Jump to content

86 series poor reputation?


1086-7130

Recommended Posts

Used a 1486 as primary tillage for years.   My only complaints were harder to see out of the back while hitching, and the A/C never worked.  No matter how much money we threw at it, it would always fail in a few months again.

It made a great 2wd field tractor.   Loader, not so much.   The little short levers and style of cab made loader use really difficult.   May partly have been the WL-44 loader, the posts were right in the way, then the cab posts....

As far as fueling - I'd take the 86 any day, as you had all the nice grab handles and stuff to step up on (hitch, etc).   The 66 w/cab, you had to stand on the cab steps and hang on to the door frame & lean way around to get to the fuel filler.   I had a few times my feet slipped on the step, and that time the wind blew the cab door shut on my hand is not a pleasant memory. As far as dirt - you learned to open the back window, reach out and push the crap off, then close the window and go fuel up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 393
  • Created
  • Last Reply
1 hour ago, Jeff-C-IL said:

Used a 1486 as primary tillage for years.   My only complaints were harder to see out of the back while hitching, and the A/C never worked.  No matter how much money we threw at it, it would always fail in a few months again.

It made a great 2wd field tractor.   Loader, not so much.   The little short levers and style of cab made loader use really difficult.   May partly have been the WL-44 loader, the posts were right in the way, then the cab posts....

As far as fueling - I'd take the 86 any day, as you had all the nice grab handles and stuff to step up on (hitch, etc).   The 66 w/cab, you had to stand on the cab steps and hang on to the door frame & lean way around to get to the fuel filler.   I had a few times my feet slipped on the step, and that time the wind blew the cab door shut on my hand is not a pleasant memory. As far as dirt - you learned to open the back window, reach out and push the crap off, then close the window and go fuel up.

I'd stand on the cab step anyday to fuel the 66 tractors than rack myself trying to step on the three point arms or crawl around some mounted implement on the back 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, nepoweshiekfarmalls said:

The K&M steps and the door strut assembly to eliminate the door stop rod make entrance/exit easier.  "Flatlander" farmers have told me that they left them in gear to get in and out. (These same operators never used the 06-66 park lock either!) I never had that option!  My 1486 cab is so tight and dust free that I enjoy driving it.  Often open back window to see drawbar easier while hitching up.  The short wheelbase makes for tight turns too.

Wheelbase is the same as the 66 series.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they were as bad as some people make them out to be they wouldn't have left the dealers lots after the first year we actualy had farmers buy a second one after owning one for a year or two and this wasn't heard of much back in the era of 160 -320- acres farms  I know there was short comings as there are in any mode but in our area the were extremeliy well liked. A lot of the complaints can be exaggerated by key board farmers just like the 560 many of the complainers wern't even born when the tractors were new.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, ksfarmdude said:

I'd stand on the cab step anyday to fuel the 66 tractors than rack myself trying to step on the three point arms or crawl around some mounted implement on the back 

Our 1066 has a set of 2350 loader brackets on it which make a great step for fueling. The 856 has a single step from an 806 hung on the frame rail for fueling.

Fueling my 1586, I hang the nozzle up on the back where I can reach it, then crawl in the cab and fuel from the inside.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Matt Kirsch said:

Our 1066 has a set of 2350 loader brackets on it which make a great step for fueling. The 856 has a single step from an 806 hung on the frame rail for fueling.

Fueling my 1586, I hang the nozzle up on the back where I can reach it, then crawl in the cab and fuel from the inside.

Sounds very unhandy opening the rear window for that even , If i'm done for the day I always made a stop at the air compressor to blow the dirt off first then I fueled it up for the next day if I used the auto shut off nozzle its not as bad because I can do it from the ground and do it until it shuts off 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, R190 said:

If they were as bad as some people make them out to be they wouldn't have left the dealers lots after the first year we actualy had farmers buy a second one after owning one for a year or two and this wasn't heard of much back in the era of 160 -320- acres farms  I know there was short comings as there are in any mode but in our area the were extremeliy well liked. A lot of the complaints can be exaggerated by key board farmers just like the 560 many of the complainers wern't even born when the tractors were new.

Depends on your perspective. From a current tractor looking back, the design flaws are obvious. From anything that came before, they were light years ahead and the best available at the time.

As I said initially, people tend to view this as a personal attack. We're just talking facts. There is nothing personal about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to ask anyone if they ever owned a more fuel efficient tractor on fuel consumption. My 1086 was so much better on fuel than my 1066, ran less RPM's, seemed to have better torque and factory 3rd valve made it a very nice tractor to pull a Hesston 60B Stakhand with.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ksfarmdude said:

I've put several thousand hours in a 986 and 1086 tractors I liked how short they turned The controls could have been nicer and better positioned I actually extended the remote levers and that really helped alot from having to reach down a lot lower to use them levers For the guys with a sharp eye for details you can see those levers are from a Deere tractor too Our nearest IH dealer was 40 miles away and our Deere dealer was down the road a few miles I intergrated a lot of John Deere parts onto our IH machines and worked out very well 

013.JPG

006.JPG

One really nice looking 1086 there 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 86s r good tractors. They were really in the trenches when operator comfort became more important than machine handiness , I think more maneuverable than a Deere. Still find myself grabbing hydraulic levers from the ground to hook up old equipment. Old neighbor of mine put a loader on his 4020 and the hydraulic levers r on the left side so u could shift with the right. Same old time concept. The 40 series Deere really won out, nice tractors to operate, still pretty handy. I think the 50 series was loosely based on them . Right hand shifting. Longer wheel base gave a better ride . And really with bigger equipment turning on a dime became less important. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Putting fuel in a 88 is the same, I stepped in some fuel someone else let run over didn't think much of it and went to put fuel in the 52 with 42 inch rubber had a 2 point hitch drill on the quick hitch went to put my right foot on the top link slipped went down between the hitch and the tractor my gut caught the hookup for the remote i still have a scar my right foot hit the ground and left one hung in the arm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never owned an 86 series but had a 3688 for a while. Shift levers on the right were nice.  Just the park lock on the left. I liked that tractor but the ride made my dad not want to run it.  But he liked to stand up so we found something he could do with his 806.  The 3688 mostly got used on the 800 12 row planter until I got a 5288.  Also a 5488 on the place now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Matt Kirsch said:

Depends on your perspective. From a current tractor looking back, the design flaws are obvious. From anything that came before, they were light years ahead and the best available at the time.

As I said initially, people tend to view this as a personal attack. We're just talking facts. There is nothing personal about it.

The Ford 9700 was available the same time as the 1086. The  1086 was not light years ahead of the 9700. Not a personal attack , just stating the fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

86 series are junk, but since I'm a nice guy I'll offer up my own personal farm for any unwanted 86 series tractors since they are so hated... 

 

 

:) 

 

Most of what gets them a bad rap has been discussed so I won't reiterate, but I will say this!  40 plus years after they rolled off the line they are still being discussed which is remarkable if you think about it.  The fact that several are still out in the field 40 years later stands testament that, (love them or hate them) you can't deny they are good tractors. 

 

1976 vintage pickup trucks leave a lot to desire on creature comforts we are so accustomed too this day in age as well so I always try and take that into consideration.  

 

151010.jpeg.6782625cd314573c43674bff7cc7d696 (1).jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, hagan said:

I would like to ask anyone if they ever owned a more fuel efficient tractor on fuel consumption. My 1086 was so much better on fuel than my 1066, ran less RPM's, seemed to have better torque and factory 3rd valve made it a very nice tractor to pull a Hesston 60B Stakhand with.  

I find it very interesting that your 1086 was more fuel efficient that your 1066, since it was literally the exact same engine & transmission.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Jeff-C-IL said:

I find it very interesting that your 1086 was more fuel efficient that your 1066, since it was literally the exact same engine & transmission.    

Does the 1066 have to be wrapped up higher for pto rpm?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just had a thought about the fueling from the rear issue, would the fuel tank from a boxcar magnum fit on an. 86 series? It wouldn't be hard to cut a hole in the fender for the neck, or could you cut a hole in the side of the existing tank for the hose that runs under the fender? Just thinking out loud.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, bkorth said:

Just had a thought about the fueling from the rear issue, would the fuel tank from a boxcar magnum fit on an. 86 series? It wouldn't be hard to cut a hole in the fender for the neck, or could you cut a hole in the side of the existing tank for the hose that runs under the fender? Just thinking out loud.

I've thought about that several times but never put a tape measure on it. Would definitely be a great improvement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like my 1086. 

May people complain they shift hard,   I do adjust the tranny brake and the shift linkage every 100-125 hours,  but mine shifts nice.

I added an air ride seat,  and the inside hand rail so I have no complaints about the cab either.

It's been a good tractor

100_2947 (600 x 450).jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

could be worse

could be over the engine in the middle of the hood

with nothing to step up to get there and only a knee in the middle of the hood when you do

and when you overfill, which you will, it drains all over the engine compartment..........including your knee which is in the dent from receptively having your knee and gas cans in the middle of the hood.............. 

or right between the steering wheel and cowl area

you can now stand on the entry step or platform

and when you overfill, which you will, it runs down into the instrument cluster, steering wheel, and over the steering motor and lines and possibly the starter and clutch housing...............

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...