Jump to content

7288 & 7488 for sale


OFFTHEFARM

Recommended Posts

Quite a few comments about the 2+2's soft condition prowess, a little story about our 3788.

First year we had a 2+2 turned out to be a rather late and wet spring, we were in late May and not a seed was in the ground yet. The east side of the farm has nice dark lower soil that is always wet and frankly the reason Dad always wanted a 4wd tractor. The ol' man was out with the 4320 on duals and a light 14' disk trying to break the crust over on that east side, trying get it to dry. He was adamant not to bring that 2+2 over there as we wouldn't have anything big enough to pull it out if it got stuck. I was over where the ground was better but by no means dry, getting a feel for the 2+2, and was coming to realize it was the tractor that should have been on the lower ground. After a while the inevitable happened, I seen the 4320 wasn't moving and didn't seem to be sitting properly. So I headed over to see what was happening? ;)......

Of course, all the lectures I endured in my youth were about to be redeemed! I couldn't resist it, I gave him h377 about playing in the mud and how nothing gets done when your stuck... who's gonna wash this thing now!? It all came back as we hooked a chain from the 2+2's disk to the 4320. I sank the disk in a bit as I tightened the chain up just to make a good show of the better tractor and a little tug popped the 4320 right out. But I just couldn't let it go that easy, I had to rub a little more salt in the wound! While unhooking the chain I continued about the mess in the field and how someone was going to have to shovel in the holes!... what a GD waste! - I laid it on thick(all in sarcastic good humor for those who think I was actually mad) But I took the 3788, made a circle and pulled the 24' disk right through his ruts, and then came in for then next pass. All I can say is that tractor nearly walked on water, had a couple scares, but not once did I ever bury it.

  • Like 12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 2+2 is an underappreciated, misunderstood, inappropriately maligned work of engineering genius, all done on a limited budget in a relatively microscopic design timeframe with the majority of the involved componentry sourced from off the shelf parts. It was an unexpected immediate success, which prompted continuation of the program into the next phase with the same modus operandi using components from the upcoming 50 Series tractor. There was even the possible unveiling of the powershift transmission on the Super 70 in the works which was delayed until 1985 with the New Farmall, which never happened.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The folks that gripe about them the most are the ones who have never operated them! 

     The shop I started with had one on the lot. A customer's big FWA tractor was down for major repairs in the spring and needed a rental. He was offered the 3588. He cursed and swore up and down that he wouldn't be caught dead in such a stupid tractor! He came back a day later, mad, because not one dealer had a rental unit. He had to take the 35. A couple of weeks later he came back and said "put a price on that tractor. you can't have it back! I have never ran anything so quiet, smooth, and nimble"

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just thought up a good analogy for the 2+2...

The 3x88s are like that gal you didn't pay attention to back in school, maybe even picked on. The 6x88s were your senior year in high school when you noticed that awkward looking gal is maturing into being kinda sexy.

And the 70 Series is when you run into her at the class reunion and she's a downright supermodel, but happily married and no longer available. 

  • Like 9
  • Haha 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tractor data says:

3588 $51500 MSRP 1981 130hp drawbar

3788 $61000 MSRP 1981 142hp drawbar

 

6588 $65100 MSRP 1984 130hp drawbar

6788 $70500 MSRP 1984 142hp drawbar

 

No 70 series data for MSRP or drawbar hp

7288 175 PTO HP

7488 200 PTO HP

They were higher PTO than previous series by about 25-30hp each

 

Deere:

4840 $57648 MSRP 1982 151hp drawbar NON-FWA

8440 $64000 MSRP 1982 161hp drawbar

8640 $80000 MSRP 1982 203hp drawbar

 

4850 $81605 MSRP 1983 162hp drawbar FWA

8450 $78700 MSRP 1983 174hp drawbar

8650 $97562 MSRP 1983 219hp drawbar

 

I really see why they were trying to market this tractor because it kind of filled a niche in the market at the time. Rather large jump from row crop to 4WD then and the 2+2 would have been more useful than a 4WD.

I kind of view the 2+2 like I view the bi-directional. A good idea for what it was meant for. I loved running the bi-directional for hay and loader work when they came out. Never did spray with one but always thought they would be great at that with less crop damage on the end rows than a 2wd or FWA tractor.

 

On a different note, the inflation back then was very similar to what we are going through now.

 

 
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, OFFTHEFARM said:

Tractor data says:

3588 $51500 MSRP 1981 130hp drawbar

3788 $61000 MSRP 1981 142hp drawbar

 

6588 $65100 MSRP 1984 130hp drawbar

6788 $70500 MSRP 1984 142hp drawbar

 

No 70 series data for MSRP or drawbar hp

7288 175 PTO HP

7488 200 PTO HP

They were higher PTO than previous series by about 25-30hp each

 

Deere:

4840 $57648 MSRP 1982 151hp drawbar NON-FWA

8440 $64000 MSRP 1982 161hp drawbar

8640 $80000 MSRP 1982 203hp drawbar

 

4850 $81605 MSRP 1983 162hp drawbar FWA

8450 $78700 MSRP 1983 174hp drawbar

8650 $97562 MSRP 1983 219hp drawbar

 

I really see why they were trying to market this tractor because it kind of filled a niche in the market at the time. Rather large jump from row crop to 4WD then and the 2+2 would have been more useful than a 4WD.

I kind of view the 2+2 like I view the bi-directional. A good idea for what it was meant for. I loved running the bi-directional for hay and loader work when they came out. Never did spray with one but always thought they would be great at that with less crop damage on the end rows than a 2wd or FWA tractor.

 

On a different note, the inflation back then was very similar to what we are going through now.

 

 

That is what I was going to post. One day I will acquire a 2+2. Just to have one. We have had a couple of versatile bidirectional and once you use one they are pretty slick.  Comparing a 3788 to a 8440 isn’t really apples to apples. The 8440 is a powered down unit from a tractor capable of 300 hp all day long. The 3788 as far as transmission power application was a 200 hp unit. Like you said a 2+2 shines pulling 2wd sized implements really well.  I would like a 6388 just for spraying a bit maybe baling or raking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, dale560 said:

That is what I was going to post. One day I will acquire a 2+2. Just to have one. We have had a couple of versatile bidirectional and once you use one they are pretty slick.  Comparing a 3788 to a 8440 isn’t really apples to apples. The 8440 is a powered down unit from a tractor capable of 300 hp all day long. The 3788 as far as transmission power application was a 200 hp unit. Like you said a 2+2 shines pulling 2wd sized implements really well.  I would like a 6388 just for spraying a bit maybe baling or raking.

We had a 8440 for a few years.  The 8440 would out pull our 4640 but not by much.  And it was more because of traction than hp.  So I would expect a 3788 to do everything an 8440 could do.  If not that would be a bad look to me for the 2+2.  SMpuller already said his would out work a 4840. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Big Bud guy said:

We had a 8440 for a few years.  The 8440 would out pull our 4640 but not by much.  And it was more because of traction than hp.  So I would expect a 3788 to do everything an 8440 could do.  If not that would be a bad look to me for the 2+2.  SMpuller already said his would out work a 4840. 

Just the weight difference about 5000 lbs maybe and the transmission internals on the 8430,40, 50. These were the same tractors as the 8630,40,50 just with the smaller engine. These parts were used in the 8850 also. The rear end on the jd is the 4630,4640 with bigger diameter axles as the tractors age. The 1486 rear from the 2+2  I guess was about an equal as they used those series in the Steiger built tractors. JD and IH both used front axles that were also used in payloaders. IH used the 510 or so front John Deere used the 544 644 axle other than JD deleted the brakes for the tractors.  Just going to say drawbar to drawbar a stock 8430 will pull a stock 3788 backwards just on the weight and traction advantage. This is two off the line new tractors set at factory with factory operating weight and new tires, don’t have to be matching tires but new set the jd pulls the iH backwards everytime. We ran a 7020 jd for years and that tractor was about what the 2+2 guys talk. It was light and had enough power but not extra it would go through a lot of wet areas. Dad had a new 1586 at the same time the 7020 was used for the heavy work and the tractor that ran morning noon and night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, dale560 said:

Just the weight difference about 5000 lbs maybe and the transmission internals on the 8430,40, 50. These were the same tractors as the 8630,40,50 just with the smaller engine. These parts were used in the 8850 also. The rear end on the jd is the 4630,4640 with bigger diameter axles as the tractors age. The 1486 rear from the 2+2  I guess was about an equal as they used those series in the Steiger built tractors. JD and IH both used front axles that were also used in payloaders. IH used the 510 or so front John Deere used the 544 644 axle other than JD deleted the brakes for the tractors.  Just going to say drawbar to drawbar a stock 8430 will pull a stock 3788 backwards just on the weight and traction advantage. This is two off the line new tractors set at factory with factory operating weight and new tires, don’t have to be matching tires but new set the jd pulls the iH backwards everytime. We ran a 7020 jd for years and that tractor was about what the 2+2 guys talk. It was light and had enough power but not extra it would go through a lot of wet areas. Dad had a new 1586 at the same time the 7020 was used for the heavy work and the tractor that ran morning noon and night.

 

JD 4x4 tractors of that era never had impressive performance off the drawbar because they were big frame tractor with small block engines always competing against big block Cat/cummins powered Steiger or Versatiles.  I've heard the same complaint on the IH 4300 series but not on here of course.  Anybody that farmed with a 5020 was not impressed with the 7020.  7520s were so much more popular because they gave the proper performance "feel" over 130-140 hp two wheel drive tractors.  8630/40s could and did pull the same plows around here as their Steiger/Versatile counterparts did but they had their tongue hanging out the whole time and you had better be in the high side on the transmission.  Even our 8850 I felt was always a dog.  The 3788 had theoretically heavier rear end than the bigger 4366.  Engines between the two was a wash or if you want to give a slight edge to the DT 466 go ahead.  I don't doubt that a 8430 out pulling a 3788 hooked back to back because the 8430 already was on the brink of being over weight like you said but I assume you would ballast the 3788 up a little.  I'm basing my opinion off an earlier post and my response.  https://www.redpowermagazine.com/forums/topic/154721-7288-7488-for-sale/?do=findComment&comment=1785648. Thats why I feel a 3788 should do or come close to a 8440.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always thought my 4366 has too much traction on dry ground. It's not running any ballast and has 18.4x38 duals all around.

  I want to go with 20.5x32 rice singles but my budget says 24.5x32 singles.

Most tractors run better with a smaller implement going faster than struggling with a big one.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, acem said:

I've always thought my 4366 has too much traction on dry ground. It's not running any ballast and has 18.4x38 duals all around.

  I want to go with 20.5x32 rice singles but my budget says 24.5x32 singles.

Most tractors run better with a smaller implement going faster than struggling with a big one.

 

Just looking at the Neb tests, the 4366 weighed ~21,000 lbs with no ballast.  And you say it already has enough traction.  The 8440 was tested at ~26,000 lbs no ballast.  And I always felt because of the design of JD used, there was more parasitic losses in the drive train than Steiger or Versatile.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We bought a roach 3588 nursed it to decent mechanic shape and feed cows with it for 4 years. I used it in the field some also. We have owned (4)856 , (2)656 , (5)1066 , (1)1466, (1)1566 ,(2)1586, (6) 7140-8950, (3) MX Magnum, mx135, (2)5140, (1)5130 , (1)9170, (2)4366, (3)186 , (2)3020ps, (1)4630ps, (1)8960 synchro , (1)L305dt Kubota, ac6080, ac7020,:ac7060, ac8050 . ..covered most of the working tractors since I drove . I liked that 2+2 for lots of reasons. It was much better visibility than it would appear, way more maneuverable than others we have had 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/12/2023 at 2:01 PM, OFFTHEFARM said:

Tractor data says:

3588 $51500 MSRP 1981 130hp drawbar

3788 $61000 MSRP 1981 142hp drawbar

 

6588 $65100 MSRP 1984 130hp drawbar

6788 $70500 MSRP 1984 142hp drawbar

 

No 70 series data for MSRP or drawbar hp

7288 175 PTO HP

7488 200 PTO HP

They were higher PTO than previous series by about 25-30hp each

 

Deere:

4840 $57648 MSRP 1982 151hp drawbar NON-FWA

8440 $64000 MSRP 1982 161hp drawbar

8640 $80000 MSRP 1982 203hp drawbar

 

4850 $81605 MSRP 1983 162hp drawbar FWA

8450 $78700 MSRP 1983 174hp drawbar

8650 $97562 MSRP 1983 219hp drawbar

 

 

 

We bought a brand new Versatile 950 (348 hp) in 1979.  Total cost was $65,000 and they allowed us $19,000 for the MF 1800.  Now there were a few small things a JD 4x4 could do or do better then a Versatile but overall you when you compare dollars to hp, you can see why Versatile kicked JD’s ass and why they wanted to buy out Versatile.  

Also, A year later we bought a new JD 4640 16 sp and total cost was $47,000.  Traded in a Massey 1150

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...