86 series poor reputation?

[ky966boy]

On 2/15/2022 at 8:40 PM, Missouri Mule said:

Eh, i see the complaint about doors and shifters. Whatever..... i just hop up in mine and go to work. Ride rough? Sure but so does every other tractor i have when im bouncing across the field. I bought my newest tractor last year which is a 7840 ford. I like the quiet cab more than anything. Wanted a 5250 or mx120 but $$ couldnt do it. Still use the 1086 and the 1486 to do the real work. I tell guys you either like em or you didnt. No in between 

I like the red cab .

[B.B.]

I just love tractors y'all.  Oh and talking about tractors.  And driving tractors.  And looking at tractors.  And researching about tractors. And learning about tractors. And sometimes even working on tractors...

 

 

Oh forgot about collecting tractors lol definitely love collecting tractors 

[B.B.]

Don't tell anyone but I even like my best friends 4430 but not as much as a 1586

[Dirt_Floor_Poor]

6 hours ago, 88power said:

see here's another one i wouldn't have heard if not for the web about the 4430 everyone loves them

I never heard how bad they were until I was on this forum. We never parked any tractor we ever had on top of a hill in a blizzard and just came back tomorrow when we were ready to feed the cows and figured it would start. Every tractor we have ever used to feed cattle was parked inside plugged in. Yes, there are times when a machine is needed and it can’t be plugged in, but unless it’s a two cylinder diesel, you can probably get it started. I also never knew how powerless and poorly designed the 30 series 404 and later the 40 series 466 was. I thought they were good. Almost every person I know that was around in 1973 talks about what a game changer the sound gard body was when it was new. On here it’s the biggest piece of junk ever conceived. The guys around here that ran 7700 combines when they were new, that used the 404 engine, never said they were underpowered. 

[gafarm49]

I like my 86s but that don't mean I cant like others. I'm multi-cultural

[gafarm49]

Some more

[Big Bud guy]

22 minutes ago, Dirt_Floor_Poor said:

Almost every person I know that was around in 1973 talks about what a game changer the sound gard body was when it was new. On here it’s the biggest piece of junk ever conceived. The guys around here that ran 7700 combines when they were new, that used the 404 engine, never said they were underpowered. 

My uncle ran a gasser hydro 7700 for a long time.  He never complained about the power but then again his previous combine was a gas JD 95.  I have to point out though JD did introduce the 145 hp Turbo 7700 a few years after the initial 7700 intro which only had 128 hp.  I’m guessing guys in the corn belt needed a few more ponies.  Out here in wheat country it didn’t seem to matter.  

[Dirt_Floor_Poor]

2 minutes ago, Big Bud guy said:

My uncle ran a gasser hydro 7700 for a long time.  He never complained about the power but then again is previous combine was a gas JD 95.  I have to point out though JD did introduce the 145 hp Turbo 7700 a few years after the initial 7700 intro.  I’m guessing guys in the corn belt needed a few more ponies.  Out here in wheat country it didn’t seem to matter.  

A large farmer in our area bought a 7700 turbo brand new and ran an 8 row 30” corn head on it for years. I can’t imagine it would handle that set up very well in current corn yields, but for the time he liked it. Not to further detail the thread though….

[ray54]

 

Big bud guy

He could of tried a JD 95 with a 248  diesel.☹️ From what I gather JD managed to never put that engine in a tractor. Just the 95 and cotton pickers. Talk about a hard starting engine, at least by 85 when I made the mistake to own one. We end up running the more prosperous neighbors junk parts and staying in the field almost as long as they did.

[Jacka]

I ran a half wore out 503 with a four row corn head and I think  13 ft grain for years when I was a  kid for dad.It was a step up from the 205 with the 2 row and 10 ft and we thought we were living the dream.But that little diesel engine (same as a 560) would have it it could handle in corn in the 70's and early 80s. Grain and beans it was fine,but corn and hills it worked.It got old and was hard to start in the cold buy I bet the glow plugs needed attention. 

[Big Bud guy]

3 hours ago, ray54 said:

 

Big bud guy

He could of tried a JD 95 with a 248  diesel.☹️ From what I gather JD managed to never put that engine in a tractor. 

Actually they did use that engine in tractors. They used it in the 2010. The 248 diesel and gas 217 used in the 95 and 55 combines are the 6 cylinder version of the 2010 engine. And those engines actually came out in the late 50s during the 2 cylinder era.  

[Mark (EC,IN)]

10 hours ago, 766 Man said:

  When dad bought the 4010 diesel which is still here today the 4020's were already at the JD dealers.  The IH dealers here in the East would not even talk 806 because they did not know when they would receive their first shipment.  Dad says the local IH dealer would only talk 560.  The local JD dealer actually had a pretty good price on a 4020 diesel as they were within a year of retiring and did not want stock sitting around.  JD offered an excellent clearance program for the 4010 so that was the direction dad went in the end.  5,500 dollars bought a 4010 diesel with WFE, 18.4 X 34 tires and 2 remotes plus number 10 mid-mount mower along with a F145H 4 X 16 plow.  I've seen the invoice.  The same features in a 4020 tractor alone was 6,200 dollars which was a fairly good price from what I was told.  When the 806 showed up at the local IH dealer a few months later it was priced at 6,700 dollars with WFE and being diesel.  That was about the same as a 4020 diesel with Power Shift then.

I had to reply to your post because my dad bought about the same equipment in 1966.

He paid $6450 for a 4020 (18.4; 2 remotes; and a wide front)

$1200 for a 145 plow (5 bottom)

and $550 for a model 50 front mount mower.

[Mark (EC,IN)]

I've seen several comparisons of 86 series and a Deere 4430.

I can add a little about those models as I still have both.

There are things I like about both.

In reality,  there isn't much difference in power .....they both will do the same jobs,  the IH does have better low in torque.

Biggest + for the IH is fuel economy,  it will do the same job on about ha third less fuel

Biggest + for the Deere is Hydraulics,  they are much faster and better than the 1086

Cabs...….pretty much a toss up

Biggest downfall for the Deere...…lets just say if it's cold out we will use the IH.

Biggest IH downfall...…can't see the drawbar hooking up.

They both have been good tractors.

[Eason]

On 2/17/2022 at 8:44 PM, Big Bud guy said:

I honestly didn't know 86 series were bad until the internet. I for sure would take one over a 66 series.  My opinion only, the reason for the 86 series supposedly mediocre reputation is more because of what it had to go up against.  The old saying in my neck of the woods is IH was always a generation behind JD after 1960 at least until the 88 series.  The 66 series for sure and the 86 series somewhat were a step side ways for IH.

I don't see how the 56 series was behind the 20 series. I'll take a 856 or the beloved 4020 anyday!!!

[ksfarmdude]

7 hours ago, Mark (EC,IN) said:

I've seen several comparisons of 86 series and a Deere 4430.

I can add a little about those models as I still have both.

There are things I like about both.

In reality,  there isn't much difference in power .....they both will do the same jobs,  the IH does have better low in torque.

Biggest + for the IH is fuel economy,  it will do the same job on about ha third less fuel

Biggest + for the Deere is Hydraulics,  they are much faster and better than the 1086

Cabs...….pretty much a toss up

Biggest downfall for the Deere...…lets just say if it's cold out we will use the IH.

Biggest IH downfall...…can't see the drawbar hooking up.

They both have been good tractors.

The 40 series Deere's were much better even than the 30's , Those are nice looking tractors BTW

[Farming Enthusiast]

17 hours ago, Big Bud guy said:

I disagree there.  The whole reason the 560 was rushed to the market is because IH was falling behind in the horsepower race. JD had the 5 plow rated 720 since 1956 and IH didn’t match that until 1958.  

I realize your knowledge of tractors far exceeds mine but since we're giving opinions on the demise of tractor companies, Ill let it be known what mine is. I don't think JD should have even made it out of the 60s with the outdated engine design that about throws your heart out of rhythm hearing them run. If it was 1956 and I was test driving tractors, and was coming from an Oliver dealer and tested a smooth running Super 88 or a 400, im pretty sure I woulda left the JD dealer nearly laughing and probably never woulda considered JD green again.  In fact from what I've seen and heard JD woulda been no higher than 5th on my list because there other factors that come into play besides number of plow bottoms. If FORD didn't have a knack for uplifting competition by firing good engineers during that time period, I say JD doesn't make it to the mid sixties. Now I am a little biased because I attend tractor pulls and watching these two cylinders putts down the track at 1 mph it about makes me sick when I see one pull up to the sled. 

[supermpuller]

Untill JD came out with the 4440 with a 466 motor they finally caught up with IH . The 404 motor JD used was a guttless wonder with no tourqe

[FarmerFixEmUp]

15 hours ago, Mark (EC,IN) said:

 

Biggest + for the IH is fuel economy,  it will do the same job on about ha third less fuel

 

One year between selling my 3688 and before I bought my 5288 I rented a 4440 to pull my 12 row 800 planter. My 1066 used less fuel on a 21 foot Krause disc than that Deere used pulling a planter. 

[766 Man]

8 hours ago, Mark (EC,IN) said:

I've seen several comparisons of 86 series and a Deere 4430.

I can add a little about those models as I still have both.

There are things I like about both.

In reality,  there isn't much difference in power .....they both will do the same jobs,  the IH does have better low in torque.

Biggest + for the IH is fuel economy,  it will do the same job on about ha third less fuel

Biggest + for the Deere is Hydraulics,  they are much faster and better than the 1086

Cabs...….pretty much a toss up

Biggest downfall for the Deere...…lets just say if it's cold out we will use the IH.

Biggest IH downfall...…can't see the drawbar hooking up.

They both have been good tractors.

  Excellent paint jobs on both tractors.

[766 Man]

9 hours ago, Mark (EC,IN) said:

I had to reply to your post because my dad bought about the same equipment in 1966.

He paid $6450 for a 4020 (18.4; 2 remotes; and a wide front)

$1200 for a 145 plow (5 bottom)

and $550 for a model 50 front mount mower.

  I really enjoy these types of posts where we get to see the cost of things from years ago.

[ksfarmdude]

54 minutes ago, supermpuller said:

Untill JD came out with the 4440 with a 466 motor they finally caught up with IH . The 404 motor JD used was a guttless wonder with no tourqe

The JD 466 cu in  was a great engine but overly used and modified for very large HP tractors that started exposing the limits that engine was capable of doing

[766 Man]

1 hour ago, Farmer in training said:

I realize your knowledge of tractors far exceeds mine but since we're giving opinions on the demise of tractor companies, Ill let it be known what mine is. I don't think JD should have even made it out of the 60s with the outdated engine design that about throws your heart out of rhythm hearing them run. If it was 1956 and I was test driving tractors, and was coming from an Oliver dealer and tested a smooth running Super 88 or a 400, im pretty sure I woulda left the JD dealer nearly laughing and probably never woulda considered JD green again.  In fact from what I've seen and heard JD woulda been no higher than 5th on my list because there other factors that come into play besides number of plow bottoms. If FORD didn't have a knack for uplifting competition by firing good engineers during that time period, I say JD doesn't make it to the mid sixties. Now I am a little biased because I attend tractor pulls and watching these two cylinders putts down the track at 1 mph it about makes me sick when I see one pull up to the sled. 

  My father's father actually went through the decision process you describe albeit a couple years earlier than 1956.  He bought an 88 which is still here today.  He did not like hand clutches on tractors which doomed JD, Case, and MM where he was concerned.  He did concede that JD easily had the best price which helps explain why the later 2 cylinders sold so well.  The design had more or less paid for itself in terms of JD so a greater portion of the selling price was a return to JD corporate which they used to start the program for tractor development which resulted in the New Gen tractors.  So, some good came out of building the 2 cylinders past their prime.

[Big Bud guy]

1 hour ago, Farmer in training said:

I realize your knowledge of tractors far exceeds mine but since we're giving opinions on the demise of tractor companies, Ill let it be known what mine is. I don't think JD should have even made it out of the 60s with the outdated engine design that about throws your heart out of rhythm hearing them run. If it was 1956 and I was test driving tractors, and was coming from an Oliver dealer and tested a smooth running Super 88 or a 400, im pretty sure I woulda left the JD dealer nearly laughing and probably never woulda considered JD green again.  In fact from what I've seen and heard JD woulda been no higher than 5th on my list because there other factors that come into play besides number of plow bottoms. If FORD didn't have a knack for uplifting competition by firing good engineers during that time period, I say JD doesn't make it to the mid sixties. Now I am a little biased because I attend tractor pulls and watching these two cylinders putts down the track at 1 mph it about makes me sick when I see one pull up to the sled. 

First of all when it comes to Oliver, if they would have had the dealer network that IH or JD did along with a more comprehensive implement/hay/combine line, they would have put a huge hurting both JD and IH for reasons I won't get into unless you want to hear them.  2nd, if its 1956 and I need the biggest rowcrop diesel tractor I can get, that would rule out the 400/450 and I'd have to go with the JD 720.  Farmers were demanding more hp and the top of the line rowcrop tractors were rapidly becoming the top seller.  IH failed to respond until they rushed the 560 out onto the market.  IH never did listen to farmers much after the original Farmall.  At least when it came to tractors.  3rd, what you stated about JD should have never made it out of the 50s is funny because the exact opposite happened.  You see up to WW II and a little afterwards, IH had a huge lead on JD in market share.  Yet in the 50s when IH should have left JD in the dust with a supposedly more "modern" Farmall design JD gained market share and matched IH or less in the mid to late 50s with that obsolete design.  Don't ask me how that happened, ask the guys who lived that era.  And finally my knowledge is limited to the Wheatbelt and I'm here to tell the you the 2 cylinder diesel wheatlands were very much a tractor compared to IH.  Superior lugging ability, fuel economy, an actual Ops platform, live PTO.  The sales numbers prove it.  And that hand clutch people like to criticize, well I got news for you, lots of the IH wheatlands had hand clutches too.  

[Big Bud guy]

1 hour ago, supermpuller said:

Untill JD came out with the 4440 with a 466 motor they finally caught up with IH . The 404 motor JD used was a guttless wonder with no tourqe

I think what Mark said is the final word on the 1086 vs 4430.  IH out lugs the 4430 and that's it.  A IH tractor 3 times smaller then the 4430 doesn't out pull it like guys on the Bash Board use to claim.  

[Big Bud guy]

20 minutes ago, ksfarmdude said:

The JD 466 cu in  was a great engine but overly used and modified for very large HP tractors that started exposing the limits that engine was capable of doing

The one in our 8300 does just fine.