450vs560

[Big Bud guy]

3 hours ago, lotsaIHCs said:

I didn't know that the H outsold the M. Interesting! In the 40s and 50s, from what I've been told, the M, W6, W9, Case LA and all the others from Minnie Mo, JD etc. were king. But I'm on the northern prairie where fields were huge and big tractors were needed. I guess it all depends on where you're from. I can see where the H would outsell the M because outside of my little world there were a lot of smaller farms back then.

On the green side it was similar.  The B outsold the A.  And the B was in the same hp class as the H when they were both on the market.  But here there was way more Ms then Hs.  

[Dirt_Floor_Poor]

1 hour ago, acem said:

In recent years Mahindra sells more tractors worldwide than any other manufacturer (including John Deere).

Does John Deere even publish how many units they produce? I’m not sure that Mahindra’s claim is even verifiable. It certainly wouldn’t be true based on revenue. 

[766 Man]

3 hours ago, Binderoid said:

I guess what I don't  understand  is why IH doesn't  have this  reputation  with the C113 . It has smaller rods and mains and more power. And it had the same oil available to it as the 9N . 

Unless people  are doing 150 hr overhauls  on these engines  and not talking about it. 

  I think that on average the tractors that used the C113 engine such as the Farmall A were doing less hard work on a yearly basis such as moldboard plowing.  The most common jobs I remember them doing was cutting or raking hay and cultivating row crops.  As I said and Dale touched upon was engine oil quality was very poor back when these tractors were new and even into the 1970's was nothing special.  Engine oil only improved from the mud used during the 1920's because the petroleum industry was tasked to keep military equipment moving and not failing in key moments due to poor oil.  

[Big Bud guy]

28 minutes ago, 766 Man said:

  I think that on average the tractors that used the C113 engine such as the Farmall A were doing less hard work on a yearly basis such as moldboard plowing.  

The Farmall A and 9n had the same hp and damn near the same size engine displacement wise but you never see an A pull a 2 bottom like a Fords did.  I have no doubt the C113 was higher quality but I also agree Fords were generally used harder at least when they were new.  

 

https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1607&context=tractormuseumlit

https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1953&context=tractormuseumlit

[766 Man]

1 minute ago, Big Bud guy said:

The Farmall A and 9n had the same hp but you never see an A pull a 2 bottom like a Fords did.  I have no doubt the 113 was higher quality but I also agree Fords were generally used harder at least when they were new.  

 

https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1607&context=tractormuseumlit

https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1953&context=tractormuseumlit

  I'm going by the lack of tillage equipment that I saw over the decades which would be associated with a Farmall A.  Things such as a 1 bottom plow or a 4ft tandem disk.  I saw mostly mid mount mowers and cultivators which were tractor specific.  The advertising for the Ford N series was to imply they could handle any and all work thrown their way.  Many farmers bought the N series tractors based on that "promise."  Yesterday, on my way to my BIL's west of Rochester, NY I must have seen at least 3 Dearborn plows used as yard art and they were not rusted junk sitting along a lonely road.  

[Big Bud guy]

13 hours ago, dale560 said:

I don’t know what would be the greater evil the pony motor or the 4 6 volt batteries in the electric start version. The pony motor version wasn’t a bad deal in the number series with the v4 they ran and weren’t bad to deal with. 
Used to work on buddies Belarus tractor and it was just American market that had electric start in the 90s the other markets all had a pony motor like cat used on starter mount

My 830 has two 12s.  Not original but an easy improvement over the original setup.  I bet alot of electric start 730/830s have the same setup.  Lot of pony start 2 cylinders have been converted over to electric start 

[dale560]

46 minutes ago, Big Bud guy said:

My 830 has two 12s.  Not original but an easy improvement over the original setup.  I bet alot of electric start 730/830s have the same setup.  Lot of pony start 2 cylinders have been converted over to electric start 

Yes I know. It just takes the bracket and cables. But up until the mid 60s they didn’t have battery'sthat were capable of starting those so the 4 6 volts were used. Like a 5010 used. I shouldn’t say batteries didn’t exist but they were not up to small equipment use and cost factor.

A good running pony motor swung them fast also plus preheated main motor some.

[hillman]

the little C113 and C123 engines are as good as they come in that size and hp and will work hard all day. To say they were bought specifically for light work is not true, Farms bought tractors that reflected their acreage and type of farming they were doing.There wasn't a second tractor in the war years or shortly after. 

Our neighbor when I was a kid had 65 acres. His 130 did all the plowing- exact same bottom end as a C113. It was never rebuilt until the 1990s

that engine family was built 40 years with minor changes. That is a good design!

 Will they work hard the 140 had considerable more power and I have owned more 2 furrow mounted plows for those tractors than I can remember. I don't recall many used in my neighborhood but they were well used and some worn out

That engine family with minor changes went right up to the 504. more than double the hp as an A 

A poor engine is one than will not stay together under rated load- don't make excuses for them . They were poor plain and simple. My experience with them and its considerable is they were oil burners before the bottom end lost oil pressure. The flathead is also an inefficient engine and those little cusses liked their gas. Ford sold them as 2 plow tractor because the Ferguson system worked well with the plow and traction. I would love to see a Ford pull even a 2 furrow drag plow with 10 inch bottoms spinning across a field 

 

IMHO  Farmalls running distillate  were rebuild often due to the rings getting washed down more so then lubrication

[dale560]

6 minutes ago, hillman said:

the little C113 and C123 engines are as good as they come in that size and hp and will work hard all day. To say they were bought specifically for light work is not true, Farms bought tractors that reflected their acreage and type of farming they were doing.There wasn't a second tractor in the war years or shortly after. 

Our neighbor when I was a kid had 65 acres. His 130 did all the plowing- exact same bottom end as a C113. It was never rebuilt until the 1990s

that engine family was built 40 years with minor changes. That is a good design!

 Will they work hard the 140 had considerable more power and I have owned more 2 furrow mounted plows for those tractors than I can remember. I don't recall many used in my neighborhood but they were well used and some worn out

That engine family with minor changes went right up to the 504. more than double the hp as an A 

A poor engine is one than will not stay together under rated load- don't make excuses for them . They were poor plain and simple. My experience with them and its considerable is they were oil burners before the bottom end lost oil pressure. The flathead is also an inefficient engine and those little cusses liked their gas. Ford sold them as 2 plow tractor because the Ferguson system worked well with the plow and traction. I would love to see a Ford pull even a 2 furrow drag plow with 10 inch bottoms spinning across a field 

 

IMHO  Farmalls running distillate  were rebuild often due to the rings getting washed down more so then lubrication

the engine from an A B or That series is  very well thought out compared to the N ford. I would class the cub engine the 60 inch engine into the ford N size for equal durability.

the A motor had wet sleeves, better cast rods and overhead valves. The flat head valve in block motors always had more valve train issues. Stuck valves , burnt valves and other things.

[hillman]

5 minutes ago, dale560 said:

the engine from an A B or That series is  very well thought out compared to the N ford. I would class the cub engine the 60 inch engine into the ford N size for equal durability.

the A motor had wet sleeves, better cast rods and overhead valves. The flat head valve in block motors always had more valve train issues. Stuck valves , burnt valves and other things.

you are singing to the choir🙂

[766 Man]

  Just about every farm around here had two tractors or more around 1940.  A tractor the size of a Farmall A was a secondary tractor but like anything else there were most likely exceptions if you knew where to look.  Most likely true in nearly every place in the US.  It would take very light ground and a lot of ballasting for a Farmall A to pull two bottoms unless you want to talk rarities like owning a 2 X 10 plow which I have rarely seen over the course of decades.  Everybody likes to talk about one 40 HP tractor to handle 400 acres.  How much plowing was done every year on those 400 acres and how far spread out was it over the year?  

[Big Bud guy]

17 minutes ago, 766 Man said:

  Just about every farm around here had two tractors or more around 1940.  A tractor the size of a Farmall A was a secondary tractor but like anything else there were most likely exceptions if you knew where to look.  Most likely true in nearly every place in the US.  It would take very light ground and a lot of ballasting for a Farmall A to pull two bottoms unless you want to talk rarities like owning a 2 X 10 plow which I have rarely seen over the course of decades.  Everybody likes to talk about one 40 HP tractor to handle 400 acres.  How much plowing was done every year on those 400 acres and how far spread out was it over the year?  

Tractors like the Farmall A were the 3rd or 4th tractor in the lineup around here just like our M was the 3rd behind the W-9 and TD-14A.  My uncle had a Super A.  He cultivated his garden and the shelter belt with it and mowed hay.  He farmed with a TD-14A and later a pair of WD-9s hooked together. 

[766 Man]

13 minutes ago, Big Bud guy said:

Tractors like the Farmall A were the 3rd or 4th tractor in the lineup around here just like our M was the 3rd behind the W-9 and TD-14A.  My uncle had a Super A.  He cultivated his garden and the shelter belt with it and mowed hay.  He farmed with a TD-14A and later a pair of WD-9s hooked together. 

  Quite a few Farmall H's and M's (or equivalent) were primary tractors on their respective farms around here during the 1940's.  W9 would have been quite uncommon for at least around here.  

[dale560]

My moms dad had a team of horses on his auction yet in 1972.  The m was the small and big tractor for a couple years. When he had sale in 72 he had a 806 and a 2010 jd gas. The 2010 ended up at neighbors and their other farm 200 miles away. They said it hadn’t had any major work done to it about 7 or 8 years ago. That is when I first learned they had bought it.

[bitty]

14 hours ago, lotsaIHCs said:

I didn't know that the H outsold the M. Interesting! In the 40s and 50s, from what I've been told, the M, W6, W9, Case LA and all the others from Minnie Mo, JD etc. were king. But I'm on the northern prairie where fields were huge and big tractors were needed. I guess it all depends on where you're from. I can see where the H would outsell the M because outside of my little world there were a lot of smaller farms back then.

When the tractors started selling the H was plenty big compared to horses , the M was way too big for most people in their minds . As time went by they adapted to tractors and they gradually wanted bigger ones. By the end of the production the M was way up and the H was down in sales numbers. Similar to the 70's compared to today's average HP per tractor sold if you ignore the compacts going to non farms 

[MacAR]

Y'all do realize that not every farm in America covered 500+ acres in 1940/50 right? In this area, for example, a good sized farm was 160 - 200 acres. Of that, probably 40 to 60 was tillable. The rest was woods and pasture. My great grandfather's farm is a good example of this. In his 1943 Dept. of Ag war survey, he had listed 12 acres of cotton, 25 acres of corn, eight acres in sorghum, two acres of truck crops (vegetables) and the balance of is 160 acre farm was in woods, pasture, and hayfield. He farmed that ground until he retired in 1958 with two teams of mules and a one ton Ford truck. He never owned a tractor of any kind. And before you say he was a one-off or oddity, I could name you a lot of families around here that farmed up into the 60's with just horses and mules.                                                                                                                                                                                 

[hillman]

1 hour ago, MacAR said:

Y'all do realize that not every farm in America covered 500+ acres in 1940/50 right? In this area, for example, a good sized farm was 160 - 200 acres. Of that, probably 40 to 60 was tillable. The rest was woods and pasture. My great grandfather's farm is a good example of this. In his 1943 Dept. of Ag war survey, he had listed 12 acres of cotton, 25 acres of corn, eight acres in sorghum, two acres of truck crops (vegetables) and the balance of is 160 acre farm was in woods, pasture, and hayfield. He farmed that ground until he retired in 1958 with two teams of mules and a one ton Ford truck. He never owned a tractor of any kind. And before you say he was a one-off or oddity, I could name you a lot of families around here that farmed up into the 60's with just horses and mules.                                                                                                                                                                                 

 1954 was the first year tractors out numbered horses and mules on farms in the USA. 

 Canada joined the WW2 in 1939 , tractors were very hard to get. I call bs on some claims on here about 2 tractors on Eastern farms- at least in these parts 

[hillman]

3 hours ago, 766 Man said:

.  It would take very light ground and a lot of ballasting for a Farmall A to pull two bottoms unless you want to talk rarities like owning a 2 X 10 plow which I have rarely seen over the course of decades.  

 

8 hours ago, hillman said:

 

 Will they work hard the 140 had considerable more power and I have owned more 2 furrow mounted plows for those tractors than I can remember. I don't recall many used in my neighborhood but they were well used and some worn out

 

 Super A -140 are ALWAYS fitted to a 2 bottom plow and pull them well. Once again if you are referring to something I post please keep your reply accurate as to what I said.  A Farmall A has less hp and it would be challenging for most guys to lift a 2 bottom plow without hydraulics 

Tires loaded and one set of wheel weights and a Super A -140 is ready to plow with 2 bottoms.. That's a fact . I have never seen a 1 furrow on a Super A-140 here. owned countless 2 bottoms

I mentioned a 2 /10 plow because a Dorf wouldn't move a 2/14 drag plow. 8c plows can be narrowed up to 10 inch np. Do you want one? come and get one 2-10

[lotsaIHCs]

1 hour ago, MacAR said:

Y'all do realize that not every farm in America covered 500+ acres in 1940/50 right? In this area, for example, a good sized farm was 160 - 200 acres. Of that, probably 40 to 60 was tillable. The rest was woods and pasture. My great grandfather's farm is a good example of this. In his 1943 Dept. of Ag war survey, he had listed 12 acres of cotton, 25 acres of corn, eight acres in sorghum, two acres of truck crops (vegetables) and the balance of is 160 acre farm was in woods, pasture, and hayfield. He farmed that ground until he retired in 1958 with two teams of mules and a one ton Ford truck. He never owned a tractor of any kind. And before you say he was a one-off or oddity, I could name you a lot of families around here that farmed up into the 60's with just horses and mules.                                                                                                                                                                                 

In 1952, of the 480 acres here, between 60 and 80 acres was in hay/pasture/yard or otherwise not tillable. So let's say 80 not tilled. That leaves 400 acres. Of that, at that time it was common to leave half of it in summer fallow. So 200 acres planted to crops. Here it was wheat, barley, oats, flax etc. But the summer fallow also required tillage, usually disk or some sort of harrow to keep weeds at bay. So here it would have been 200 acres of plow, packer and drill, and 200 acres of tillage for weed control. Two tractors on the farm, an M and a Ford N. The N was replaced with a 300 utility later.

[MacAR]

1 hour ago, hillman said:

 1954 was the first year tractors out numbered horses and mules on farms in the USA. 

 Canada joined the WW2 in 1939 , tractors were very hard to get. I call bs on some claims on here about 2 tractors on Eastern farms- at least in these parts 

I'm with you. These small southern farms did well to have a single tractor let alone two back then. For that matter, a lot of them still only have one. But then again, according to some of the folks in this thread they're not real farmers since they don't farm thousands of acres. Guess those little guys (me included) just don't matter. 

[MacAR]

58 minutes ago, lotsaIHCs said:

In 1952, of the 480 acres here, between 60 and 80 acres was in hay/pasture/yard or otherwise not tillable. So let's say 80 not tilled. That leaves 400 acres. Of that, at that time it was common to leave half of it in summer fallow. So 200 acres planted to crops. Here it was wheat, barley, oats, flax etc. But the summer fallow also required tillage, usually disk or some sort of harrow to keep weeds at bay. So here it would have been 200 acres of plow, packer and drill, and 200 acres of tillage for weed control. Two tractors on the farm, an M and a Ford N. The N was replaced with a 300 utility later.

Lot of work for those two machines. I started out working my place with a 9n and a 2000 Ford. Got the 300, sold the 9n. Later on, I was taking care of 80 acres with the 300 and a Cub. That's a lot of time in the seat, when you consider all the Cub did was cultivate and pull a hay rake. 

[hillman]

37 minutes ago, MacAR said:

I'm with you. These small southern farms did well to have a single tractor let alone two back then. For that matter, a lot of them still only have one. But then again, according to some of the folks in this thread they're not real farmers since they don't farm thousands of acres. Guess those little guys (me included) just don't matter. 

some areas measure yield by bushels per mile others bushels per acre. just sayin 

seems like no real date is specified in the this debate. Farmall A, Ford 9n and 2N were wartime tractors. big difference from 1939 and post 1946 in equipment and money available

[lotsaIHCs]

43 minutes ago, MacAR said:

Lot of work for those two machines. I started out working my place with a 9n and a 2000 Ford. Got the 300, sold the 9n. Later on, I was taking care of 80 acres with the 300 and a Cub. That's a lot of time in the seat, when you consider all the Cub did was cultivate and pull a hay rake. 

I'm sure it was a LOT of seat time! And I suppose grandpa was in the field from dawn to dusk, so long days. Of course, he didn't work off the farm. And with small grains there was no cultivating like with corn, cotton etc.

[766 Man]

1 hour ago, hillman said:

 

 Super A -140 are ALWAYS fitted to a 2 bottom plow and pull them well. Once again if you are referring to something I post please keep your reply accurate as to what I said.  A Farmall A has less hp and it would be challenging for most guys to lift a 2 bottom plow without hydraulics 

Tires loaded and one set of wheel weights and a Super A -140 is ready to plow with 2 bottoms.. That's a fact . I have never seen a 1 furrow on a Super A-140 here. owned countless 2 bottoms

I mentioned a 2 /10 plow because a Dorf wouldn't move a 2/14 drag plow. 8c plows can be narrowed up to 10 inch np. Do you want one? come and get one 2-10

If you look up page you would see that I was referring to a Farmall A and not a Super A.  That was simply in addressing Binderoid and staying somewhat in line with talking about the 9N with the intent of talking about 1940 tractors or close to it.  A Farmall A from the factory then would not have come with hydraulics and a plow used most likely would have been a trip type plow.  2 X 10 may have been possible but sure not practical.  Most areas had 2 tractors on a farm and if ground needed to be turned a tractor capable of pulling 2 X 14 plows would have been purchased such as a Farmall H.  Due to covering all needs a farm that required a 2 bottom plow bought a tractor capable of pulling a 2 bottom and one that could get some work done such as set for 14 inch furrows was bought FIRST.  As I said up page I have seen many 2 X 14 plows advertised and sold at auction.  I've seen maybe a few TOTAL plows that were set at 10 inch furrows and I doubt that anybody intentionally narrowed a plow that was used at 14 inches to take it to a sale and confuse most people.  I have to go by the things I have seen to support any hypothesis and I don't see anything out there to support the notion that any volume of 2 bottom plows were sold to be pulled with a Farmall A.  Yes, the Farmall A was close to a 9N in engine horsepower and with enough screwing around and under the right conditions it could pull 2 X 14 but not as well as some other choices with far less playing around.  Heck, around here there are many places where a Farmall H or JD B would be reduced to pulling 2 X 12 plows and not liking it.  Why would you go out of your way to make a 9N pull a 2 bottom trailer plow?  Any Ford salesman back then would have been schooled on the advantages of the Ferguson system.  I knew a man who actually sold 8N's (that is when his career started selling tractors but relevant to the discussion) and won bonuses for exceeding goals.  Too bad he is no longer around to recount his experiences.  I'm not a Ford lover but just giving credit where credit is due.  Once again if a Farmall A pulling a 2 bottom plow was more than an isolated phenomna there should be evidence as the equipment used coming up for sale over the years.  Plenty of Dearborn 2 X14 plows and some 2 X 12 plows sold through the paper, auction, and now internet to show that very few tried putting a round peg in a square hole namely making a N pull a trailer plow.  

[766 Man]

2 hours ago, hillman said:

 1954 was the first year tractors out numbered horses and mules on farms in the USA. 

 Canada joined the WW2 in 1939 , tractors were very hard to get. I call bs on some claims on here about 2 tractors on Eastern farms- at least in these parts 

  I wish the people who actually farmed then were alive and here to tell you otherwise.  But I have seen the proof.  I have told the story about how dad's father slid in under the wire and bought his Farmall M as the war was getting hot.  Prior to that he had a Hart Parr (don't remember the model number anymore and anybody who knew is dead) and an Oliver 80 together.  The 80 replaced another Hart Parr.  A couple neighbors had Farmall H's and Oliver 70's together.  Pretty sure mom's father had both his Farmall H and Farmall M by then.  And we have not even covered the established farmers who had the means to own at least two tractors.  Heck, I have even heard of brothers sharing the expense on ONE car so each brother could have a couple of tractors each to farm with.  Also, remember quite a few farms here grew high value crops such as fruits and vegetables and edible beans which allowed for a fuller line of equipment including tractors.  An old saying here was a good crop of red kidney beans or apples paid off a mortgage or in my grandpa's case to buy his Farmall M.  Got that from dad and uncle many times.