300 vs super m

[766 Man]

  If pulling a 1 row picker and 125 bushel gravity wagon is not work to some degree then ..........never mind.  I don't see a 140 doing it unless the conditions were very favorable.  Dry, firm, and level.  Probably would overheat on most days  The Cub forget it.  

[766 Man]

2 hours ago, Lazy WP said:

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

  Until a couple of days ago you did not know the difference between a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Super H or Super M.  That is IH 101 information.  Your credibility on IH products is seriously in doubt.  I doubt you know anybody who has had a 504 or seen one in action.  

[MacAR]

Wouldn't disagree... I run a 1 row semi mount picker on my H, and pull a similarly sized barge wagon. It's no sweat for it. But I think you knew what I meant by my comment... we both know the offset tractors aren't meant for pickers. As far as tillage goes though, I still class the 504 in the C/200/240 category. And I maintain a good H will plow circles around it. Sure you have the advantage of TA... you'll need it too in anything but the most level ground. 

I'll make you the same offer I made your buddy on the 450 thread a few months back: find two identical two bottom plows, you bring a 504 and I'll bring the H or the 300 (you pick) and we'll see who hangs with who. I've been wrong before and might be again, but we can all find out together... 

[766 Man]

10 minutes ago, MacAR said:

Wouldn't disagree... I run a 1 row semi mount picker on my H, and pull a similarly sized barge wagon. It's no sweat for it. But I think you knew what I meant by my comment... we both know the offset tractors aren't meant for pickers. As far as tillage goes though, I still class the 504 in the C/200/240 category. And I maintain a good H will plow circles around it. Sure you have the advantage of TA... you'll need it too in anything but the most level ground. 

I'll make you the same offer I made your buddy on the 450 thread a few months back: find two identical two bottom plows, you bring a 504 and I'll bring the H or the 300 (you pick) and we'll see who hangs with who. I've been wrong before and might be again, but we can all find out together... 

  There used to be a bunch of guys over on YT who maintained that the Super C was more tractor than a H.  Can they bring their Super C's?  Frankly, I don't care either way but I have seen enough of the 504's to know that they are not terrible dogs.  

[MacAR]

4 minutes ago, 766 Man said:

  There used to be a bunch of guys over on YT who maintained that the Super C was more tractor than a H.  Can they bring their Super C's?  Frankly, I don't care either way but I have seen enough of the 504's to know that they are not terrible dogs.  

Bring em on, we'll just have a little plow day.... loser buys the beer. 

[TomH]

I have limited experience with a 504 but quite a bit with 300/350’s. I would be confident that a 300 or 350 will do more than a 504 gas but the diesel 504 will do everything a 300/350 will do and on less fuel. 

[MacAR]

9 minutes ago, TomH said:

I have limited experience with a 504 but quite a bit with 300/350’s. I would be confident that a 300 or 350 will do more than a 504 gas but the diesel 504 will do everything a 300/350 will do and on less fuel. 

I would agree with this. Never been around a 504 diesel but I'm told they'll hang in there. The gassers are just gutless... 

[766 Man]

10 minutes ago, TomH said:

I have limited experience with a 504 but quite a bit with 300/350’s. I would be confident that a 300 or 350 will do more than a 504 gas but the diesel 504 will do everything a 300/350 will do and on less fuel. 

  By the time you get to the 350 gas that has a 23 CI advantage over the 504 (175 against 153) and a heavier flywheel both of which factors into torque.  

[Lazy WP]

11 hours ago, 766 Man said:

  Until a couple of days ago you did not know the difference between a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Super H or Super M.  That is IH 101 information.  Your credibility on IH products is seriously in doubt.  I doubt you know anybody who has had a 504 or seen one in action.  

Come on out. I can put you on a 504, an H, a C, and about any of the other smaller IH row crops. 
No, I didn’t know the difference between a stage 1 and 2. Most tractors that I was around had been upgraded to live hydraulics for usability. We have never been limited to keeping things the same just because they came factory that way. By the time I was using them, the older generation had already made them a lot more user friendly. 

[Gearclash]

You would wear out a pickup looking for 504s in this part of the world.  They don't exist here.  Lots of Hs, some 300s, a few 350s.  No 504s.  

[Sledgehammer]

Same here as @Gearclash says. If a farm was red at any time in history they had an H or M and most of the time both.   I've never heard a local story about a 504.   There were at least 3 different 350's within 2 miles of my house when new. One was a diesel with spin outs. A least 2 of them are still in the original family that purchased them.  By the time the 504 came around, guys still had M's as a big horse. Some were using 560's and looking at 706/806. This area was all hogs, beef cattle, and row crops. All the grain went into animal feed and only overage past your storage limits was sold in the fall. 

[jeeper61]

11 hours ago, 766 Man said:

That is IH 101 information.

Here is a IH 101 question.

How many Pabst's will a 49 8H3 hold?  

[MacAR]

It's funny to me that most every Red farm has an H or M still doing -something- on the farm today. Might just be shuffling wagons or running a small auger or elevator, but something. I just never hear people talk about 504s or 240/340 series tractors for that matter... IH may have made thousands of them, but if I were to guess I'd say there are thousands of them in fence rows and scrapyards too. 

[pt756]

Our M is hooked to the 16 foot cattle trailer during the warmer months to move cattle between the 2 barns, wide front , power steering Char lynn, just wish it would of had the faster 4th gear when it came to sider raking with the 258 on a 80 degree day, nothing nicer ,

[lotsaIHCs]

Pretty much every IH farm in central ND had an M about half as many had an H. Cs were very rare but there were a few As and Bs around. I couldn't tell you the location of a 504, but I wouldn't mind having a 404 or 504 utility or something similar. Seems like those that farmed with an M as the big tractor eventually went to an 806 when they moved on from the M. Not many 460s or 560s in my neighborhood. For that matter once the letter series was done it seemed like the hundred, 50 and 60 series were kind of skipped over until the 06 and then 56 series came about. 

[TomH]

31 minutes ago, lotsaIHCs said:

Pretty much every IH farm in central ND had an M about half as many had an H. Cs were very rare but there were a few As and Bs around. I couldn't tell you the location of a 504, but I wouldn't mind having a 404 or 504 utility or something similar. Seems like those that farmed with an M as the big tractor eventually went to an 806 when they moved on from the M. Not many 460s or 560s in my neighborhood. For that matter once the letter series was done it seemed like the hundred, 50 and 60 series were kind of skipped over until the 06 and then 56 series came about. 

Not too many 504’s around here either. Of course one has to consider the production numbers, there were approximately twice as many H’s produced between 1940 and 1941 than there were Farmall 504’s produced in seven years of production!😊

[DWV]

Never used a 504, only bought a couple salvage ones for transmission parts to use in 300 and 350 tractors. Also heard they were gutless. Going by specs it doesn't add up that it can't do what a H will. Maybe not last as long. Both are around the same weight and close enough that either one could weigh more according how equipped. Farmall type rear tire size can be the same as a H. Gasoline is rated several horsepower higher than a H according to Nebraska tests. Both engines if original have the same bore and stroke. If they won't lug with a it must be the head, intake and exhaust design, or camshaft profile. I grew up on a dairy farm and big enough to use tractors in the middle fifties. At that time in my area a tractor with 50 HP was considered big. Anyway, my dad raised silage and hay to feed the cows. All planting and harvesting done with a 41 H gasoline model that was a little unusual built for gasoline at the time and a 56 Ferguson 40. Spent a lot of time on the H working corn ground, balling hay then on to Silage and manure hauling. Engine was rebuilt since new but they put the same type 3-3/8 cast iron pistons that it came with. It would lug for what it was but no powerhouse. With disc in bottom ground some places would sink full in it was sone lugging down to I could almost count the RPM. It would make it through most times though. More fun was 5th gear power, hit a grade pulling a baler nut long to fourth gear speed. Pickup a rough Farmall but a Stout engine with fire craters and was tickled to death with the difference. Picked up a later H with overbore fire craters and it was better than previous H. M spoiled me from using those if serious work was involved. Hard for me to believe a 504 Farmall with a T/A wouldn't out due that original H. It was a runner that kept going though. Picked up other tractors on up but a 560 was the newest. 

[MacAR]

18 minutes ago, DWV said:

Hard for me to believe a 504 Farmall with a T/A wouldn't out due that original H.

You would think that on paper, but in practice it's just not the case. I don't know if it's the higher RPM's, gearing, weight distribution or what but it just seems like an H will get down on it's belly and grunt through hard places where a 504 will just "smother out" for lack of a better term. Here's a little story from my youth:

We had a neighbor that had one when I was growing up; the only one I ever knew to be in this part of the country. He mostly cut and baled hay, fed a few cows, and brush-hogged his place in the fall. At one point, he decided to renovate some pasture by going through it with a seven shank field tiller, disking it down, and drilling it. He started on the first eight acre field and before he made his first turn at the end he was in first; by dinner (lunch to some of you) he was calling dad to ask if we'd come over and work it up for him. Which we did, and he drilled it with the 504 and our drill. We wound up doing the rest of his pasture ground, and he came and baled our hay for us while we did it. On the last day of baling, the little tractor finally gave up the ghost and chucked a rod through the block... we pulled it over to the side, hooked the SM in front of his baler, and finished up. It sat there most of the summer, and that fall we helped him find a nice little Deutz and the 504 went to the junkyard. He wasn't sad to see it go, I remember him fussing about it all the time and wishing he had something like our Super M. 

So I don't know if that helps explain anything, but it's the only account I have of a 504 actually being used. 

[Dirt_Floor_Poor]

1 hour ago, DWV said:

Never used a 504, only bought a couple salvage ones for transmission parts to use in 300 and 350 tractors. Also heard they were gutless. Going by specs it doesn't add up that it can't do what a H will. Maybe not last as long. Both are around the same weight and close enough that either one could weigh more according how equipped. Farmall type rear tire size can be the same as a H. Gasoline is rated several horsepower higher than a H according to Nebraska tests. Both engines if original have the same bore and stroke. If they won't lug with a it must be the head, intake and exhaust design, or camshaft profile. I grew up on a dairy farm and big enough to use tractors in the middle fifties. At that time in my area a tractor with 50 HP was considered big. Anyway, my dad raised silage and hay to feed the cows. All planting and harvesting done with a 41 H gasoline model that was a little unusual built for gasoline at the time and a 56 Ferguson 40. Spent a lot of time on the H working corn ground, balling hay then on to Silage and manure hauling. Engine was rebuilt since new but they put the same type 3-3/8 cast iron pistons that it came with. It would lug for what it was but no powerhouse. With disc in bottom ground some places would sink full in it was sone lugging down to I could almost count the RPM. It would make it through most times though. More fun was 5th gear power, hit a grade pulling a baler nut long to fourth gear speed. Pickup a rough Farmall but a Stout engine with fire craters and was tickled to death with the difference. Picked up a later H with overbore fire craters and it was better than previous H. M spoiled me from using those if serious work was involved. Hard for me to believe a 504 Farmall with a T/A wouldn't out due that original H. It was a runner that kept going though. Picked up other tractors on up but a 560 was the newest. 

I think it’s hard to make comparisons on tractors unless they are both new. Often times people only have experience with a specific model when it is old and/or well used. I think it happens a lot even today with machinery that is much newer. A tractor that was built in 2000 could be way, way down on power now from when the original owner operated it when it was new. 

[Big Bud guy]

1 hour ago, DWV said:

Never used a 504, only bought a couple salvage ones for transmission parts to use in 300 and 350 tractors. Also heard they were gutless. Going by specs it doesn't add up that it can't do what a H will. Maybe not last as long. Both are around the same weight and close enough that either one could weigh more according how equipped. Farmall type rear tire size can be the same as a H. Gasoline is rated several horsepower higher than a H according to Nebraska tests. 

I agree and I would have to see it to believe it.  There was several Hs around here and my uncle had one with a Farmhand.  I've never know anybody personally to claim the H was a powerhouse in the first place and yet guys are claiming it will out pull a tractor that has 50% more hp???  The H was only a 2 plow tractor and yet 504 cannot pull a 2 bottom plow as good or better?  BS, BS.   Only thing I can think of when the 504 came out, the newest Hs were 10 years old and there was probably a lot more that were older then that and so by the time many Hs had been overhauled with with fire craters kits like DFP is alluding to.  

[acem]

There were several 504s round here (general area).  All were Row crop versions with 3pt.  Most were diesels.  Mine came from around Russelville (less than 50 miles from me).

Mike Newman is a big fan of the 504 diesel.  

I'm not sure I've ever seen a 300.  There was a terrible multi year drought here in the mid 50s and very few new tractors of any kind sold.  Many farms sold though.  Lots of C, H and M of various types.  Don't know of any H or M earning their keep here but there probably are.  Tractors without power steering are not well liked by the younger generations for actual work.  Don't know of any Poping Johnnys earning their keep either.  A few xN Fords on small farmsteads.  I do know someone who still uses a Super C on his small farmstead.

[mmi]

Apples/apples is hard grannysmith/spy,mt/bottom land.

It was a bean counter/marketing/competition thing. They needed X to sell at X $ for x period.

As good and long as many have run,not just IH /ALL spent little $ RD $ on engines beyond 10 yrs/3k rebuild 10k life hrs .

'55-85,or proper area '98'-30.

the 6 cyls gas were just turned up (cheap )truck engines , 4cyls '55>+ 2nd gen ,were too cheap $ to run 80% load beyond 3K hrs .design fact.couldnt take long high revs/load, diesels needed supplemental balancer (cheap) the keep from ventilating.

Add in the designed "consumable" sleeveless 153 ,gutless !!! in the power/load curve needed.

our 3rd owner rebuilt <'80 504 did little more than GREAT raking. Had a string of H for real work on each impl.

'39 2nd owner H NEVER serviced always abused,broken was about =

[Lazy WP]

In all fairness, I think that people thought the “new modern” tractor should be way better than the H it was replacing. AND by the time the 504 came onto the ranch, the H had been overhauled and they probably put the “Firecracker” pistons in there. 
The 504s I was around were used strictly for mowing wet meadows, pulling a 1100, and in that instance, they were a very good tractor. We tried 1 on the 36 foot dump rake, and it was NOT a good choice. 
It was probably more that a 504 looked like a bigger tractor than it was. 

[766 Man]

9 hours ago, Big Bud guy said:

I agree and I would have to see it to believe it.  There was several Hs around here and my uncle had one with a Farmhand.  I've never know anybody personally to claim the H was a powerhouse in the first place and yet guys are claiming it will out pull a tractor that has 50% more hp???  The H was only a 2 plow tractor and yet 504 cannot pull a 2 bottom plow as good or better?  BS, BS.   Only thing I can think of when the 504 came out, the newest Hs were 10 years old and there was probably a lot more that were older then that and so by the time many Hs had been overhauled with with fire craters kits like DFP is alluding to.  

  The vegetable farmer I mentioned with the 504 pulled 3 X 14 with his.  The H's around here on lighter ground pulled 2 X 14 and on really heavy ground 2 X 12 or in some cases 1 X 16.  The vegetable farmer also had an IH 37 8 ft disk that he pulled with the 504.  It was a tricycle gas tractor with fast hitch and unfortunately it burned up in a barn fire around 1976.  

[766 Man]

8 hours ago, mmi said:

Apples/apples is hard grannysmith/spy,mt/bottom land.

It was a bean counter/marketing/competition thing. They needed X to sell at X $ for x period.

As good and long as many have run,not just IH /ALL spent little $ RD $ on engines beyond 10 yrs/3k rebuild 10k life hrs .

'55-85,or proper area '98'-30.

the 6 cyls gas were just turned up (cheap )truck engines , 4cyls '55>+ 2nd gen ,were too cheap $ to run 80% load beyond 3K hrs .design fact.couldnt take long high revs/load, diesels needed supplemental balancer (cheap) the keep from ventilating.

Add in the designed "consumable" sleeveless 153 ,gutless !!! in the power/load curve needed.

our 3rd owner rebuilt <'80 504 did little more than GREAT raking. Had a string of H for real work on each impl.

'39 2nd owner H NEVER serviced always abused,broken was about =

  By the 1960's all manufacturers were under pressure to change designs in low hp tractors so they would meet a certain selling price and yet were profitable for the manufacturer to build.  Larger frame, heavy flywheel, big cube engines were out.  The HP class the 504 was in was identified as a tractor that most likely was not going to be a primary tractor on most farms and was designed accordingly.  The hours expected to be used for heavy tillage were minimal but yet were of some significance.  Hitching and hydraulics were of a spec to make it easy to use.  Nearly everyone here talks down about the 504 in terms of tillage but I doubt the engineers anticipated a 504 putting 100 hours or more annually on a 504 plowing or disking.  More likely it would do work such as pulling a planter or grain drill of which it was desirable not to be a heavy fuel burner.