interesting.

Donald Lehman

Well-known Member
Was checking over the stats on some tractors that will be at the local auction tomorrow. IH Hydro 186. 105 pto hp. and 79 drawbar. Compared to my 1955 at 108 pto, and 90 drawbar and the 986 IH at 105 pto and 90 drawbar. I was aware that the early IH hydrostatics were horribly inefficient as was the early JD power shifts. The Oliver brass was always driving that home to it's dealers back then, too. If I remember correctly, the hydro power was 93% and the hydraul shift was 92%.

There is a Ford 9600 there also. 135 pto and 111 drawbar. 24 hp loss. Oliver really did have a good selling point with the efficiency of their drive trains. Which goes a long ways towards explaining why our 1650's, performance wise, came within a mouse's whisker of our 4020 JD. (1964 4020)
 
You put them side by side plowing or on and 16 ft. spring tooth harrow and you will be shocked at how close a 1650 is to a 4020. We liked our 4020 well enough, but the 3020 and 4020 were the two most overrated tractors JD ever built. The 2 or 3 speed on the go shift on the 1650 comes very, very close to making up the HP difference the 4020 has. The early JD powershift was inefficient enough to negate any hp. advantage the 4020 had over the 1650. An IH 806 would easily eclipse a 4020 on identical plows and such. Never had the opportunity to see a 706 or a Case 930 or 1030 work side by side with a 4020 so I can't make any comparisons there. However, the 4020 was easily the nicest driving tractor ever built. Great brakes, power steering, very good hydraulics for the time, and one of the best cold starting motors ever put in a tractor. Just so you know, our 4020 showed 92 hp. on the dyno before we bought it and showed the same on our dyno 4 years later. The 2 1650's we had in comparison showed 77 and 80 hp on the same dyno. The 80 hp one was the highest hp 1650 we ever had on a dyno from the factory. Most of them showed 75-78 hp.
 
I agree the 1650 diesel was a sleeper ... 283 was way under-rated at 66 hp and believe it was the same motor they put in the first 1800s. So much for the legend of the mighty 4020. lol
 
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a huge 4020 fan either. They were a nice tractor but I'm not sure they are as legendary as some like to claim. I have a 4010 that was my dad's and it is just a nice driving old tractor. Very nimble and comfortable to drive as compared to the 1650. A 4010 and a 1650 are a pretty good match even though the 4010 has a few more cubes. I stand by my story that either your 4020 was a dog or your 1650 had some work done to it. I don't think I ever saw anyone put a turbo on a 1650. Put a turbo with the big pan and radiator on a 4010 and it will eat an 1850's lunch let alone a 1650. 1650 was a good old tractor and probably overall a little more durable than the 4010 but not a 4020.
 
I have a 1650 diesel that I really like and it had the pump turned up some when the pump was rebuilt but it won't hang with the couple of 4020s I use do run on a neighbor's farm when I helped them chop corn.
 
We had a Oliver dealer when i was rowing up, and I remember when the 1600 came out, I was s senior in high school and we went to town during Christmas vacation, and the dealer had a 1600 with front wheel assist and two with regular front ends on display. 1 with the regular front end went out to a neighbor who was the biggest cattle feeder in our area , That didn't have the power of a average super 88, and i am not exaggerating, and you say a 1650 had the power of a 4020. It couldn't had the much power, the Oliver had skinny little head bolts, and had about 8 less than the Deere.
 
No denying that the early 1600s had less power than an 880. That's why they upped the cubes on the later ones and would retrofit the larger bore pistons and sleeves in to one if anybody complained.

Getting off the 1650 a little and on to the 1850 vs a 4020,the 1850 diesel would eat a stock 4020s lunch. I remember going to an auction one time,two old brothers who raised potatoes. Come time to sell the 1850 one of the old guys said he had to admit,it would pull circles around the 4020. I know you can pump up a 4020 with a turbo and make some power,my uncle had one with a turbo that was making 122 horses on the dyno,but stock,it was nothing to write home to mother about.
My 4040 was 92 horse and I'd rather plow with my 1850. The 1850 would out pull it and had better draft and weight distribution.
 
According to what our TM told us, the 1650's sent to Nebraska put out 66 hp. But to certify that they produced at least that hp. level, virtually all of them sold put out noticeably more. Never saw one under 76 on a dyno. Remember this was during the certified Hp. era. They were certified to produce at least what they were rated. The certified hp concept was a very intelligent little piece of marketing on Oliver's part if the dealers exploited it properly.
 
We had a 4010 with a tubro (M&W). It did not have the bigger oil pan. it made a good tractor for hauling wagons, but without dual wheels or a LOT of weight added the tractor was way too light to do any serious field work. Without the bigger oil pan, the thing would run hot unless you were careful about how hard you crowded the engine. The 4010/4020 weighed about the same as a 1650 and with the higher hp/weight ratio, wheel slippage was always higher on the 4020, which diminished the ground speed compared to the 1650. Like I said, unless you actually put the two side by side on identical equipment, you would find it hard to believe how close they were. For PTO work, the 4020 was superior, of course.
 
I think about the highest I've ever seen a 1650/55 turned up to was 85, which would be about 4010 level, and I'm not talking about that tractor. I wasn't talking about PTO anyway. I was talking about Oliver's drive train efficiency which was good enough to make tractors show well against larger tractors on field work when they shouldn't have. One of the 1650/55's real shortcomings for PTO work was that 1st gear was a bit too fast for the horsepower. The 1855/1955 had the 1st gear the 1650 should have had.

When it comes to getting the most field work done for the least effort, hp is only part of the equation. Hp/weight ratio and drive train efficiency play a huge part also. Back in the 60's-early 70's Oliver was in the forefront in that respect. The front end/rear end weight ratios play a big part in power and traction transfered to the ground. Take an Oliver with the regular front end and the same model with the swept back front end and see which one out pulls the other in most conditions. The Oliver with the swept back will turn shorter (as does the JD) but the regular front end is superior to the swept back in applying weight to the rear wheels, and is far superior on muddy ground. And I don't think anyone will contend that the 4010/4020's weren't worth a hoot in the mud. Having the fuel tank way up front also took away from effective weight to the rear wheels on the JD and contributed to the front end wallowing and pushing in wet ground. All these little factors add up to a smaller very efficient tractor giving a higher hp, less efficient tractor a run for the money in real world conditions. Any way you care to look at it Oliver was as good as anybody at turning hp into work done and better than most. The 4020 was no where near as good a platform for transferring hp to acres covered as the 1650 and it showed when compared side to side.
 
Yep, That's the same reason our neighbor uses his 2-105 for all his plowing instead of his big bad 1066. When asked by, he says the White just pulls them better. Better weight distribution, less drive-train waste, and better speed seelction with the over/under. On the John Deere side, a 3020 I used to run would have a hard time keeping up with a good running 880.
 
If Oliver was such a supieor tractor why have they been dead for 40 years? And what about White? They have been dead for about 30 years, wait they never really had a tractor, it was just a 55 series Oliver with new tin work and it did not fool anyone. Yes, them old Ollies may of had a little more power than a 4020, but the Oliver lacked engineering in every other aspect of the tractor. The stearing, hydrualics, shifting between the legs, brakes, PTO, and lack of a differential lock (Deere put them on the 20 series in 1965) made the Oliver tractor miserable to be on. John Deere made the 4020 with the operator in mind, they made it comfortable to operate the tractor. You can buy a 50 year old 4020 today and hit the brakes and it will throw you into the stearing wheel, you can stear it with one hand going across plowed ground, you can raise the 3 point and the tail wheel of the plow at the same time with no issue. Can your Oliver do that? I spent many years on Oliver 1950(turing diesel into noise) and it would beat the hell out of you plowing all day. I will take a good 4020 any day of the week. By all means the Oliver had a much better FWD than Deere had. There is a reason why Oliver is dead and Deere is still the number one manufacture.
 
We're in trouble now, the 4020 had perfect brakes ... except when they wore out metal shavings could end up in the rear end and hydro system, happened to my neighbors 4020. Huge repair bill and this was 30 years ago.
 
I never said that they were perfect, you did! Everything wears out from time to time. Anyway, no one will know if the tractor was abused or even had the correct oil in it. If he repalced them 30 years ago, that means he had 20+ years of service on them brake, can we talk about reliablitiy now? That also must of been about 10 years after when Oliver was giving its last rights on there death bed.

There is also a transmission screen in the case to prevent any brake material from getting into the high pressure side of the hydrualics. Also, Deere utilized two types of oil for there tractor, engine oil and Hy-Guard(hydrualic oil). Oilver had how many different types of oils and filters? Enigine oil, hydra-power oil, transmission oil, hydrualic oil, and if it was a FWD; oil for the transfer case. Once again, the Deere is a far more supieor engineered tractor than ever Oliver was (Oliver series 00's, 50's, 55's), hence the reason that they are still number one and Oliver is dead!
 
Miss managagement leads to miss managed products! A little more on Married2Allis comments about brakes...The Oliver brakes utilized the dry discs, these where ok 20 years ealier. How many Olivers had leaking seals on the brake shafts that caused the dry discs to become oil soaked? Once this happened you had no brakes, poor engineering.

What about the Hydra-power...Sure it was nice to be able to pull it back and drop the ground speed down a third and increase the power, but the miss managed engineering staff designed it to allow it to free wheel down hill if you were not in direct drive. Can you honestly tell me that this is safe? Then throw the oil soaked dry discs braks into the mix and you were in for a ride of your life until you soiled your pants and relized that you need to push it back into direct drive. Educate me on the over / under, does it also free wheel? I honestly dnt know...

Miss Management leads to miss engineering which in-turns leads into poor products. You can not Honestly tell me that these Olivers were better that a 20, 30, or 40 series John Deere....These tractors changed the way we farm today, these were the basis of all our modern equipment that is made today egardless of color.
 
When I said there was a 20 hp gap, I was talking about the drawbar. I don't care how much hp each tractor started out with. Fact its the 4020 put more to the ground then the 1650. This whole thing about tractors 2 sizes smaller pulling or hanging with 4020s gets really old cause I hear it from other brands too. If they were that gutless JD wouldn't have sold many. I suppose a 1850 would out pull a 5020. I have some implements left over from our 4020 which is a 21ft FW disc harrow and 17ft IH duck foot plow. Feel free to hook on either one and try them in our hills. The tools were bought when grandpa had a JD 830. Traded it in for a 4020 power shift in 1964. Farmed over 800 acres with the 4020 too. A 1650 ain't touching any of that. I like certain Olivers and even have one but I am not buying your story.
 
Thank you... I was not going to go down that road. Oliver pushed the living hell out of them 310's which in turn threw rods out the side of the block. Deere was using 404's and then 466's, so tell me how that 1650 with a 283 could keep up with a 4020? The 4020 has 131 more cubes (almost 50% more engine) of displacment then that of the Miss Managaged / Miss Engineered 1650, so tell me how that would keep up with with a good 4020? With this many more cubes of displacment it will give you much more lug and sustain its power.
 
Married2Allis...You need to look up the thread on the 1550 brakes, sounds just like what I wrote ealier. Another misengineered design by Oliver and yet you think the brakes on a 4020 are junk....Crazy
 
(quoted from post at 22:57:53 04/30/15) Married2Allis...You need to look up the thread on the 1550 brakes, sounds just like what I wrote ealier. Another misengineered design by Oliver and yet you think the brakes on a 4020 are junk....Crazy


I think argue is the number one on your list.
 

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