QUESTIONS ON 656

I don't think you could go wrong with the 656 to replace your M. I did the same thing- acually I replaced a 450 with a 656 and have never been happier. The 656 is the "Big Tractor" on our part time operation and works great. I have a gear drive Diesel wide front with 3pth and it does every thing I need it to do on 25 or so acers. My $.02

Pros: More power, heavier, live PTO, live hydraulics, parts availability is not an issue.

Cons: Use more fuel, not as simple as a M, heavy (interms of hauling), TA can be an issue.

The other thing to consider is that the 656 is getting on in years. Most have been worked hard since day one and continue so as loader tractors and general use (baling, mowing, blading). Finding one in good condition will cost you.

I had a Super M, 560 and 656, and each one of them did the same kinds of work on my farm as the previous one. I never found myself often robbing work away from my Super A, 130 or 1066 with any one of them. I do agree with you on one point, the higher we delve into horse power the shorter the lifespan of the tractor. I could be wrong but I don't think you will see 1066, 1086, 1486, etc. around in great numbers when they are 50-60 years old. Although I must admit I am surprised to see so many of them in photos adds, gallery, discussion, with as little as 4,000 to 6,000 hours on them. They must have been bought new by some pretty finincially comfortable old farts. When I bought my 656, 560 and 1066, the projections were done on them putting in between 750 and 1000 hours per year. Must be great to be able to farm and not have to make money.

I also owned a 400 air planter, round baler, haybine, etc. And yes I have pulled them all with 300 but stayed away from all with SM because PTO. Sure the 560 and 656 have more power, but not that much more hp. The single biggest reason for going from gas M, SM, 300, etc to 560 and 656 diesels had nothing to do with power in the 1960's, It was all about fuel efficiency. I also called the 460, 504 and 606 duds just looking at the specs before we ever saw one in the field. That is precicely why none of those 3 ever came to my farm. You didn't read my last post, so I doubt you will bother reading this one. Guess who that makes look like a dummy.

Here is some advice to help you avoid embarrassing yourself in the future. Stick to production numbers and interpreting serial numbers, you know, things you read in a book or on the internet.

I also wouldn't call the 504 a dud. We had one years back and it was a great cultivator / spraving / broadcasting tractor. You have to just use it for what it was designed for. It would be a very disapointing tractor in front of a 3-16 pull type plow.

When I made the remark about the 460, 504 and 606 being duds, more than just tractor performance went into that decission. On several ocasions I priced new 504 and later on 544. I always found these tractors were priced very close in price to the next larger tractor. I had a 560 new, 460 was at time within $400. 460 was not a factor as I was looking for 60 hp. I later bought a neighboring farm that had a 504 and 656 with it. The vendor advised me not to keep 504 long as at 1500 hours engine had to be rebuilt. He said he never liked the 504 from new, plus by the time he added some optional equipment it cost him as much as the 656 diesel. He bought both new in April 1967. With the added acerage I was planning to trade my 300 on a 1066. After a day plowing with No. 60 3x16 on both 300 and 504, the 504 was the one traded on 1066. In my sandy loam I had often pulled that 3 bottom plow with 300. The part that got me was 504 is rated 7-8 more hp than 300.

The new price tag on these tractors was a factor. That may have been unique here in Canada as I believe IH were trying to force us into buying the British built IH in the 50 hp class and smaller tractor. The US plants couldn't keep up with sales, Doncaster, England was new. Currency was right for IH making money with Euorpean built tractors. IH forgot one thing those smaller British built tractors weren't Farmalls.

I will give one further item on the comfortable M item. My Farmall 300 on 9' New Holland haybine would burn 3 Canadian gallons of gasoline per hour, and no more than enough power. 656 diesel on that same haybine, burned one Canadian gallon of diesel per hour. The 504 and 544 diesels will not do any better. You could say I never worked my 656 very hard. I sprayed, drilled grain, planted corn, baled both square and later round, haybine, and it did all those jobs more economical than any tractor I could have used there. The other job it did every year was plow 250-300 acres with a 510 - 5x16 semi-mount plow. You name any other tractor that will fill that bill.

The Farmall MD and SMD were in their time hailed as the most economical farm power. IH improved that economy with the 656. That line of tractors starting with the Farmall M in 1939 through to the 686 in 1980, was 40 years of the most economical horse power North American farmers have ever seen. No one has done it any better. There are no new tractors on the market today that will match it. So if all this creates a bit of a chuckle for a few that's fine. I will stand by my comfortable M theory, absolutely more power, no question. Getting the job done one time and at the lowest possible cost is what counts.

I can also tell, you just plain want an M with comfort.