Wanting to upgrade from NH 68 to NH 269 or 273

Hay Heart

New User
I started putting up my own hay last year and what an education it has been. Started with a no rust NH 68 baler but with worn out parts and no knowledge of a baler. So many of you can chuckle from here. I now have graduated to beautiful quality hay and beautiful square bales. Yes bananas but no more. I good working 68 is a sweet machine!
I would like to upgrade to a super sweep and a faster baler. I have a MF 45 hp. How much difference is there in a NH 68 and a NH 273? I'm having trouble finding a 273 that isn't made of gold but I have found a super sweep 269. Is there much difference in a 269 and 273?
 
The last 273 was made in 1977, the 269 ten years or so before that. You're talking 35-45 year old equipment. Just what does "gold" cost in your area? If they are asking more than $1200.00 or so it'd better be in like new condition.
 
Your NH 68 will bale as fast or faster than the NH 273 baler. The NH 273 is a low capacity baler. I owned one and I did not like the cross feed system on it. The older system worked and held up better than the NH 273 system.

To get more capacity I would recommend a NH 276. I have owned 4-5 of them and currently own two of them. You have more strokes per minute and a much better cross feed system than the NH 273.
 
(quoted from post at 17:20:46 07/13/14) Your NH 68 will bale as fast or faster than the NH 273 baler. The NH 273 is a low capacity baler. I owned one and I did not like the cross feed system on it. The older system worked and held up better than the NH 273 system.

To get more capacity I would recommend a NH 276. I have owned 4-5 of them and currently own two of them. You have more strokes per minute and a much better cross feed system than the NH 273.

But on 45 HP? Wonder if it is honest PTO power, or flywheel. I ran my 310 for straw last year on 43 pto hp, not much power/weight left to get up hills.
 
Gold is $2500 to $3500. My 68, the plunger has wood slides. I can't believe it would keep up. I wish I could change its pickup to a super sweep. I'm not always running at 540, it does sound like it might take flight.
 
My 68 has wood slides for the plunger. I can't believe it can keep up. I don't always run 540 because it does sound like it would take flight. I had a little trouble this year with giant windrows. I'm just learning windrow size and ground speed to uniform bales. I thought more strokes would help. Maybe it is learning baler capacity. But I am cutting for horse hay and super sweep would help. Too bad I can't change the pickup. Everyone has told me 68 is really slow and it is day and night between the it and the 273.
 
Maybe also look at JD 336 or similar JD balers? The feeding is slightly different, but I believe the knotters are similar. NH square balers & JD square balers have good reputations.
 
On the JD balers side I would go with a JD 328 baler for your tractor. A JD 336 would work it hard. For about any square baler you must not be on steep ground or even your NH 68 would push your tractor around.

Your MF 135 is not 45 horse power at the PTO. That is the power that matters when pulling equipment. Some of the companies started to advertise Gross horsepower about 10 years ago. Now they all do. This is a totally useless number. That gross horse power is at the flywheel without any accessories, IE alternator.

Your tractor is about 36 PTO horsepower. The NH 273 baler would be a match as far as horsepower but not much better than the NH 68. The wooden slides are not a problem on the older NH balers. They actually held up very well.

Truthfully if your NH 68 is not completely worn out it would might be just as well to rebuild what you have. Just about any balers that is going to be in your price range is going to be 40 plus years old. That is a lot of years and bales.

As far as operating speed. I almost never run a square baler at 540 RPM. Most balers sound like they are going to fly apart at 540 RPM empty.
 
the only real difference between the 269 and the 273 is that the pickup is belt driven on the 269 instead of chain. Also the float spring for the pickup is beside the bale chamber instead of underneath the baler. One thing also to watch for is to check the twine holders in the knotters. The 269 balers I have come across all seem to have just the single instead of the double twine holders. They all come to me with the same problem... the guys have trouble making knots when the hay is tough and the bales get tight because the twine slips out of the twine holder disks. I upgrade them to the double twine holders and they work like a charm.
 
PTO rated speed. That is an issue with MF tractors when the 540 PTO speed is not at full engine speed. IF I remember right it is at about 1700 rather than 2200. On a MF 135 that puts you at about 32-33 HP depending on what engine you have.

Horsepower is not the main issue, it is that a 35 horsepower tractor is usually only so heavy. The baler can and will shove you around on any type of grade.

Also remember how you stated your baler ran smoother under 540 PTO speed, this mean your tractor has even lower horse power then.

You are finding out why balers where engine driven when 35 HP. tractors where the norm. The engine did two things: 1) It powered the baler so the tractor just had to move the baler. 2) The engine was front mounted so it usually made the front end of the balers heavier. Therefore adding weight to the tractor.

I wish you luck. I just cringe when I see guys running balers on smaller tractors. If your on flat ground your fine but on any type of grade your just asking for trouble.

The average square baler will weight 2750-3000 lbs. your tractor only weights 3500-4000 lbs. so if you pull a wagon it does not take much of a load for the unit your pulling to weight more than your tractor. So it is the tail waging the dog.
 
In NE Kansas any working square baler will bring $1200, no matter what the age or brand. Good condition and good working equipment will easily double that number - especially NH or JD balers.
 
Thank you JD Seller. I've been reading this forum for quite awhile before I posted and that is one of the most informative post I've read. It's hard to get a objective point of view as the local tractor guys want to sell you their stuff.

That is one of the issues on upgrading. The balers look bigger than my 68, I have assumed they weigh more. I've been looking at tractors too and eyed a MF 245 that weighs around 6000lbs. My land is sloped, not too steep, but I have experienced what you are saying by using my 35. 135 feels better.

So how do you feel bout the 245? Is it enough or should I look more?
 
If you set the clearances right and if the slides are in good shape and you lube them with drain oil every now and again they hold up real good on a 68.
 
A typical 245 will weigh about 4100 to 4200 pounds. You have to add fluid to the rear tires and about 500 pounds of cast weights to each rear wheel to make 6000#s. Just like Engine(Gross) Hp vs PTO Hp you need to pay attention to which value you are using. Look at the test section if offered for a tractor model and open the pdf for the Nebraska Tractor Test. For maximum drawbar pull the tractors were weighted to the max. The bottom of the page will give the weight details. Tractors like the 3cyl Ford 4000, MF 165 and IH 574 with approx 52 HP were around 5000 pounds with out ballast(fluid in tires and/or cast weights).
 
A 135 will easily handle the typical square baler from the 1970s and will handle a NH 68, 269, or a 273 with ease. Where it would be an issue is you tried to pull a wagon too - that would be too much. I remember in the 60s and 70s a lot of those balers were pulled by little 8Ns, Farmall A & Cs (for some stupid reason) and those are about half the tractor of a 135.

NH balers #65, 67, and 68 were all run with a Wisconsin 2 cylinder 17HP engine.


http://www.tractorhouse.com/list/list.aspx?manu=NEW+HOLLAND&mdltxt=273
 
mvphoto9103.jpg


mvphoto9104.jpg

This is one of my flatter fields.

335 ford with a 269.Never been pushed down a hill.Sold it and bought a 310.Still ain't been pushed down a hill.

Guy who bought the 269 uses a 235 Massey on slopped ground.Ain't been pushed down a hill yet.

I've only done this for 45 years.Not a lot of experience.

Good Luck.
 
My opinion would be if you have a good working 68 you should keep it, even if you get a 273 or whatever, as back up if nothing else. The 68 will make nice perfect bales when you get it figured out . I try to rake uniform and medium/big windrows and I run it slower than 540 but with more ground speed. A lot of guys will dispute it, but I have found you can also tweak it a bit by staggering the cranks a little. Once you know the machine well it is a great baler,simple , rugged, and compact. I like mine a lot and wouldnt give it up.
 
Charlie: I would say you have darn flat ground. Plus your dropping the bales on the ground. Try baling on a 5% slope with a full wagon load of hay behind the baler. Then talk about a 35 HP tractor being big enough.

It is all in where and how with any equipment.

PS: The picture is of one of my hay fields. IT is not the steepest nor the flattest. With a baler and wagon here you want/need at least 65-75 HP with the rear wheels weighted real good.
a163060.jpg
 

We sell tractor parts! We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today.

Back
Top