450vs560

[Big Bud guy]

450 gas for me.  Last of the M lineage that is untarnished.  The 282 doesn’t do it for me. 

[forwhldrv]

450 gas for me. my 450 out pulls the 560’s on the stone boat pulls and it starts easy. I’m not very impressed with the power of the 282 diesel either I like the lug of the C281 better even though it’s a bit thirsty when it’s working ( but I am too ) 

[hillman]

2 hours ago, Farming Enthusiast said:

With all of the talk about a 450 having as much or more pulling power than a 560, I wonder if the rear end trouble was due to bigger tillage equipment. My dad pulled     4-16s with his 560s. He never had any trouble with the 560s but I've never seen any bigger than a 3 bottom on a 450

 

 

Pulling implements too large for any tractor at low speeds is extremely hard on the drivetrain. - IH sold the 560 as a "5-plow" tractor.🙄

 I like both but the 450 is the last of the Letter Series and my preference yet I have a D282 and its a great tractor as well. 

[Matt Kirsch]

2 hours ago, MacAR said:

The trouble I ran into after shortening the short link was that the TA would engage before the main clutch engaged, causing the tractor to "jump" a bit when you let out on the clutch.

That's what's supposed to happen. The TA should "shift into high" i.e. engage, at about half pedal. You should be able to hold the clutch at half pedal and the tractor will not roll backward down a hill in a forward gear. I think you may mean that the TA would engage AFTER the main clutch engaged.

[766 Man]

8 minutes ago, hillman said:

 

 

Pulling implements too large for any tractor at low speeds is extremely hard on the drivetrain. - IH sold the 560 as a "5-plow" tractor.🙄

 I like both but the 450 is the last of the Letter Series and my preference yet I have a D282 and its a great tractor as well. 

  Manufacturers always oversold a given tractor's capability.  Two roads west of me a 560 would pull 5 X 16's with minimal difficulty.  Here at home 3 X 16 and it certainly would not run away with the plow.

[Matt Kirsch]

We did have rear end problems with our 560, but from my understanding, not the typical ones. Dad's not around to ask anymore, but I believe we had problems with shearing the ring gear bolts in the differential. Happened a couple of times. 

[Big Bud guy]

6 minutes ago, 766 Man said:

  Manufacturers always oversold a given tractor's capability.  

Very true but some tractors could handle the overload better than others.

[Farming Enthusiast]

34 minutes ago, hillman said:

 

 

Pulling implements too large for any tractor at low speeds is extremely hard on the drivetrain. - IH sold the 560 as a "5-plow" tractor.🙄

 I like both but the 450 is the last of the Letter Series and my preference yet I have a D282 and it's a great tractor as well. 

I'm pretty sure my dad would chuckle about 560s pulling 5 bottom plows. There were 1850s and 4020s pulling 5-16s in the area back in the day.  

[Drysleeves]

14 minutes ago, Farming Enthusiast said:

I'm pretty sure my dad would chuckle about 560s pulling 5 bottom plows. There were 1850s and 4020s pulling 5-16s in the area back in the day.  

Back in the day we had one here along with a 4 bottom Fast Hitch plow. My dad said when things were really going well it would almost pull it. That said, the bearings never failed but it did leak oil everywhere including the day it crawled up on the rollback after the 806 Diesel rolled off to replace it. Still have the 806.

[hillman]

52 minutes ago, 766 Man said:

  Manufacturers always oversold a given tractor's capability.  Two roads west of me a 560 would pull 5 X 16's with minimal difficulty.  Here at home 3 X 16 and it certainly would not run away with the plow.

doubt it very much even in sand.

5 -14s would be a task in easy soil and minimal depth. My 656 wouldn't pull 5-16s down hill with a tail wind in sand ....🤠I don't consider 1 or 2  mph worth honorable mention

[IH enthusiast]

Its hard for me to say my one grandpa had a 560 gas and ran it all the way till it was scrap. But my other grandpa had a 450 diesel and a 560 diesel so they all mean something to me.

[MT Matt]

I feel that my 560d has more horses than my SMTA built up to a 281. Dad has owned the 560 since I was 6 or 7. I have no idea if he did any work on the motor.  The 560 is well weighted though.  There is no comparison between the two for fuel economy, especially when plowing.  I’ve pulled the same plows with both tractors.  If I was breaking old sod, I’d rather have the 560.

My 400 doesn’t pull as well as either.  If and when a 450 comes up for sale around here, I’ll try to get it. Then I’ll have the full set from a M through 560.

[hillman]

27 minutes ago, MT Matt said:

I feel that my 560d has more horses than my SMTA built up to a 281. Dad has owned the 560 since I was 6 or 7. I have no idea if he did any work on the motor.  The 560 is well weighted though.  There is no comparison between the two for fuel economy, especially when plowing.  I’ve pulled the same plows with both tractors.  If I was breaking old sod, I’d rather have the 560.

My 400 doesn’t pull as well as either.  If and when a 450 comes up for sale around here, I’ll try to get it. Then I’ll have the full set from a M through 560.

my experience is anecdotal and the seat of my pants dyno isn't accurate as I would like but I am sure a 560 won't pull 5-16s around here . 450 obsoletely will not pull 5-16s

[766 Man]

2 hours ago, hillman said:

doubt it very much even in sand.

5 -14s would be a task in easy soil and minimal depth. My 656 wouldn't pull 5-16s down hill with a tail wind in sand ....🤠I don't consider 1 or 2  mph worth honorable mention

  The soil I am talking about is very light sand.  An 806 on that ground pulled 6 X 16's in 4th low.  A 560 with a 5 X 16 plow probably would have pulled it at 3 - 3.25 MPH.  Not flying along nor crawling either.  But an extreme for sure.  On most ground a 560 would pull 4 X 14's between 2nd and 3rd gear.  I should mention that there was a 656 gas Hydro that pulled 5 X 16's on the same ground.  I knew the family that owned it.  Like I said this ground is at an extreme but would support the statement of a 560 pulling a 5 bottom plow.  

[Dirt_Floor_Poor]

34 minutes ago, hillman said:

my experience is anecdotal and the seat of my pants dyno isn't accurate as I would like but I am sure a 560 won't pull 5-16s around here . 450 obsoletely will not pull 5-16s

Where I am, I would consider 100 hp barely adequate for 5-16’s. We plowed some ground we sowed to alfalfa about a year ago. We used 160 hp on a 6-18 and I thought it was a good match. But, people didn’t use to plow very fast 65 years ago here. 

[hillman]

17 minutes ago, Dirt_Floor_Poor said:

Where I am, I would consider 100 hp barely adequate for 5-16’s. We plowed some ground we sowed to alfalfa about a year ago. We used 160 hp on a 6-18 and I thought it was a good match. But, people didn’t use to plow very fast 65 years ago here. 

 a neighbor bought a 4-18 plow for his 856 and it wouldn't pull it to his liking so he traded the tractor for a  new 1086 so he had more hp than his brother

[mrfred54]

8 hours ago, snoshoe said:

Now I'm sitting here thinking. Did I get the main clutch part right? I know one way or the other will get you more stroke on the TA

You are right😀

[MacAR]

4 hours ago, Matt Kirsch said:

That's what's supposed to happen. The TA should "shift into high" i.e. engage, at about half pedal. You should be able to hold the clutch at half pedal and the tractor will not roll backward down a hill in a forward gear. I think you may mean that the TA would engage AFTER the main clutch engaged.

At half pedal, it will move forward in whatever gear it's in as if the TA is pulled; come up past half pedal and it jumps like when throwing the lever ahead. It's very strange I admit; my 300 doesn't do it, nor does it bind up in gear on an incline. But, I nicknamed the 450 Christine for a reason, so it having another odd-ball problem tracks! 

[Big Bud guy]

2 hours ago, Dirt_Floor_Poor said:

 But, people didn’t use to plow very fast 65 years ago here. 

Faster Speed at least doubles the hp requirement.  I think thats what is lost on here sometimes.  The original IH 15-30 and JD D were half the hp of a IH 450 and JD 70 but were rated as 3 plow tractors and could pull 3 bottoms.  But that was at the speed of horses 2-3 mph.  

[MT Matt]

3 hours ago, hillman said:

my experience is anecdotal and the seat of my pants dyno isn't accurate as I would like but I am sure a 560 won't pull 5-16s around here . 450 obsoletely will not pull 5-16s

I fully agree, my 560 wouldn’t not be happy trying to pull a 5 btm plow. I have a 3-16 IH plow and a 4-14 Case plow to my experience.  I can pull either in 3rd gear of both tractors but the 560 doesn’t struggle at all. I broke some old alfalfa ground once with the SMTA and the 3-16. Had to do it in 2nd gear.

[bitty]

9 hours ago, MacAR said:

The trouble I ran into after shortening the short link was that the TA would engage before the main clutch engaged, causing the tractor to "jump" a bit when you let out on the clutch. Main clutch freeplay is set pretty short (~3/4"?), and I'm just about out of clutch rod, so I'd say the easiest/best fix is a new clutch. This might be worth creating a separate thread to discuss further... I'll do that in a bit. 

I see a lot of 450's on you-tube hauling four bottom plows in black dirt, and going right along with them in 3rd gear. I think the power is there, but there might be an issue of weight, especially with a fast-hitch four bottom. There's a story on the web (maybe from someone here) about his dad testing out a new 4010 and pulling out and passing it with a 450 and four bottom plow... wish I could find that again to show some of my Green buddies. 

I thought it was even a super M with the M&W stroker kit and accessories. I read the story on this website before 

[Jacka]

I had a 560 gas.I wouldn't want a 460 if I had to do real work woth it just because it is smaller. Now I would want a 560 diesel just because I like diesels better and I think less trouble with the gas we have now 

[hillman]

11 hours ago, Dirt_Floor_Poor said:

. But, people didn’t use to plow very fast 65 years ago here. 

 

9 hours ago, Big Bud guy said:

Faster Speed at least doubles the hp requirement.  I think thats what is lost on here sometimes.  The original IH 15-30 and JD D were half the hp of a IH 450 and JD 70 but were rated as 3 plow tractors and could pull 3 bottoms.  But that was at the speed of horses 2-3 mph.  

They promoted the 560 as 5 plow and 660 as 6 plow

Check the chart. 3rd gear heavy tillage.(normal 4.68 mph )That's pretty fast for that much plow and that little tractor . 4 almost 5 mph ?!

A little bit of over sales pitch because they were falling behind in the hp race ?

[Big Bud guy]

7 hours ago, bitty said:

I thought it was even a super M with the M&W stroker kit and accessories. I read the story on this website before 

It is a story by SuperMpuller.  Once you got him to tell the “rest of the story” he admitted 4010 was a gasser.  The MW kit actually gave the M more displacement than the 4010.  326 cubes vs 302 on the 4010.  So it’s not a far fetched story unless you leave out the 4010 being a gasser part. 

[766 Man]

16 minutes ago, hillman said:

 

They promoted the 560 as 5 plow and 660 as 6 plow

Check the chart. 3rd gear heavy tillage. That's pretty fast for that much plow and that little tractor . 4 mph !

A little bit of over sales pitch because they were falling behind in the hp race ?

  When the 60 series debuted in 1958 the 560 was close in power to the Oliver 880 and JD 730.  IH did not have to face a clear cut higher HP competitor at that point but things would soon change.