Yesterday's Tractor Co. Trusted Parts Supplier since 1995
Click Here or call 800-853-2651 
   Allis Chalmers Case Farmall IH Ford 8N,9N,2N Ford
   Ferguson John Deere Massey Ferguson Minn. Moline Oliver
 
Marketplace
Tractor Manuals
Tractor Parts
Classified Ads
Photo Ads

Community
Discussion Forums
Project Journals
Tractor Town
Your Stories
Show & Pull Guide
Events Calendar
Hauling Schedule

Galleries
Tractor Photos
Implement Photos
Vintage Photos
Help Identify
Parts & Pieces
Stuck & Troubled
Vintage Ads
Community Album
Photo Ad Archives

Research & Info
Articles
Tractor Registry
Tip of the Day
Safety Cartoons
Tractor Values
Serial Numbers
Tune-Up Guide
Paint Codes
List Prices
Production Nbrs
Tune-Up Specs
Torque Values
3-Point Specs
Glossary

Miscellaneous
Tractor Games
Just For Kids
Virtual Show
Museum Guide
Memorial Page
Feedback Form

Yesterday's Tractors Facebook Page

Related Sites
Tractor Shed
TractorLinks.com
Ford 8N/9N Club
Today's Tractors
Garden Tractors
Classic Trucks
Kountry Life
Enter your email address to receive our newsletter!

subscribe
unsubscribe
  
Garden Tractors Discussion Forum

Re: 442 Case hydraulic drive issue?

[Show Entire Topic]  

Author  [Modern View]
Bob

07-10-2013 23:17:58
64.255.159.192



Report to Moderator

I will get chastised for posting this, but those tractors used a "hydraulic drive", simply a fixed displacement gear pump and a gerotor-type motor, with a flow divider between them.

TOTALLY different and different acting, under the best of circumstances, than a REAL hydrostatic drive, as is/was common practice to use in garden tractors. Having owned two of them, I would never consider owning one again as a working tractor, but only as a museum piece to show the ill effects of making a product that deviates (unsuccessfully) from generally-accepted engineering practice.

Yeah, I know I'm being the bad guy here, but there HAS to be a reason no one else went down that path in with a production garden tractor.

(BTW, if you have never had the experience of driving one on a slope with a LAKE at the bottom, you have missed one of life's low-cost THRILLS!)

[Reply]   [No Email]
Case Nutty 1660

07-13-2013 14:42:16
75.127.24.27



Report to Moderator
 Re: 442 Case hydraulic drive issue? in reply to Bob, 07-10-2013 23:17:58  
have to once again agree with Tom on this one even having two of these fine tractors for a while does not "make you a expert" on them if you know how to operate them correctly down hill is no real issue at all, I have ran them since 1966 from a 155 to 446 units love them all they are night and day above a hydro unit yes they do operate different but then again you do need to be a operator to use them to their full potential and you sound like many others I know who THINK they are a operator but really are just along for the ride, if you do not like some thing fine that is your opinion but do not put down the thousands of people who do, we sold 10-15 Case compacts a year many of them still are hard at work how many of the box store cheap hydro are still running after 40 years? just my two cents
cnt

[Reply]  [No Email]
Tom Arnold

07-11-2013 07:06:39
174.95.24.162



Report to Moderator
 Re: 442 Case hydraulic drive issue? in reply to Bob, 07-10-2013 23:17:58  
Past ownership of a couple Case tractors doesn't qualify you as an expert, Bob.

Hydrostatic drive is an excellent method to provide power to the rear wheels but it has its short-comings. Hydraulic Drive is also an excellent method but it too is not perfect. Colt was the company that pioneered and patented the hydraulic drive for garden tractors. That MIGHT be one of the reasons why no other company went that route.

Hydraulic Drive's big plus is that you have 8 to 10 gallons of oil in constant circulation at pressures as high as 2800 PSI on some models. This fact gives Colt, Case and Ingersoll tractors the ability to provide hydraulic power to their rototiller, Bush Hog Mower, double-acting log splitter, 3 pt hitch mounted 48 inch finishing mower, chipper/shredder as well as mower decks and snowcaster for certain models. No hydrostatically driven garden tractor has the capability to do this.

When someone such as yourself does not truly know the product that they are commenting on, it means they are ignorant of all the facts.

Colt patented the hydraulic drive system in 1962. Case bought Colt in 1964. Jack Ingersoll bought the company in 1983. Eastman Industries bought the company in 2005. Here we are today, 50 years later and you can still buy a brand new hydraulic drive Ingersoll garden tractor. If the product was as bad as you suggest, there must be a lot of stupid people in the world because they kept coming back to the dealers to purchase another hydraulic drive tractor instead of choosing what you consider to be the superior drive system.

It is true that the early models did have a run-away problem on steep grades when operated by people who never took the time to read the Operator's Manual. That problem was resolved with an add-on holding valve that was later on incorporated into the tractors as standard.

The fact that you had the thrill ride you speak of simply demonstrates your ignorance of how these tractors function in the right hands. If you are happy with your hydrostatic tractors, then who am I to argue? I just take exception to negative comments about CCI tractors being made by someone who hasn't a clue about them.

I hope this reply lives up to your expectation of chastisement. After all, you did invite it so you have nothing to complain about.

[Reply]  [No Email]
Bob

07-11-2013 09:38:36
64.255.159.192



Report to Moderator
 Re: 442 Case hydraulic drive issue? in reply to Tom Arnold, 07-11-2013 07:06:39  
Yeah, I "know the product" reasonably well, and AM aware of the remote hydraulic capabilities, since my 446 had a hydraulic tiller. (That sort of worked, not as well, though notas well as my 318 DEERE with hydraulic tiller driven by a dedicated hydraulic pump.)

I still propose that those tractors do NOT have the smooth, reliable speed control, with engine braking as a true hydro system does.

They are NEAT in their own way and I have no problem with them being collectible (as a lot of oddball things are). I just don't see them being as useful and precise in operation as their competition of the era!

[Reply]  [No Email]
JohnDy

07-11-2013 10:16:18
162.202.82.96



Report to Moderator
 Re: 442 Case hydraulic drive issue? in reply to Bob, 07-11-2013 09:38:36  
Bob, you are the type that won't listen to anyone that has forgotten more about Case/Ingersoll than you ever knew. I also owned four different ones plus a 322 John Deere and after taking the mower off and putting the snowblower on it it went down the road to a guy who stopped to look at it and it was on his trailer before the ink was dry on his check. My dealer put the holding valve on the unit that didn't have it on from the factory and never had an issue going down the hills or up. Would still be using them if our dealer didn't go broke selling farm equipment.

[Reply]  [No Email]
Bob

07-11-2013 10:30:51
64.255.159.192



Report to Moderator
 Re: 442 Case hydraulic drive issue? in reply to JohnDy, 07-11-2013 10:16:18  
Hey, John!

I stated my OPINION in a reasonable and non-condescending manner and am in no way trying to impose it on you OR the IP!

It is an OPINION (and an OBSERVATION of how the darned things work) and no more than that, as is YOUR opinion.

If we all liked the same thing, it would be a dull world!

And if the REST of the world fully enjoyed the Case/Colt/Ingersol hydraulic-drive system as much as a couple of you guys, it would be mainstream today, instead of being relegated to the dustbin of history!

[Reply]  [No Email]
Traditional Farmer

07-12-2013 13:45:52
67.233.66.158



Report to Moderator
 Re: 442 Case hydraulic drive issue? in reply to Bob, 07-11-2013 10:30:51  
Case garden tractors are like Studebakers used to be a very few die hard fans.Like you said to most people they are very user UNfriendly.Actually with better quality parts and better engineering they could have been a pretty good machine.



[Reply]  [No Email]
Tom Arnold

07-11-2013 15:03:56
174.95.24.162



Report to Moderator
 Re: 442 Case hydraulic drive issue? in reply to Bob, 07-11-2013 10:30:51  
Bob, Once again, your ignorance of the breed is showing in your latest post above.

If you knew anything about the world of garden tractors, you would know that their days are numbered. Almost every manufacturer has opted out of the garden tractor segment of the market. The sub-CUT and CUT tractors have taken over. Deere only makes one garden tractor series and that is the 700. Cub Cadet does not make a GT any longer. Dixon's tractor isn't a true GT and neither is Sears. Wheelhorse is gone and the only other one that comes to mind is Simplicity.

As for the CCI branded GT's, it was total mismanagement by Ingersoll's owners that put the company into the position it is in today but the advent of the sub-CUT and CUT models also played a big part.

You are entitled to post your opinion about the Case GT's but your opinion is flawed because you never took the time to learn how to operate it correctly or you would not have formed the opinions you did.

That aside, please tell us all how any of your opinions actually helped breimer with his question?

[Reply]  [No Email]
Bob

07-11-2013 22:55:49
64.255.159.192



Report to Moderator
 Re: 442 Case hydraulic drive issue? in reply to Tom Arnold, 07-11-2013 15:03:56  
Tom, Am I IGNORANT for being straightforward and honest telling the IP his (basket) Case will NEVER perform in the fashion of nearly every other true "hydro" garden tractor that has ever been sold???

Those things are what they are, but they do NOT function in the same manner as the other hydro GT's made in the same era.

(Notice I did NOT say they ere "bad", just stated they were "different".)

Can you HONESTLY dispute that?

I am in NO way condemning them or any lucky folks that may own one of them, just stating that if a WORKING machine is needed there MAY (perhaps) better choices.

[Reply]  [No Email]
Tom Arnold

07-12-2013 03:15:00
174.95.24.162



Report to Moderator
 Re: 442 Case hydraulic drive issue? in reply to Bob, 07-11-2013 22:55:49  
Bob, You are entitled to give your opinion, just like everyone else is. This is a discussion that has no resolution because it is very similar to the Ford vs GM vs Mopar conversations that have taken place since the advent of the automobile.

I agree that there is a slight difference in "feel" between hydraulic and hydrostatic drive tractors. As I pointed out in my initial reply, both systems have their good and bad points. However, unlike you I do not disparage hydrostatic drives other than to point out that they have very limited capabilities when it comes to powering additional hydraulic functions.

Why do you find the need to characterize briemer's 442 as a "(basket) Case" or continue to imply that hydraulic drive is somehow inferior to hydrostatic drive? Perhaps I have it wrong but in my eyes, you have been condemning hydraulic drive from your very first post. I find that odd because I know of a great many people who abandoned their interest in Cub Cadet, Simplicity, Wheel Horse and even...........dare I say it...... John Deere, after discovering Case.

A properly set-up Case GT can hold its own against any competing brand on all aspects of property maintenance. They have been a high-end, quality machine since their advent and remain so today.

You knew at the outset that your words were going to draw fire from Case enthusiasts but so far, you have not explained why a hydrostatic drive tractor will outperform a hydraulic drive tractor. So how about putting away the bluster and get down to some facts. When it comes to ploughing a field, mowing grass, blowing snow or any other task normally performed by a garden tractor, tell us where the hydraulic drive falls short.

[Reply]  [No Email]
Brian Jasper co. Ia

07-15-2013 21:02:49
166.181.80.209



Report to Moderator
 Re: 442 Case hydraulic drive issue? in reply to Tom Arnold, 07-12-2013 03:15:00  
I like my 446, 220, and 155, but the hydraulic drive falls short when you have to climb a steep hill. After you've run them long enough shifting from high to low gets to be second nature, but the hydro tractors you just pull back on the speed lever a bit.



[Reply]  [No Email]
Tom Arnold

07-16-2013 04:11:39
174.95.24.162



Report to Moderator
 Re: 442 Case hydraulic drive issue? in reply to Brian Jasper co. Ia, 07-15-2013 21:02:49  
Hi Range is to be used only for rapid travel across normal terrain to get from one place to another. It is not intended to be used while performing work of one kind or another. Case never intended Hi Range to be used while ascending steep grades or descending them either. Knowing HOW to use your tractor properly is the key to greater satisfaction with it.

If your tractors had difficulty climbing grades in Lo Range, then that would suggest certain parts are badly worn. A diagnostic would need to done on the hydraulic system to determine whether the pump was capable of putting out its rated flow and pressure. The oil should be changed out and fresh 20W50 installed to make sure that wasn't part of the problem.

[Reply]  [No Email]
Brian Jasper co. Ia

07-16-2013 14:00:42
108.178.209.250



Report to Moderator
 Re: 442 Case hydraulic drive issue? in reply to Tom Arnold, 07-16-2013 04:11:39  
Again Tom, you fail to grasp what was said. If you were reading closely you would see that I have shifting ranges down to a proverbial science. Unless you're mowing 4 or 5 inches off in one pass, how productive is it to mow at 3mph? This is where the hydrostat is more efficient. No need to change ranges when you come to a hill. You can easily mow at the limits of engine power or cut quality. I'm not knocking the Case in any way. They have the same hydraulic capacity as many farm tractors did in the 60's and 70's. It just depends on what you want to do and how fast you want to get it done. I like the big wheels and high clearance. It cuts better than my 1450 Cub does too.

[Reply]  [No Email]
Tom Arnold

07-16-2013 15:51:54
174.95.24.162



Report to Moderator
 Re: 442 Case hydraulic drive issue? in reply to Brian Jasper co. Ia, 07-16-2013 14:00:42  
I grasped perfectly what you said.

The engineers wrote Operator's Manuals that clearly state Lo Range is to be used when performing "work". Mowing grass is "work". However, there are some owners who insist on performing "work" in Hi Range and then blame the design of the tractor when it fails to ascend grades while cutting grass.

When you push any machine beyond its design limits, then who is at fault? Sure, if a tractor is driven by a hydrostatic pump instead of a hydraulic pump, you can ease off on the control lever. Trust me. I get it. However, I wouldn't trade my Case for any of the hydro powered units that are out there today. Most of them will be in the scrap yard within ten years time but my Case will still be motoring along just fine 40 years from now, thanks to its design and rugged components.

[Reply]  [No Email]
JohnDy

07-11-2013 17:32:59
162.202.82.96



Report to Moderator
 Re: 442 Case hydraulic drive issue? in reply to Tom Arnold, 07-11-2013 15:03:56  
Dang it Tom even though you are right about the garden tractors it does make a person feel a little sad when you think about what has disappeared. During my younger days I always enjoyed going to the State fair and the local fair to look at the new models. Ariens, Bolens,Case/Ingersoll, Ford, Allis Chalmers, Toro, Wheel Horse, Cub Cadet, Power King, Simplicity, John Deere, just to name a few. Sure I missed many. Sad to see so many disappearing. Wish Eastmann would hook up with a zero turn so they could hang around. Sorry for all the "looking back".

[Reply]  [No Email]
[Show Entire Topic]     [Options]  [Printer Friendly]  [Posting Help]  [Return to Forum]   [Add a Reply]

Hop to:
TRACTOR   PARTS TRACTOR   MANUALS
Same-Day Shipping! Most of our stocked parts ship the same day you order (M-F).  Expedited shipping available, just call!  Most prices for parts and manuals are below our competitors.  Compare our super low shipping rates!  We have the parts you need to repair your tractor.  We are a Company you can trust and have generous return policies!   Shop Online Today or call our friendly sales staff toll free (800) 853-2651. [ More Info ]

Home  |  Forums


Copyright © 1997-2014 Yesterday's Tractor Co.

All Rights Reserved. Reproduction of any part of this website, including design and content, without written permission is strictly prohibited. Trade Marks and Trade Names contained and used in this Website are those of others, and are used in this Website in a descriptive sense to refer to the products of others. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy

TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER: Tradenames and Trademarks referred to within Yesterday's Tractor Co. products and within the Yesterday's Tractor Co. websites are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Yesterday's Tractor Co., our products, or our website nor are we sponsored by them. John Deere and its logos are the registered trademarks of the John Deere Corporation. Agco, Agco Allis, White, Massey Ferguson and their logos are the registered trademarks of AGCO Corporation. Case, Case-IH, Farmall, International Harvester, New Holland and their logos are registered trademarks of CNH Global N.V.

Yesterday's Tractors - Antique Tractor Headquarters