300 vs super m

[Matt Kirsch]

1 hour ago, snoshoe said:

Well I have already proved how unreliable I can be but I believe most of this was optional. Not all options available at the beginning.  Before the ta. Could have been no hydraulics, belly pump or live when it became available. The TA did not replace all others. You could still buy SM without Ta or live pto.

It was still called an Super MTA after serial 60001, just didn't have the "Torque Amplifier" flag on the sticker. It had a Super MTA center section but with a straight shaft instead of a TA. Belly pump was not an option in 54 after serial 52627. There were only about 750 Super M's produced in early 1954.

[lotsaIHCs]

6 hours ago, MT Matt said:

To my knowledge:

very last Ms had disk brakes added because the Super series parts were in the system and ready, must have used up the M parts supply.

Super M stage 1 was 264 engine, disk brakes and faster gears. Belly pump hydraulics like an M

Super M stage 2 had all of stage 1 but the hydraulics were upgraded to the live pump on the dist and reservoir under the tank. Hence the battery under the seat.

Other minor changes too but those were the major differences.

SMTA got the TA obviously. Guess that was stage 3. 

Yep, the last Ms got disk brakes. My 52 straight M is about 1500 before the end of production and has disk brakes.

[boboryan]

thanks for the help, im gonna keep the super m

bob

 

[DWV]

Lots more could be said on this subject, hoping not to long of post. Stage one SM tractors were like the last M tractors except for badging, 264 engine and different gear speeds in 2 through 4 and reverse. Stage 2 SM received cassis changes for a engine driven hydraulic pump. Some still were equipped with a liftall unit in the center housing but other stage 2 changes stayed. Had a stage 2 gas and diesel with belly unit built at Farmall works. One from Louisville seem to be more common.  Ones with belly pump have different brackets mounted to rear tank support for control rods. Starting 2 the center housings were changed to 3 bolt starter mounting and used on both gas and diesel SM and SW-6 with frame rails. Housing placed starter opening the same distance from fly wheel gear. Before stage 2 Diesel 3 bolt starters were a different distance ang gas were 2 bolt starter mount. stage 2 housings have bosses on left side, some bosses are drilled and tapped for use on SW-6. (Picture) No SM were equipped with live or IPTO from IH. Supper MTA used transmission housing like the 400 and 450 that followed with a stage 2 SM top cover with special shift forks that were only used on SMTA and SW6TA. Center housing 5 inches longer than a SM. SMTA transmission housing Had mounting bosses at rear on sides used for fast hitch mounting on 400 and 450. No SMTA came equipped with a fast hitch. Can be mounted but with standard liftall only could be raised and gravity lowered unless equipped with remote control valve. First type fast hitch used on 400 tractors have parts that don't bolt up on a SMTA top cover, also uses 2 hydraulic cylinders that need two control valves. (picture)  Second type fast hitch is easiest to mount on SMTA. Aftermarket and others have come up with ways to mount a fast hitch on M and SM tractors though. SMTA could be equipped with IPTO and T/A, IPTO and no T/A, T/A and transmission driven PTO. Bare bones just had a straight shaft from clutch to transmission input shaft and a counter shaft with splines for PTO drive like M or SM. Few didn't come with hydraulics. Can ID by the rear tank support only used on them to reach the tank that's five inches forward from a M and SM.    One picture is for a stage 2 SM front counter shaft cover used on stage 2 with engine driven hydraulics. No seal needed.

[boboryan]

6 minutes ago, DWV said:

Lots more could be said on this subject, hoping not to long of post. Stage one SM tractors were like the last M tractors except for badging, 264 engine and different gear speeds in 2 through 4 and reverse. Stage 2 SM received cassis changes for a engine driven hydraulic pump. Some still were equipped with a liftall unit in the center housing but other stage 2 changes stayed. Had a stage 2 gas and diesel with belly unit built at Farmall works. One from Louisville seem to be more common.  Ones with belly pump have different brackets mounted to rear tank support for control rods. Starting 2 the center housings were changed to 3 bolt starter mounting and used on both gas and diesel SM and SW-6 with frame rails. Housing placed starter opening the same distance from fly wheel gear. Before stage 2 Diesel 3 bolt starters were a different distance ang gas were 2 bolt starter mount. stage 2 housings have bosses on left side, some bosses are drilled and tapped for use on SW-6. (Picture) No SM were equipped with live or IPTO from IH. Supper MTA used transmission housing like the 400 and 450 that followed with a stage 2 SM top cover with special shift forks that were only used on SMTA and SW6TA. Center housing 5 inches longer than a SM. SMTA transmission housing Had mounting bosses at rear on sides used for fast hitch mounting on 400 and 450. No SMTA came equipped with a fast hitch. Can be mounted but with standard liftall only could be raised and gravity lowered unless equipped with remote control valve. First type fast hitch used on 400 tractors have parts that don't bolt up on a SMTA top cover, also uses 2 hydraulic cylinders that need two control valves. (picture)  Second type fast hitch is easiest to mount on SMTA. Aftermarket and others have come up with ways to mount a fast hitch on M and SM tractors though. SMTA could be equipped with IPTO and T/A, IPTO and no T/A, T/A and transmission driven PTO. Bare bones just had a straight shaft from clutch to transmission input shaft and a counter shaft with splines for PTO drive like M or SM. Few didn't come with hydraulics. Can ID by the rear tank support only used on them to reach the tank that's five inches forward from a M and SM.    One picture is for a stage 2 SM front counter shaft cover used on stage 2 with engine driven hydraulics. No seal needed.

thanks,

bob

[acem]

Were the live hydraulics, ipto and ta available on the super H? Or was there a super h? Don't remember seeing one but dad had a super C...

Neighbor had a super MDTA. after he died his worthless grandson stole it and scrapped it for drugs...

[MacAR]

6 minutes ago, acem said:

Were the live hydraulics, ipto and ta available on the super H? Or was there a super h? Don't remember seeing one but dad had a super C...

Neighbor had a super MDTA. after he died his worthless grandson stole it and scrapped it for drugs...

There was a Super H, and the stage 2 could be had w/ live hydraulics, but no TA or IPTO. Those weren't available in that HP class until the 300. 

[acem]

I have a 504 row crop. Always think of it as the last of the H line.

Is that mostly correct?

[MacAR]

10 hours ago, acem said:

I have a 504 row crop. Always think of it as the last of the H line.

Is that mostly correct?

Well, sorta but not really. The 504 descends more from the C/SC/200 line in terms of engine. According to "those that know" the progression of the H went like this: H - Super H - 300 - 350 - 460. 

[nepoweshiekfarmalls]

10 hours ago, MacAR said:

Well, sorta but not really. The 504 descends more from the C/SC/200 line in terms of engine. According to "those that know" the progression of the H went like this: H - Super H - 300 - 350 - 460. 

Actually, the the end of the C/SC/200/230/240 line was the 404. 

The 504 is kind of an orphan. Built to replace the 340.  Provided a smaller tractor in the line below the 606 utility (a rebadged 460 utility and another orphan). A 606 row crop would have been a big brother to the Farmall 504, but was never produced because of the Farmall 656 (decended from the 560).  What a crazy period of IH history!

[DWV]

20 hours ago, acem said:

I have a 504 row crop. Always think of it as the last of the H line.

Is that mostly correct?

Transmission is close to a 460 after IH changed them to updated parts. Row crop came with 2-3/4 axles. Also think a 504 could be had with a engine driven hydraulic pump or in center housing. Ring and pinion has a deep reduction compared to previous rears that size. One optional first gear was a deeper reduction. From what I remember 3 first gear ratio could be used except one was only used in shuttle sift tractors. IH turned the RPM up and used gearing to get more power to ground. Do you have diesel or gas? Most speed gears in transmission will interchange with a 300 on up to 460.  

[MacAR]

26 minutes ago, nepoweshiekfarmalls said:

Actually, the the end of the C/SC/200/230/240 line was the 404. 

The 504 is kind of an orphan. Built to replace the 340.  Provided a smaller tractor in the line below the 606 utility (a rebadged 460 utility and another orphan). A 606 row crop would have been a big brother to the Farmall 504, but was never produced because of the Farmall 656 (decended from the 560).  What a crazy period of IH history!

Very strange time indeed! The 504 and 606 were basically orphans and although there were a lot of 504s built, I don't know of too many 606s around. I do think I'm correct in my description of the lineage of the H though, as that tractor line basically ended with the 460. The M line lived on up to the 656/66/86 in terms of size and horsepower. Again, in my opinion only. 

20 minutes ago, DWV said:

Transmission is close to a 460 after IH changed them to updated parts. Row crop came with 2-3/4 axles. Also think a 504 could be had with a engine driven hydraulic pump or in center housing. Ring and pinion has a deep reduction compared to previous rears that size. One optional first gear was a deeper reduction. From what I remember 3 first gear ratio could be used except one was only used in shuttle sift tractors. IH turned the RPM up and used gearing to get more power to ground. Do you have diesel or gas? Most speed gears in transmission will interchange with a 300 on up to 460.  

Turning the rpms up to make power is what gave the 504s (especially the gas) the "gutless wonder " moniker, at least in this area. A good stout M will work circles around one for no other reason than their ability to lug down and stay there all day. The 504 gassers were good hay tractors, but I believe they were over sold on their abilities to do heavy work. The diesels I wasn't around much, but I do know they were economical on fuel if nothing else. 

[Matt Kirsch]

7 hours ago, MacAR said:

Turning the rpms up to make power is what gave the 504s (especially the gas) the "gutless wonder " moniker, at least in this area. A good stout M will work circles around one for no other reason than their ability to lug down and stay there all day. The 504 gassers were good hay tractors, but I believe they were over sold on their abilities to do heavy work. The diesels I wasn't around much, but I do know they were economical on fuel if nothing else. 

Sacrilege! Blasphemy! Non-believer!

You know full well that 504s are the most powerfulest tractors ever manufactured by IH. Also, there is nothing wrong with the 86 series cab.

Seriously, I thought 504s only had that reputation around here, considering how many times I've been verbally abused for saying it. Farmers traded Ms for 504s only to demand their Ms back from the dealer.

The 330/340/504 lineage arose because of the HP gap that had developed between the 230 and 350. A hybrid of a punched-out-revved-up Super C engine with a 350-then-460 rear end. The whole lineage, along with the 460 and 544, had the reputation of being "gutless" in the hills of Western New York for one.

[766 Man]

10 hours ago, MacAR said:

Very strange time indeed! The 504 and 606 were basically orphans and although there were a lot of 504s built, I don't know of too many 606s around. I do think I'm correct in my description of the lineage of the H though, as that tractor line basically ended with the 460. The M line lived on up to the 656/66/86 in terms of size and horsepower. Again, in my opinion only. 

Turning the rpms up to make power is what gave the 504s (especially the gas) the "gutless wonder " moniker, at least in this area. A good stout M will work circles around one for no other reason than their ability to lug down and stay there all day. The 504 gassers were good hay tractors, but I believe they were over sold on their abilities to do heavy work. The diesels I wasn't around much, but I do know they were economical on fuel if nothing else. 

  Not every job demanded raw power and those who could see the light on that did fairly well with the 504.  The guy down around the corner from us had a loader on his and pitched a lot of gutter and pen packed manure with his.  Loader work for the time was far easier with power steering on the 504 versus the armstrong system on the M.  That tractor also raked hay, brought silage wagons up from the field, and pulled a New Idea 323 picker in the fall.  Another guy heading towards town from us had a 504 that was the main tractor in his vegetable stand operation.  

[Diesel Doctor]

On 5/15/2026 at 7:30 AM, CRVB91 said:

Then I'd choose the 300 (or a 400 if money allows/you can find one) 

I had a guy park his 450 for mowing and went to an H as the 450 fuel consumption was very high.

 

[766 Man]

16 minutes ago, Diesel Doctor said:

I had a guy park his 450 for mowing and went to an H as the 450 fuel consumption was very high.

 

  I can see that.  If the margins are slim then you have to look for ways to reduce cost.

[acem]

Mine is not gas or diesel 

It's a row crop 504 LPG.

It's not currently running, wont start. not sure if it's fuel or ignition. Really need to get it back going. Rake hay and lots of light chore work with it. She's light and nimble.

I tell people she is a modernized H with power steering, three point and live PTO. It's sized more as a replacement for an H than an M.

Dad had a friend who worked on farms in California during the 50s, 60s and 70s. He sang praises about the row crop 504.  Spent countless hours planting, cultivating, etc vegetables with the 504. Said they were a reliable, comfortable tractor for the work they were doing. 

[766 Man]

42 minutes ago, acem said:

Mine is not gas or diesel 

It's a row crop 504 LPG.

It's not currently running, wont start. not sure if it's fuel or ignition. Really need to get it back going. Rake hay and lots of light chore work with it. She's light and nimble.

I tell people she is a modernized H with power steering, three point and live PTO. It's sized more as a replacement for an H than an M.

Dad had a friend who worked on farms in California during the 50s, 60s and 70s. He sang praises about the row crop 504.  Spent countless hours planting, cultivating, etc vegetables with the 504. Said they were a reliable, comfortable tractor for the work they were doing. 

  The nephew of the farmer of the 504 with loader also looked at the 504 as a modernized H.  The family also had a Super H and C.  The nephew bought an 806 diesel during the early 1980's as he took over his FIL's 85 acres.  

[MacAR]

6 hours ago, Matt Kirsch said:

Sacrilege! Blasphemy! Non-believer!

You know full well that 504s are the most powerfulest tractors ever manufactured by IH. Also, there is nothing wrong with the 86 series cab.

Seriously, I thought 504s only had that reputation around here, considering how many times I've been verbally abused for saying it. Farmers traded Ms for 504s only to demand their Ms back from the dealer.

The 330/340/504 lineage arose because of the HP gap that had developed between the 230 and 350. A hybrid of a punched-out-revved-up Super C engine with a 350-then-460 rear end. The whole lineage, along with the 460 and 544, had the reputation of being "gutless" in the hills of Western New York for one.

I'm glad I'm not alone! 

3 hours ago, 766 Man said:

  Not every job demanded raw power and those who could see the light on that did fairly well with the 504.  The guy down around the corner from us had a loader on his and pitched a lot of gutter and pen packed manure with his.  Loader work for the time was far easier with power steering on the 504 versus the armstrong system on the M.  That tractor also raked hay, brought silage wagons up from the field, and pulled a New Idea 323 picker in the fall.  Another guy heading towards town from us had a 504 that was the main tractor in his vegetable stand operation.  

If that's the case, then why not use a Cub or 140? Otherwise, use a machine that can get something done and not just jackazz around. A 504 might be just fine for loader work but I can't imagine doing much else with one, especially in our hills. If you treat it like a Super C you'll be happy, but I don't believe it's equivalent to an H. 

[766 Man]

1 hour ago, MacAR said:

I'm glad I'm not alone! 

If that's the case, then why not use a Cub or 140? Otherwise, use a machine that can get something done and not just jackazz around. A 504 might be just fine for loader work but I can't imagine doing much else with one, especially in our hills. If you treat it like a Super C you'll be happy, but I don't believe it's equivalent to an H. 

  The H is rated at 26 HP (belt) and the 504 gas is rated at 46 HP PTO.  In those days there was no replacement for displacement but to say the 504 could not out do the H is a bit much.  Yes, the Super M would hold RPM's while the 504 would fall off under heavy load but that goes back to displacement.   To each his own I guess.  IH made nearly 20,000 504 tractors so a few people must have figured out a way to use them effectively.  

[MacAR]

I'll say it again: the 504 can't hang with an H in all day, running against the governor type work. For short runs and piddling around, sure. But in heavy tillage the H/M style of long stroke, low rpm engines just won't quit. As you said, to each his own. 

[Lazy WP]

24 minutes ago, MacAR said:

I'll say it again: the 504 can't hang with an H in all day, running against the governor type work. For short runs and piddling around, sure. But in heavy tillage the H/M style of long stroke, low rpm engines just won't quit. As you said, to each his own. 

I will second that! But I only have real world experience to back that, not a Cornell piece of paper. 

[acem]

Don't know how my 504 does with heavy tillage work. Pretty sure it won't run a 28ft field cultivator but my 4366 does easily. The 504 is much handier on the rake than the 4366.

I don't have an H to compare it with (my neighbors H hasn't been started in many years) but I think the power steering, 3 pt and live PTO are quite handy!

[MacAR]

1 hour ago, Lazy WP said:

I will second that! But I only have real world experience to back that, not a Cornell piece of paper. 

Same here... I still run an H and a 300... no desire to hamstring myself with a gutless 504!

7 minutes ago, acem said:

Don't know how my 504 does with heavy tillage work. Pretty sure it won't run a 28ft field cultivator but my 4366 does easily. The 504 is much handier on the rake than the 4366.

I don't have an H to compare it with (my neighbors H hasn't been started in many years) but I think the power steering, 3 pt and live PTO are quite handy!

I'm sure your 504 does just fine for what you're wanting to do with it. You've got plenty of bigger horses to use after all! If agree the 4366 might be overkill on the rake, but as the old man used to say: overkill is underrated!

[acem]

Actually the 504 was the smallest tractor we had until we bought the 140 for my wife.