450vs560

[MacAR]

39 minutes ago, lotsaIHCs said:

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.

The killer for me is I do work off the farm, so a lot of nights and weekends are consumed by farm work. Working headlights are a must for me. I've put a lot of long hours in the seat of the 300, moreso than any of the other ones. 

[MacAR]

6 minutes ago, 766 Man said:

  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.  

I've listened to the people that were alive back then talk about farming. I'm also fortunate enough to have paid attention when those old men talked,  unlike the rest of my generation. And with all due respect, you may be right about your area but you're wrong about the rest of the world.

As I said earlier, there were many farms that relied on horses here up through the 1960s. Very few could afford a tractor, and those that did bought N Fords and VAC Case and C Farmalls, etc. An H was considered a big tractor in this area; Ms were rare as were G John Deeres, etc back in the day.

The fact that most did (and still do) live near or below the poverty line likely influenced those choices, as they were the cheaper options. We're still 40 years behind everybody else in terms of darn near everything. And we're not farming thousands of acres either, so I'm sure we probably shouldn't be considered real farmers. So again, you may be right when you talk about where you are, but in my part of Arkansas things are extremely different. 

[766 Man]

4 minutes ago, MacAR said:

I've listened to the people that were alive back then talk about farming. I'm also fortunate enough to have paid attention when those old men talked,  unlike the rest of my generation. And with all due respect, you may be right about your area but you're wrong about the rest of the world.

As I said earlier, there were many farms that relied on horses here up through the 1960s. Very few could afford a tractor, and those that did bought N Fords and VAC Case and C Farmalls, etc. An H was considered a big tractor in this area; Ms were rare as were G John Deeres, etc back in the day.

The fact that most did (and still do) live near or below the poverty line likely influenced those choices, as they were the cheaper options. We're still 40 years behind everybody else in terms of darn near everything. And we're not farming thousands of acres either, so I'm sure we probably shouldn't be considered real farmers. So again, you may be right when you talk about where you are, but in my part of Arkansas things are extremely different. 

  I know you are right about your area as I read a couple articles about the television producer Paul Henning who grew up in Arkansas.  I doubt strongly that my area was the only one to have had many farms during the WWII years which had at least 2 tractors each.  Hopefully, some of those present day descendants will speak up here.  

[hillman]

18 hours ago, 766 Man said:

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.  

missing my point again. I suggested a N would struggle with a drag plow of equal size to a 3pth plow  because the Ferguson System increases the pull onto the wheels which was a must with that light weight tractor . I thought you would understand this but obviously I have to cover everything in great detail  or I leave myself open .  The Farmall A came with smaller tires than the later ones which is another reason besides power that it was a 1 bottom tractor, I have only seen a single 1 furrow plow up here and I doubt a farmer would opt for a drag plow due to the extra expense compared to the extremely simple 1 bottom mounted plow

I am old enough and took interest enough to note the older tractors in the general area. Most still had their first and second tractor still on the farm also all the tractors I have bought over the years from original owners/families( that covers a huge area), There seemed to be a trend in that the first tractor was from the 40s and the second 1950s.( as a rule) This is what I have seen  I realize Canadian farms tended to be smaller at that time esp compared to corn belt and the prairies 

[Binderoid]

19 hours ago, hillman said:

 

A poor engine is one than will not stay together under rated load- don't make excuses for them .

He's actually not. The claim  is that 150 hr. overhauls are necessary because  the 9N was doing  all the work while the A was basically  in a  parade.

 

[hillman]

2 minutes ago, Binderoid said:

He's actually not. The claim  is that 150 hr. overhauls are necessary because  the 9N was doing  all the work while the A was basically  in a  parade.

 

I didn't quote 766man and that was a general statement. He is actually harder on the dorf engine than I am. I don't think they needed bearings every 150 hours unless someone was severely abusing them 

 I also think they pull surprisingly well for what they are

[766 Man]

  I never said that the A did not do vital work.  Cutting hay, cultivating corn, and pulling a hay wagon were necessary chores on many farms.  By the time the C came out in late 1947 an IH guy had a few options for a 2 plow tractor along with the H with less screwing around.  The price difference between an A and the C was becoming increasingly negligible so few needed to split hairs on that matter.  A guy who bought an A to plow turned few acres over so a one bottom plow got him by fine.  Just calling as I saw it albeit after when these tractors were new.  We have covered the Ford to the point where it is obvious we are going to stick with our respective positions on them. 

[Dirt_Floor_Poor]

9 hours ago, 766 Man said:

I doubt strongly that my area was the only one to have had many farms during the WWII years which had at least 2 tractors each.  Hopefully, some of those present day descendants will speak up here.  

My great grandfather was running 3-4 tractors prior to WW2 because they were cultivating around 240 acres of corn. My great grandfather, great grandmother, my grandfather and my great uncle all had to help take care of the corn. My understanding is in this time period, that was a lot for one person to be in charge of. He owned a small amount of land, but was a share cropper for a family that had vast land holdings here at the time. I know they were still using mules to pull wagons when they picked corn by hand. In the 1930’s here there were some disastrous crop years. There were multiple stories of corn yielding 1 bushel per acre, but they had to pick it to get what they could. My great grandmother nearly lost everything when the USA entered the war because my great grandfather was dying of tuberculosis and her surviving two sons were drafted into the war. They had another son who had recently died very young. I don’t think the amount of acres they were talking care of was typical, I believe it would have been much larger than average back then. I assume being a share cropper back then was not lucrative and he was just trying to take care of his family. I don’t know exactly how long he knew he was dying of consumption, but I assume for years. 

[dale560]

48 minutes ago, Dirt_Floor_Poor said:

My great grandfather was running 3-4 tractors prior to WW2 because they were cultivating around 240 acres of corn. My great grandfather, great grandmother, my grandfather and my great uncle all had to help take care of the corn. My understanding is in this time period, that was a lot for one person to be in charge of. He owned a small amount of land, but was a share cropper for a family that had vast land holdings here at the time. I know they were still using mules to pull wagons when they picked corn by hand. In the 1930’s here there were some disastrous crop years. There were multiple stories of corn yielding 1 bushel per acre, but they had to pick it to get what they could. My great grandmother nearly lost everything when the USA entered the war because my great grandfather was dying of tuberculosis and her surviving two sons were drafted into the war. They had another son who had recently died very young. I don’t think the amount of acres they were talking care of was typical, I believe it would have been much larger than average back then. I assume being a share cropper back then was not lucrative and he was just trying to take care of his family. I don’t know exactly how long he knew he was dying of consumption, but I assume for years. 

My Dads, Dad and Mom farmed around 2000 acres of crop and pasture in the timber lake ,firesteel South Dakota area. I am pretty sure they were in corson county area. Dad was adopted after the land got sold in the late 1930s and they moved back to north central ND. 
I don’t think they farmed a lot there maybe a couple 160 acre patches but they had sheep on pasture. They had 2  15-30 McCormick tractors I think they were actually the later ones the 22/36 power. He farmed with fordson tractors before those but one kicked back and broke his arm so they got gone for the McCormick. In South Dakota they had the two tractors a new six speed s series IH truck and a IH threshing machine. 
When they moved back to ND he scrapped the McCormicks for some reason and went to a 1948 D John Deere and 1945 or 46 A jd. They actually left the 22/36 set for scrap. The South Dakota farm was in corson county about 6 or seven miles north of glencross sd

[Binderoid]

2 hours ago, 766 Man said:

  I never said that the A did not do vital work.  Cutting hay, cultivating corn, and pulling a hay wagon were necessary chores on many farms.  By the time the C came out in late 1947 an IH guy had a few options for a 2 plow tractor along with the H with less screwing around.  The price difference between an A and the C was becoming increasingly negligible so few needed to split hairs on that matter.  A guy who bought an A to plow turned few acres over so a one bottom plow got him by fine.  Just calling as I saw it albeit after when these tractors were new.  We have covered the Ford to the point where it is obvious we are going to stick with our respective positions on them. 

No one is saying  you  said  that, it was just a parallel on the nature of the work between  the two.

The original  discussion was why one engine  wore out and the other one  didn't,  using  the  same oils. As a mechanic,  I am always  intrigued by these situations and  like to try to  find an answer. 

So far, all we have gleaned is  one tractor was overworked while the other had a comparatively soft life ; which  lead to the discussion  of whether an A could pull a  2 bottom plow, and is apparently  a rarity,  and is seeming to be the accepted answer as to why the A never wore out.

But, there were 113's on 200 acre farms the previous  decade pulling 2 bottoms from  dawn  till  dusk and beyond,  on even less technologically advanced oils, and they didn't  have any  ridiculously short TBOs ... so comparing the 9N to the A, from my point of  understanding thus far, is not apples to apples  even  though they have similar  weight and  hp.

All I really wanted to know was why the engine with  bigger bearings wore out faster.

[766 Man]

59 minutes ago, Binderoid said:

No one is saying  you  said  that, it was just a parallel on the nature of the work between  the two.

The original  discussion was why one engine  wore out and the other one  didn't,  using  the  same oils. As a mechanic,  I am always  intrigued by these situations and  like to try to  find an answer. 

So far, all we have gleaned is  one tractor was overworked while the other had a comparatively soft life ; which  lead to the discussion  of whether an A could pull a  2 bottom plow, and is apparently  a rarity,  and is seeming to be the accepted answer as to why the A never wore out.

But, there were 113's on 200 acre farms the previous  decade pulling 2 bottoms from  dawn  till  dusk and beyond,  on even less technologically advanced oils, and they didn't  have any  ridiculously short TBOs ... so comparing the 9N to the A, from my point of  understanding thus far, is not apples to apples  even  though they have similar  weight and  hp.

All I really wanted to know was why the engine with  bigger bearings wore out faster.

I think rated RPM is a large factor.  The N series was rated at 2000 RPM while the Farmall A was rated at 1400 RPM.  600 more RPM's at full throttle for the Ford.  I know from taking a couple of ag engineering courses that unit factoring (in this case revolutions per minute) is a very large design consideration in developing products.  The other factor that I consider important is the 9N had a criteria to incorporate as many parts as possible from the automotive division while in my opinion the Farmall A was more of from the ground up a farm tractor.  I don't know what testing was done before the 9N was launched on the market but my opinion is the Ford engineers probably knew the required maintenance in terms of keeping the tractor running besides recommended service intervals such as oil changes and air cleaner service.  The 9N most likely was given a greenlight despite not meeting industry standards in terms of engine longevity.  

[Big Bud guy]

1 hour ago, dale560 said:

My Dads, Dad and Mom farmed around 2000 acres of crop and pasture in the timber lake ,firesteel South Dakota area. I am pretty sure they were in corson county area. Dad was adopted after the land got sold in the late 1930s and they moved back to north central ND. 
I don’t think they farmed a lot there maybe a couple 160 acre patches but they had sheep on pasture. They had 2  15-30 McCormick tractors I think they were actually the later ones the 22/36 power. He farmed with fordson tractors before those but one kicked back and broke his arm so they got gone for the McCormick. In South Dakota they had the two tractors a new six speed s series IH truck and a IH threshing machine. 
When they moved back to ND he scrapped the McCormicks for some reason and went to a 1948 D John Deere and 1945 or 46 A jd. They actually left the 22/36 set for scrap. The South Dakota farm was in corson county about 6 or seven miles north of glencross sd

Must be a North Dakota thing to go from brand X to a JD D.  My neighbor’s father was from ND and farmed over in ND just leasing a farm. Decided to move over here because he couldn’t find any land to buy.  Land was cheaper here. He had an auction and sold everything including the grease gun.  Came over, worked for a couple of years as a hired hand before acquiring some land.  His tractor over in ND was a Massey 101 Junior a pretty modern and stylish tractor.  Here he started farming with a D.  And he stuck with JD all the way through the 2 cylinders to the end with his last tractor a 4640

[1480x3]

560 D would be my choice

[acem]

Dad 'ranched' over a thousand acres with a Super C back in the 50s.

Uncle Ashley managed a large ranch (over 30,000 Ha) with no tractors but did have many horses, Cowboys and a large Dozer for building water 'tanks'. Back in the 30s and 40s.  Said tractors were too expensive...  

[Big Bud guy]

22 minutes ago, acem said:

Dad 'ranched' over a thousand acres with a Super C back in the 50s.

Uncle Ashley managed a large ranch (over 30,000 Ha) with no tractors but did have many horses, Cowboys and a large Dozer for building water 'tanks'. Back in the 30s and 40s.  Said tractors were too expensive...  

Horses can eat the hay right along side the cows you won't notice your bottom line on a ranch  On a say 100-160 acre farm with several teams of horses how much of the cropland goes to the horses?  Even something dinky as a JD L or cub could prove its worth on a 50 acre farm.  I think guys hung to horses more for tradition and nostalgia and there is nothing wrong with that.

[dale560]

44 minutes ago, Big Bud guy said:

Horses can eat the hay right along side the cows you won't notice your bottom line on a ranch  On a say 100-160 acre farm with several teams of horses how much of the cropland goes to the horses?  Even something dinky as a JD L or cub could prove its worth on a 50 acre farm.  I think guys hung to horses more for tradition and nostalgia and there is nothing wrong with that.

The horses here were for wintertime transportation. Roads in rural ND were nonexistent except the main roads considered gravel hiways. My mom’s dad always talked about he would leave the car 3 miles away at a neighbors farm in the late 40s. They would take the team of horses and the enclosed sled they referred to as a bus. It had a little coal heater and looked like  ice house on skis they build now. They would travel to the car. Unhitch the horses pull start the car if needed. Put the team of horses in neighbors barn. Then proceed to drive to town 12 miles away yet on a Saturday. They would do their business and drive back to take horses home. They used horses for a lot up until the mid 60s

the buses were something like this. But most I had seen were flat roof about 6 by 10 feet

[Big Bud guy]

5 minutes ago, dale560 said:

The horses here were for wintertime transportation. Roads in rural ND were nonexistent except the main roads considered gravel hiways. My mom’s dad always talked about he would leave the car 3 miles away at a neighbors farm in the late 40s. They would take the team of horses and the enclosed sled they referred to as a bus. It had a little coal heater and looked like  ice house on skis they build now. They would travel to the car. Unhitch the horses pull start the car if needed. Put the team of horses in neighbors barn. Then proceed to drive to town 12 miles away yet on a Saturday. They would do their business and drive back to take horses home. They used horses for a lot up until the mid 60s

We lived 17 miles from town all dirt/gravel.  Horses left our place by WW II.  I still have some heavy wagon skis sitting out in the junk that were used on grain boxes.  Maybe what was different here is everybody had a crawler by that time even ranches that didn't farm.  And most of them had blades they were used for plowing snow in addition to dirt work.  I have pics of dad in the yard on the TD 14A making tunnels all over the place so they could get out.  Also it was pretty common back here to room/board your kids in town during the winter for school.  Sometimes the wife too and the husband stay out at the homestead.  

[dale560]

14 minutes ago, Big Bud guy said:

We lived 17 miles from town all dirt/gravel.  Horses left our place by WW II.  I still have some heavy wagon skis sitting out in the junk that were used on grain boxes.  Maybe what was different here is everybody had a crawler by that time even ranches that didn't farm.  And most of them had blades they were used for plowing snow in addition to dirt work.  I have pics of dad in the yard on the TD 14A making tunnels all over the place so they could get out.  Also it was pretty common back here to room/board your kids in town during the winter for school.  Sometimes the wife too and the husband stay out at the homestead.  

My mom stayed in town in 1956 and 57 and I think in 58 Her sister got old enough for high school and I believe a hwy got constructed close to farm so they drove in themselves the last year or so. 
the neighbors a couple miles to the east had a caterpillar 30 crawler. Interesting thing was my grandfather grew up on German homestead about 10 miles northwest. He bought the farmstead in Norwegian settled area. His neighbors were mostly Norwegian Lutheran with a church in Silva ND and 6 miles to the west on the Soo line railroad was the German town of Balta nd. Balta had a Catholic Church and was a bigger town than Silva maybe 150 people in Balta and 100 in Silva but Silva died out in 1975. 
The two nationalities didn’t really mix even though my mom and the rest of family went to grade school in Silva. The area grandpa was in the roads were graded to Silva then a connecting road to Balta. 
All the old guys I worked on 4020s and such for always talked about having horses into the 50s. Most of them said they pulled the H IHC tractor with the horses to start when cold.