Jump to content

7288 & 7488 for sale


OFFTHEFARM

Recommended Posts

It would be cool if someone took a 7150 or 8950 back half and put a 6788 front half on it and a super 70 Hood and made a 7388 like dirt boys made the 5388

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Drysleeves said:

Sort of. Cab in the wrong place for row crop work. The 2+2 was never originally designed to be a big dog in the field but rather a high traction row crop tractor, which it was. There was nothing more nimble on a row crop cultivator in the summer and the same tractor would drag a loaded 500 bushel grain cart anywhere that fall if needed. Been there, done that with a stock 3788. Crank up the horsey ponies, install a stack of weights and you'll regret it every time. IH anticipated that situation so they were working on the Super 70 tractor and the 50 Series the same way they did with the original 30 Series when they quite literally robbed parts from the next room from the 86 Series group. This is all laid out on Farmington Implement DVD 12 with the engineer who was there. And there were 76/7888 tractors planned with the bigger displacement 530/570 engines as power but.....then came the Buzzards to pick over the carcass left in the wake of John McCaffrey's legacy.

No doubt the 2+2 made it more convenient with the cab in the back for cultivating.  If White would put the cab on the back then you would have the same thing.  But if you put both the 4-150 and a 3588 in the same field you can’t use them for same jobs??  Same hp and both built out of rowcrop components.  Forget cultivating and planting for a minute.  You can’t hook the same plow or disc to both tractors?  What about the 4-180 vs the 3788? 
 

We farmed with a 155 hp rowcrop tractor during that era.  Pulled the same type of implements as our Versatile 950 did just smaller. 28ft chisel or duck foot plow, 40ft of 9350 hoe drills. I would like to think a 2+2 could handle those jobs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IH OAK said:

It would be cool if someone took a 7150 or 8950 back half and put a 6788 front half on it and a super 70 Hood and made a 7388 like dirt boys made the 5388

That sort of thing is underway with an entirely open timeline in an undisclosed location. I'll borrow a Bongino line....if you know, you know.

 

41 minutes ago, Big Bud guy said:

No doubt the 2+2 made it more convenient with the cab in the back for cultivating.  If White would put the cab on the back then you would have the same thing.  But if you put both the 4-150 and a 3588 in the same field you can’t use them for same jobs??  Same hp and both built out of rowcrop components.  Forget cultivating and planting for a minute.  You can’t hook the same plow or disc to both tractors?  What about the 4-180 vs the 3788? 
 

You can and we did. The 2+2 will plow and disc like any other but the point is the cab ahead of the pivot on a White doesn't lend itself to row crop lines of sight and an under 16 foot turning radius. The 2+2, when properly used and not abused can do both where other 4 wheel drives cannot. Harvester had a 7488 at FEREC in Hinsdale with a borrowed engine (L-10 or M-11 Cummins?) up front to test what the platform could tolerate in anticipation of the 530/570 engine program, also in development as per Jerry Lagod, someone else who was there. I believe a Hinsdale 7488 still exists that had the snot pulled out of it with the stock engine cranked so hard the pistons were swirled on the top.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Drysleeves is right the 2+2 was indeed designed to be a row crop tractor not a tillage tool tugger. The smallest ones were what, 130 hp?  Not exactly a powerhouse for tillage. Could you pull a plow or disc? Sure, but there were bigger conventional 4×4 tractors available for that. It was made to go down a row cultivating, planting or spraying with a mounted implement and then lift it up and turn on the end rows while running down an absolute minimum of the end row. The articulation point is in the center of the axles which allows them to track. Most any other tractor will run down two distinct tracks,  one for each axle. The biggest problem with the 2+2 was that it was introduced too late. Cultivating was nearly over by then. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When bud youle was describing the newer 2+2 he talked about the 300 hp 10 liter unit. They were going to market that tractor as a big 4wd. By 1984 iH had ceased building tractors with Steiger. I remember one of the mechanics at local dealer talking how stupid international was to quit 4 wd tractors and try to sell 2+2 tractors in their place. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, 12_Guy said:

Drysleeves is right the 2+2 was indeed designed to be a row crop tractor not a tillage tool tugger. The smallest ones were what, 130 hp?  Not exactly a powerhouse for tillage. Could you pull a plow or disc? Sure, but there were bigger conventional 4×4 tractors available for that. It was made to go down a row cultivating, planting or spraying with a mounted implement and then lift it up and turn on the end rows while running down an absolute minimum of the end row. The articulation point is in the center of the axles which allows them to track. Most any other tractor will run down two distinct tracks,  one for each axle. The biggest problem with the 2+2 was that it was introduced too late. Cultivating was nearly over by then. 

You forget the best selling size of tractor during that time was the IH 1066/1086 and JD 4430/4440.  All those were between 120 and 130hp and they were used for serious tillage on thousands of farms all across the US.  It seems incredulous IH would build a 4 wheel drive tractor row crop out of those same components but only say its good for cultivating or planting tractor.  They should have known farmers would treat them like a true 4x4 tractor because they are one.  The 7020 was designed out of row crop components from the 4020 and 4620.  It had no problem holding up.  No the problem with the 2+2 was they should have started with the something like 70 series instead of ending there.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Big Bud guy said:

You forget the best selling size of tractor during that time was the IH 1066/1086 and JD 4430/4440

The 2+2 was built and marketed to do do everything those tractors would do and more, which it did. Jerry Lagod's 400 Series powerplant was easily augmented beyond the parameters of the tractor. Ever heard of a warranty? The consumer can do whatever but don't blame the company. IH was dabbling in the unknown at the inception of the 2+2 concept and when it was successful they were going to bring more capabilities to the platform.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Drysleeves said:

I believe a Hinsdale 7488 still exists that had the snot pulled out of it with the stock engine cranked so hard the pistons were swirled on the top.

Correct. It lives in Northern Indiana.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I bought a 3588 in 81 neighbor had a new 4840 he was getting behind in fall tillage so i helped him catch up. both tractors pulled 6-18 plows my plow was a lH 720. Half mile field.The 4840 didn't have FWA. and couldn't keep up,traction was the issue and the old farmer was really suprised I could go faster 3588 had a DT 466 listed at 150 HP but most 3588 had around 160 to 170 HP and I had mt set at 175 HP. I still have my 3588 it pulls a 24 split row Kinzie bean planter now.the neighbor traded his 4840 for a 4840 with FWA and he got a IH 720 plow.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm no 2+2 expert except in that dad was able to get a 3788 for cheap that we used the last 8 or so yrs that he farmed.

Just wanted to back up the above comment on using the 2+2 as designed rather than a baby Steiger.

Around where I grew up, it was the general consensus that the first thing done to a tractor by all IH owners was turning up the fuel.

The row crop tractors survived because there's only so much traction available. When you doubled the tire surface contact and increased the weight as a 2+2 did, then tossed larger implements behind rather than pulling the same sizes faster as IH intended... you had an overloaded driveline and the resulting failures. And the bad rap didn't take long to poison the whole 2+2 concept. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Big Bud guy said:

You forget the best selling size of tractor during that time was the IH 1066/1086 and JD 4430/4440.  All those were between 120 and 130hp and they were used for serious tillage on thousands of farms all across the US.  It seems incredulous IH would build a 4 wheel drive tractor row crop out of those same components but only say its good for cultivating or planting tractor.  They should have known farmers would treat them like a true 4x4 tractor because they are one.  The 7020 was designed out of row crop components from the 4020 and 4620.  It had no problem holding up.  No the problem with the 2+2 was they should have started with the something like 70 series instead of ending there.  

Except they weren't treating them like 1086's and/or 4440's. They were treating them and expecting them to perform like Steiger Bearcats, Cougars and Panthers.

They're a true 4x4 tractor but they're built on a 160HP drivetrain not a 250-325HP one.

2+2's are now fondly remembered like the V8s. In the day they were DOGS on the market just like the V8s. Nobody wanted them. Point and laugh at the dummy that bought the ugly anteater. Funny on the hilly land around here you'd think everyone would want a 4x4 like that but no... There was always that one guy at the auctions buying them up cheap, taking them back to the farm, running them until they wouldn't go anymore, and parking them in the weeds or sending them off to scrap.

The spring the countershaft nut came off in the 1066, the dealer didn't have anything to loan us to use while they were fixing it except a 766 gas and a freshly traded 3388 (which was probably traded in on a 2WD 5088). Of course the dealer wasn't going to put any money in the 3388 so it had bald tires, tired engine, clapped out shifter... it didn't leave a good impression. Dad took it back and got the 766. which at least had decent tires and could pull the plow. That 766 was a nice tractor, but LOUD because of the ROPS and canopy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Matt Kirsch said:

Except they weren't treating them like 1086's and/or 4440's. They were treating them and expecting them to perform like Steiger Bearcats, Cougars and Panthers.

They're a true 4x4 tractor but they're built on a 160HP drivetrain not a 250-325HP one.

2+2's are fondly now remembered like the V8s. In the day they were DOGS on the market just like the V8s. Nobody wanted them. Point and laugh at the dummy that bought the ugly anteater. Funny on the hilly land around here you'd think everyone would want a 4x4 like that but no... There was always that one guy at the auctions buying them up cheap, taking them back to the farm, running them until they wouldn't go anymore, and parking them in the weeds or sending them off to scrap.

The spring the countershaft nut came off in the 1066, the dealer didn't have anything to loan us to use while they were fixing it except a 766 gas and a freshly traded 3388 (which was probably traded in on a 2WD 5088). Of course the dealer wasn't going to put any money in the 3388 so it had bald tires, tired engine, clapped out shifter... it didn't leave a good impression. Dad took it back and got the 766. which at least had decent tires and could pull the plow. That 766 was a nice tractor, but LOUD because of the ROPS and canopy.

Until I was on here, I didn’t know anybody remembered them fondly. I don’t have any experience personally. I knew lots of people who had experience with the early 2+2 tractors and it was all bad. One of our neighbors had one before they had Magnums and he had nothing good to say about it. They used to give them away at auctions because their reputation was terrible. There’s still the occasional one sitting in the weeds, but I don’t know of one in use. Maybe they were all just misused, but that seems unlikely. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Dirt_Floor_Poor said:

Until I was on here, I didn’t know anybody remembered them fondly. I don’t have any experience personally. I knew lots of people who had experience with the early 2+2 tractors and it was all bad. One of our neighbors had one before they had Magnums and he had nothing good to say about it. They used to give them away at auctions because their reputation was terrible. There’s still the occasional one sitting in the weeds, but I don’t know of one in use. Maybe they were all just misused, but that seems unlikely. 

There's several around here still in use.  I used one for a fall on a grain cart.  I really liked it for that except for the standard IH transmission.  A Super 70 would fix that obviously.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, IHandJDman said:

There's several around here still in use.  I used one for a fall on a grain cart.  I really liked it for that except for the standard IH transmission.  A Super 70 would fix that obviously.

Yeah, I don't understand what changed. People love 'em now. Heck I wouldn't even mind one, except they take up the space of two tractors in the barn...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Dirt_Floor_Poor said:

Until I was on here, I didn’t know anybody remembered them fondly. I don’t have any experience personally. I knew lots of people who had experience with the early 2+2 tractors and it was all bad. One of our neighbors had one before they had Magnums and he had nothing good to say about it. They used to give them away at auctions because their reputation was terrible. There’s still the occasional one sitting in the weeds, but I don’t know of one in use. Maybe they were all just misused, but that seems unlikely. 

There is one here locally.  Don’t know the guy personally but used to drive by his farm a lot.  He also has a 5020.  Between the 2+2 and the supposedly gutless POS 5020 it’s a wonder he gets any farming done 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Matt Kirsch said:

Except they weren't treating them like 1086's and/or 4440's. They were treating them and expecting them to perform like Steiger Bearcats, Cougars and Panthers.

They're a true 4x4 tractor but they're built on a 160HP drivetrain not a 250-325HP one.

2+2's are now fondly remembered like the V8s. In the day they were DOGS on the market just like the V8s.

True but I don’t know how many times I’ve read of guys claiming 1206s or 1086s or whatever jacked up way beyond their advertised hp with no problems. Someone on here even claimed their 1206 out pulled their 4166 a tractor that had 30 more hp and was 4 wheel drive.  The 4366 was built using final drives from the 1466.  I’ve never heard of any issues with those tractors so maybe that’s what the 2+2 should have had.  There was suppose to be a recall of all 3X88 2+2 to rebuild them and some of the items was new articulation and axle bearings.  Here is a discussion on 2+2s on NAT.
 https://talk.newagtalk.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=69768&DisplayType=nested
 

5 hours ago, Matt Kirsch said:

 

2+2's are now fondly remembered like the V8s. In the day they were DOGS on the market just like the V8s. Nobody wanted them.

I’m seeing that on these FB groups.  Even JD 8850s are getting a cult following.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Cattech said:

When you doubled the tire surface contact and increased the weight as a 2+2 did, then tossed larger implements behind rather than pulling the same sizes faster as IH intended...

I’d like to hear of some examples because only one guy SuperMpuller has stepped up and posted what he pulled for actual plow and it wasn’t outrageous.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Drysleeves said:

The 2+2 was built and marketed to do do everything those tractors would do and more, which it did. Jerry Lagod's 400 Series powerplant was easily augmented beyond the parameters of the tractor. Ever heard of a warranty? The consumer can do whatever but don't blame the company. IH was dabbling in the unknown at the inception of the 2+2 concept and when it was successful they were going to bring more capabilities to the platform.

The 4366 was a 225 hp true 4 wheel drive tractor using rowcrop tractor axles and finale drives.  Those don’t seem to have the reputation the 2+2 does.  From what I’ve found if anything the 466 suffered at that hp more then the drivetrain. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our dealership sold quite a few 2+2's to the dairy farmers. They really liked them on the manure spreaders in the winter when there was lots of snow. There is still 4 that I know of in use today in our area. I just put a TA in one bout 2 years ago. Also know of a 3588 with less than 200 hours on it. Looks like new yet with everything original,sits in storage.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Matt Kirsch said:

Yeah, I don't understand what changed. People love 'em now. Heck I wouldn't even mind one, except they take up the space of two tractors in the barn...

 

IMG_6991.jpeg
 

I have one sort of.  Mini 2+2 Holder AG3 just like in the picture.  I know the general story how IH developed the 2+2 but I almost wonder if at some point these were somewhat of an inspiration for them too because these are exactly what the 2+2 became

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...