 90s with the 80s aftermath still living out. Everything was wore out it seemed. We didn't feel really comfortable money wise i feel til i was in high school.

And yes i ran that 986 when Grandpa didn't have it (Usually was stuck in the damn 1466 with that awkward and loud cab). Now the 1466 and 986 are gone, but still have the 786. I still have a soft spot for the 86 series.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 856 Custom said:

In my opinion George did a very good explanation. It just amazes me how many people ask how much is safe to turn up 40/50 year old tractors. That's just asking for major repairs. Back in the day I think moldboard plowing was extremely hard on rear ends if overfueled.  86 series tractors for the most part had hard lives through the farm crisis. Made to do more, along with neglected routine maintenance. Many people had problems with them because of it, then they get posted as worse tractor owned on some magazine like Farm Show 20 some years ago. They were probably the best comfort tractor IH ever put in production to that time and IH sold many. I've driven 86 series since probably 1979 and I've did my time in them. I used to use them alot to keep hour's off my 8940. I recently aquired a low hour 8920 to take there place. I'm going to start enjoying my older year's in a little more style than sitting in something I've spent over half my life driving.

Pretty spot on. I didn’t mind running dad’s 1586 but I was young then. His wasn’t overrfueled either. Tractors off all makes back then had real poor build quality 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dale560 said:

Pretty spot on. I didn’t mind running dad’s 1586 but I was young then. His wasn’t overrfueled either. Tractors off all makes back then had real poor build quality 

Very true about quality in the 1970's. I lived it at a John Deere factory for a while. But farmers were the other link to problems. Many tractors of all makes were over fuelled and most engines put out more power from over fuelling. as such there were lots of driveline failures from over fuelling. As is already said, there were some tough times back then and farmers tried to get every last bit of performance out of their machines. but it came at a price and that was in driveline failures.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, George 2 said:

Very true about quality in the 1970's. I lived it at a John Deere factory for a while. But farmers were the other link to problems. Many tractors of all makes were over fuelled and most engines put out more power from over fuelling. as such there were lots of driveline failures from over fuelling. As is already said, there were some tough times back then and farmers tried to get every last bit of performance out of their machines. but it came at a price and that was in driveline failures.  

I fixed a 4640 had to put a new quad range planetary in it around 1990 with 2500. Hours. It was actually the second 4640 the customer bought. The one he ordered came in and was in the shop with transmission trouble right off the truck . He wouldn’t take it so they got another new one for him. A bushing went out in planetary and his kid worked for a Deere dealer so it was cheaper to buy whole thing than pieces to fix.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't be any more afraid of a 1486 over any model. I love our 1486. 18.4x38 duals, fluid and weights on the inside. Definetly my favorite tractor to use. The rear end had work done to it when dad bought it, then we had it apart shortly after due to poor workmanship, but I think it still had the original ring and pinion. That was at just over 6000 hours. Now it's at about 13000. Still fine. We deleted the ta a few years ago and now it's time to rebuild the range shift cover, but other than that, no problems. 

Here's ours. I'd like to get another one yet. Something about those 436 turbos that I love lol

20180709_215045.thumb.jpg.fdc66618696c06f937ddc50266aa9526.jpg

20180605_182236.thumb.jpg.6f10e1ebebe18c978fbb7edfdc385fbf.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Reichow7120 said:

You mentioning the 86 series role in the 80s couldn't have been more spot on. Anything through that time period had a rough life.

My Grandpa and Dad farmed with a 1466, a 986 as their 2nd big horse and a 786 as the third big horse tractor. That 986 was ran hard and I know it. I grew up in the 90s with the 80s aftermath still living out. Everything was wore out it seemed. We didn't feel really comfortable money wise i feel til i was in high school.

And yes i ran that 986 when Grandpa didn't have it (Usually was stuck in the damn 1466 with that awkward and loud cab). Now the 1466 and 986 are gone, but still have the 786. I still have a soft spot for the 86 series.

A neighbor bought a '76 1586 from the local Deere dealership in 1986. It had right at 2000 hours on it. I'm not picking on 1586s just using this has a example of how some people ran them back in the day. The Deere dealership overhauled the engine, put a ta in it, rebuilt the rear end, and repainted the tractor and had it advertised in the fastline for 16500. That's abuse and neglect right there. I'm sure the guy who traded it in for a Deere probably is still telling people how much of a pile of crap that 15 was. She was ran with a whip behind it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  Biggest problem with those rear ends was everyone used them hard.  Filled the rears with fluid.  Turned the pump up.  Ran low 3rd, maybe t/a and just pulled them hard!  Too hard!  Hard pulling moldboard plows.  Chisel plows that jerked them around.  Saddle tanks in the spring.  Running disks and field cultivators over mellow fall plowed ground in the spring just making them earn every acre.  If the 400 series engines hadnt been so darn good the rest of the tractor would have been a little more long lived.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...