resonding to old post.....your choice of a 90-100 hp in 70's

(In response to someone running down the 190XT by saying they had terrible steering and hydraulics and fuel consumption.)

Nothing comes close to a 190XT in that era. Yours must have been a lemmon. we've used a 190XT Series III Landhandler (love that name) for years with no big issues. Has over 6300 hrs now. Also have a straight 190 with 3500 hrs and again no major repairs as yet. Love the hydraulics though the 7050 has even better and neither are hard to steer. Love the tilt steering, large platform, remote 3 point control (no one had that then), the never fail Power Director, and torque rise that is unmatched in hp class for it's time. Look it up. Early model did have their rear end troubles but during the 2nd year of production (1966) the 190XT got the heavy rear end. great nimble yet hard working horses. Too bad AGCO wrecked the company.

...............
Old discussion here

No! The company was pretty well wrecked before AGCO came about. AGCO resulted when the Germans had had enough and decided to leave town. Management bought what was left of the the business from Deutz and formed AGCO (Allis Gleaner company). About that time labor went on strike the tractor market crashed they made some bad decisions in alternative energy and couldn't make the payments on the debt. In an unrelated move The Germans then sold out the Deutz tractor division to SAME in Italy. Hmmmm.... The Germans buy or "merge" into a large American corporation, loose money had over fist, sell the business for far less than they paid for it and the Italians end up owning it. Where else have I heard a story like that? My brother in law is an MBA type that does turn arounds, he gets into businesses that aren't sustainable (losing money, not growing or both) and forces them kicking and screaming to face reality and make changes that will cause the company to grow and make money. He talks about "economies of scale" in manufacturing. The bottom line is in large industrial manufacturing of durable goods a mature market will usually only have room for three large manufacturers. Globalization has further increased the stress on business, when the market for the product becomes global their will only usually be room for 5-6 major manufacturers, but market forces will usually move that down to 3-4 major players. The loss of some of our favorite tractor manufacturers is brought about by both market forces trimming the number of manufacturers to less than 5 significant participants, running in the back ground are changes in farm practices (farms getting bigger and more specialized) and maturity in tractor development and production. How many tractors from the 40's and 50's would run 10,000 hours without major service? Improvement in our current tractors has moved us away from small innovative companies that developed new or improved technologies that increased productivity, comfort, durability or efficiency. What new innovations will we see on tractors in the next 5 or 10 years that will have the effect that pneumatic tires, power take off, hydraulics, live power, power shift/step shift had on the tractor market?

Well said.

I too am an "MBA type," as well as several other things, and I agree in general with just about everything that you say.

The post WWII 50s - 60s era is long gone and not likely to return.

Dean

Farmers tend to vote on the popularity/usefulness/ease of operation/longevity, etc of tractors............ with their checkbook. I've forgotten how many hundreds of thousands 190XTs were built, but I guess I could look it up. We owned one sometime in the late '60s (1967, I think)........for about 3 weeks.

I dont think you can say,

"Nothing comes close to a 190XT in that era."

That is just nonsense. The 190XT is a decent tractor, and they were pretty good on fuel, but their max drawbar pull and power is below their rivals, and I have numbers to back that up.

I think we can all agree that it is a comparable model though to the 4020, 1850, 1855, 806, 856, 970, 1100, 1105 etc

AC had many problems. Most of the dealers were pretty good in our area but the tractors didn't last as well as other brands or failed to perform well enough to become real popular here.

Also the proprietary Snap coupler hitch system hurt sales too. Same thing happened to IH with their Fast Hitch. Farmers wanted the freedom to pick the brand of the implements they wanted.

By the time the 190 came out other companies were making independent PTO. I had a 190XT. Having to put the PD in neutral, while lifting the 3 point was a pain in the backside because your right hand was trying to do multipal things at the same time. Wasn't real good on a snow blower. Shift the PD to N while stopping, steering, lifting the blower and shifting to forward while trying to keep the blower from plugging. I had a 190XT series III, never again.Give me a Deer, Ford or Farmall any day. Having owned one I can knock AC all I want. Go talk to my BIL. They have a MFW 8030 that they got about 18 months ago. He went AC because of the price for a tractor that size with MFW. He is really whishing that he would have spent the extra money on a CIH/Deer or Ford. AC killed themselves with bad designs, underengineering and even worse management decisions.

Rick

Autonomous tractors. Almost there now.

The dealers were very good here and wished more of them had taken up with shortlines such as New Holland. There biggest problem was they had fallen behind the industry on tractors by 1970 and the narrowing of the product line. Even in implements they fell behind their competition in the 1970's. Farm equipment was never a huge part of what AC did and I don't think there was a year where the ag division was responsible for more than twenty percent of overall sales. The ag division was mostly an outlet for components such as engines that were built for other divisions. I don't think the ag division was run as an entity where innovation was heavily encouraged.
Getting back to tractors they should have jumped from the 200's to the 8000 series in theory. The powershifts probably would not have been ready that soon but they could have released the power director versions. The 301 diesel should have been a strictly sub-100 HP engine. The 426 was fine but something else should have been developed for 160 HP and greater. Most farmers here just did not get excited about the 7000 series tractors unless they were diehard AC or got the best deal. Hay and forage were good in the 1960's but lagged greatly in the 1970's. Since these products disappeared soon in the 1970's would seem to indicate AC had no long term plans past 1970 to stay in those lines. The combines through the L and M series were considered decent but not heavy built. The N series rotaries were a black when they did not need one as the ag recession of the 1980's set in.

The Allis is a runt. Park it next to an 1100 Massey and you will see what I mean. Too light even for heavy tillage of it's era. 6300 and 3500 hrs hardly deserves any bragging rights. Post back again when it hits 12,000 hrs.

The comment about the rotaries should read black eye. I can't seem to edit that at this point.

I wasn't meaning that the 190 was best although in my eyes it is. ;-) I was speaking in fuel consumption when I typed that nothing comes close. I first typed it as a response to a particular post claiming the 190 was hard on fuel and then found that the original post could no longer be replied to so I just copied and pasted my response here in a new thread. That's where the confusion enters. Now I gotta defend my tractor for other reasons including my 7050 it seems.

BTW max drawbar pull is no real way to compare as it was up to the tester how much weight was added or, as with later tractors, the manufacturer put limits to the weight in the spec sheet and the tractor was not throttled up to max output for max low gear pull. You'll notice that most all low gear Nebraska Test data sheets say part throttle in 1st gear max pull and even sometimes in 2nd gear max pull too. HP HRS per Gallon of fuel is a much better measurement of a tractor and the 190 XT was unmatched in that catagory for it's era and class. Same with torque rise and I have those numbers to back that up.

Funny you should say 12,000 hrs. My Dad has a 190 that has just shy of that. He retired from farming back in 1997 and parked it and now it's stuck after years of neglect but the meter turned over once and now reads around 12xx hours. It was road hard and put away wet and isn't worth fixing today unless I decide to get a sentimental feel and a chunk of cash. It has a 7000 series cab he bought new at an auction where AC was dumping the old Accousta Cabs for their Accousta Cab II. There were 6 new cabs at that sale back in about 77 or 78.

7000 series sold around here just fine. Had a real good dealer, Suess Equipment. They switched several around the area from other colors to Orange and silver. One neighbor that Dad rotated rented ground with eventually had about everything orange by the mid 80's from his tractors to the planter to the tillage etc. He was Massey before that and some IH.

BTW the powershift from Allis, about bullet proof like the Power Director, came in about 1974-75 and the 200 was built until about 74-75 just so you know. The 301 was an excellent engine for AC. It proved to have superior torque rise to most others with larger cubes and was a long lasting engine. It was a better built engine than the 426. The 426 was a failure at 180 hp or more unless the pumps were reworked to slow the RPM down. As far as combines Gleaner was king in the USA back in those days and had the highest resale while offering new machines cheaper than most and with all the bells and whistles. I have the old euipment guides purchased by most dealers that show those figures. Got the books at the Case dealer when they were throwing them out. My L2 is a corn eating machine when compared to a 915 or 7720. I've run next to a 7720 in corn and I pull away and there ain't no 915 around the area but when I was a mechanic I worked on two 915s and they are clearly no match for a 7720 let alone an L2.

The N series started off about 3 years too early and after that they are a darn good machine with tons of capacity. Too bad they had such teething problems.

Growing up on a 190 I never noticed it being a problem using the Power Director but that's me. Blew snow for years with a 190 with no problems. I must be talented. : ) Can slip that Power Director all the time with no ill effects.

8000 series were tops in their day and around here command a big price. Sounds like your BIL needs to sell me an 8030 cheap.

I was speaking of how AGCO had resurrected the orange to then later kill it off for whatever reason. I know AC made mistakes and Deutz was a disaster before AGCO came about. AGCO took the most popular brand they had in the US market and dropped it. You can argue reasons but that's what I was referring to.

LOL in it's class? What other tractor was in it's class? Just above the 3020 and 766 and just below the 856 and 4020 so i guess being in it's own class makes the most economical to run in it's class.....ROFL!

OK to set this up. Born and rasied to the tender age of 16 in NJ in the fringe of the burbs to NYC. Moved to MN in 71. I thought that the new AC tractors were the best looking one out there. Really liked the looks of the 190XT's. Didn't get to run one but I put a lot of hours on an 826 IH, JD 3020, 4020 and 4440. Did some time on a Case 970. Jump forward to a few years ago. I was retired from the Army and able to buy a tractor so I went looking for a 190XT. Unfortunately I found one. Would have been way better off looking for another one. Sure one can run a PD tractor with a blower but I can run a IH, Ford, or JD faster because of the independent PTO. Productivity is what counts!

You can believe what you want to concerning the combines. The summer of 73 I worked with a custom crew. We started out in OK and worked our way to ND. None of the other big crews were running anything except JD and MF. Sure the Gleaner was considered the cleanest one to run but when you are clocking 1000 hours a year reliability and durability are the force behind buying.

You can look at all the charts and graphs you want as far a fuel consumption is concerned. Gallons per acre is the only measurement that counts! Most tractors don't set still running PTO RPM's their whole life.

I still think the 190XT is the best looking tractor ever built but I will never own another now that I'm farming! I've got a 1206 Farmall (great tractor that replaced the 190XT), M (hate it, about zero value on a farm today, mines primary job is a poo spreader tractor) and a Ford 8N being used on the farm today. My dad had a AC CA and JD R. The CA was a nice tractor for how it was used but the 8N beats it hands down!

If I were to collect and restore tractors a JD R, AC CA and the 190XT would be on my list.....but I'm farming now so I'm looking for tractors that will get the job done.

Rick

I don't really know what you see in it. They aren't a bad tractor but there was better. I've spent quite a few hours on a 200 which isn't that different. It lacks a diff-lock, live PTO, syncronized transmission. It has a wide flat platform with a nice right hand console but it was a very noisy tractor. I've never experienced this high torque rise you're talking about on the 200. It falls flat on it's face when worked. Put the 301 in the 185 and that tractor has lots of torque. Just keeps lugging away till it dies. Other thing is the 301 is a cold blooded SOB. Lucky to get it going below 60. The PD is a sad excuse for a live PTO, I agree that they never fail, but it takes a long time to get use to not going for the clutch, and it's capabilities are limited. It's better than a TA but it was intended as a form of Live PTO.

I think Jack a wrote the wikipedia page on the 190XT:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allis-Chalmers_190XT

(quoted from post at 11:08:59 06/27/12) I think Jack a wrote the wikipedia page on the 190XT:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allis-Chalmers_190XT

Click to expand...

You guys are a strange bunch. Wrote the wiki page? Really?

Growing up on a 190 the PD is real handy and I like the fact that if in an emergency you step on the clutch everything stops when time counts. It really isn't bad to use if you are used to it. The 190 had a torque rise of around 15% if memory serves me right. Not many back in those days had more than 7 or 8%. Deere was as bad if not worse for cold start. The best older diesel I ever dealt with for cold starting was a 1066 followed buy Dad's HD11 with the 516 AC engine. Our neighbor used to borrow Dad's Allis in the winter to haul manure cause their 4020 wouldn't start at all when real cold. None of my deisels today need help starting until it gets below 40˚F. I don't own anything newer than 1981.

You must have had a lemon then oldtanker. I know stock to stock the 190XT will lay waste to either an 856 or 4020 or whatever you can come with from that class. Why would you say it's in between a 3020 and 4020? Stock a 190XT has the same power as a 4020 but with better fuel economy all around and higher torque rise. You can make an argument of which tractor is better but I know for a fact that in the field an XT is the hot performer.

As far as combines go I won't argue if a Gleaner was the best machine or not cause it absolutely was hands down without a doubt. The competition was scrambling to catch up after the L and M came out even with the early L having teething problems. They got to be the best of the 1970's.

BTW oldtanker, what part of MN you from? I'm from near Rochester.

(quoted from post at 11:38:36 06/27/12) As far as combines go I won't argue if a Gleaner was the best machine or not cause it absolutely was hands down without a doubt. The competition was scrambling to catch up after the L and M came out even with the early L having teething problems. They got to be the best of the 1970's.

BTW oldtanker, what part of MN you from? I'm from near Rochester.

Click to expand...

Jack I'm up in the west central part, about 35 miles north of Alexandria.

Jack one of the big problems AC and some other companies had was that they were slow to keep up with changes that made for a better tractor like AC failing to go over to the IPTO and IH staying with the TA much longer than they should have. Gotta remenber that the forst tractor with live IPTO was made in 1949 had live hydraulics too. Then everyone followed Ford with 3 point that originally came out in 1936......except AC and IH. Ford stayed with a flat head engine till 1953.

Rick

The hey-day for AC tractors was till the early 1970's around here. The lack of a deep product line ended a lot of dealers in the 1980's when tractor and combine sales regardless of brand fell off a cliff. A lot of AC dealers did not have a notable shortline or the lines they had did not come close to filling the needs of the dealer's trade area. A lot of dealers that did survive did so because the parts department was active and certain farmers such as dairymen had to replace manure spreaders, mower-conditioners, and such.

(quoted from post at 18:31:03 06/27/12) The hey-day for AC tractors was till the early 1970's around here. The lack of a deep product line ended a lot of dealers in the 1980's when tractor and combine sales regardless of brand fell off a cliff. A lot of AC dealers did not have a notable shortline or the lines they had did not come close to filling the needs of the dealer's trade area. A lot of dealers that did survive did so because the parts department was active and certain farmers such as dairymen had to replace manure spreaders, mower-conditioners, and such.

Click to expand...

Can't argue with that. A lot of the short lines that some dealers had were also bought up by the bigger companies and I believe that hurt some. Like New Holland (actually buying Ford) and the good deals went to Ford dealers and Allis dealers taking on the Ford line of tractors. New Idea being bought by White or was it visa versa. I know later AGCO bought up White in a couple of chunks but during the rough 80's I think that hurt AC dealers.

(quoted from post at 13:04:25 06/27/12)

(quoted from post at 11:38:36 06/27/12) As far as combines go I won't argue if a Gleaner was the best machine or not cause it absolutely was hands down without a doubt. The competition was scrambling to catch up after the L and M came out even with the early L having teething problems. They got to be the best of the 1970's.

BTW oldtanker, what part of MN you from? I'm from near Rochester.

Click to expand...

Jack I'm up in the west central part, about 35 miles north of Alexandria.

Jack one of the big problems AC and some other companies had was that they were slow to keep up with changes that made for a better tractor like AC failing to go over to the IPTO and IH staying with the TA much longer than they should have. Gotta remenber that the forst tractor with live IPTO was made in 1949 had live hydraulics too. Then everyone followed Ford with 3 point that originally came out in 1936......except AC and IH. Ford stayed with a flat head engine till 1953.

Rick

Click to expand...

Darn it, I typed up quite a bit but then youtube crashed my puter (I was listening while I typed). Starting over..........I've got relatives in Alex. Gary and Danny Boettner. They had been refurbishing old houses but may have rejoined in the family business called Custom Aire doing mostly commercial heating and air. I've kinda lost tract as to if they are still in Alex or now in Henderson. Back to the subject........

I think the first successful IPTO was in 46' by either Oliver or Cockshutt but after that AC still outsold those by quite a bit with the WD being #1 in sales for it's HP class in 51' and the 45 in 54'. I think what really hurt AC was the hydraulics later in the D17 and especially the D19. Not very compatible and really very poor output in the D19 and also no hydrostatic PS until the D21. That's when AC had a chance to catch up in sales. The D21 was a modern well built tractor but then the early 190XT shot them in the foot even though during the 2nd year of production AC put the heavier rear end in them. They should have changed the model designation to get away from the bad rep. I'll agree that coming to the 3 point late hurt also but it's arguable as to which performed better, the 3 point or Snap Coupler. SC drafts much better and is usually easier to hook up but removing the hitch each time doesn't sell well especially in larger tractors.

When the 7000 series came out I really think there was no better tractor built but at the same time AC was killing it's hay line and other things too. The 7080 was a lemon with crank troubles (redoing the pump to turn slower rpms while keeping the same hp helps tremendously). The combines was another story as during the 60's and 70's the gleaner reigned supreme in the US market with well liked machines that did a good job and were simple even while possessing all the bells and whistles that no one else had by the 1970's. I remember reading an old "Big Farmer" magazine, which I have a copy of, that rated the L and every other make against each other except Deere. Deere refused to participate. And the L won hands down but some said all the electronics were just a fad and wouldn't last. That was 1972 or 73. I know I'm prejudice. It can't be helped. :~)

Ba

Actually Jack......

The Gleaners series combines were very popular but from personal experiences the big custom crews didn't use em. My BIL got his 1st one in the mid 70's and used Gleaners until about 10 years ago when he went to a Case IH axil flow. They were running JD's and MF's. The Gleaners were known for doing a better job but were not a durable as the JD and MF bines of the time. On the crew I was with we had 3 7700 JD's along with 3 grain trucks. We started harvest in OK and worked our way north to ND and west MN Red River Valley. At the end of the season we had put on over 1,000 hours on each bine. With the big custom outfits durability was behind the buying decisions. My boss would tell us over and over.....you want clean buy Gleaner.....you want to do custom work don't.

AC wasn't the only company that built tractor with tranny issues. Look at what IH did to itself with the 560. In the 60's and early 70's many companies ran ads about how their product was more modern and therefore better.....so a lot of times products were rushed into production against the advice of the engineers to get a jump on that. IH's 560 is a classic example of that. With IH when the chief bean counter who cut the engineers off on the 560 tranny was named CEO he fired the chief engineer on the 560 project a couple of years after the fact. I think from what I've read that AC for the most part targeted the budget farmers until the late 60's. In the 50's and 60's 100 dollars was a lot of money. So if you could build something with fewer features you could undercut other companies. When AC tried jumping into the higher end lines they just were not ready to spend the money on R&D that they should have. Ad in that thier ag division was just part of a larger company......just like IH was making trucks, appliances.....just too many things.

Rick

Again I typed a long responce but somehow lost all of it. I'll reply tommorow night.

(quoted from post at 06:24:07 06/28/12) Actually Jack......

The Gleaners series combines were very popular but from personal experiences the big custom crews didn't use em. My BIL got his 1st one in the mid 70's and used Gleaners until about 10 years ago when he went to a Case IH axil flow. They were running JD's and MF's. The Gleaners were known for doing a better job but were not a durable as the JD and MF bines of the time. On the crew I was with we had 3 7700 JD's along with 3 grain trucks. We started harvest in OK and worked our way north to ND and west MN Red River Valley. At the end of the season we had put on over 1,000 hours on each bine. With the big custom outfits durability was behind the buying decisions. My boss would tell us over and over.....you want clean buy Gleaner.....you want to do custom work don't.

AC wasn't the only company that built tractor with tranny issues. Look at what IH did to itself with the 560. In the 60's and early 70's many companies ran ads about how their product was more modern and therefore better.....so a lot of times products were rushed into production against the advice of the engineers to get a jump on that. IH's 560 is a classic example of that. With IH when the chief bean counter who cut the engineers off on the 560 tranny was named CEO he fired the chief engineer on the 560 project a couple of years after the fact. I think from what I've read that AC for the most part targeted the budget farmers until the late 60's. In the 50's and 60's 100 dollars was a lot of money. So if you could build something with fewer features you could undercut other companies. When AC tried jumping into the higher end lines they just were not ready to spend the money on R&D that they should have. Ad in that thier ag division was just part of a larger company......just like IH was making trucks, appliances.....just too many things.

Rick

Click to expand...

I'm not sure when you ran in the custom harvest but I know that the custom harvest is where Gleaners were most popular. They dominated the custom harvest during the 1960's and 70's. You must be thinking of when Gleaner introduced the N Series. IMO the long shoe L2 was the best that the 1970's and early 80's had to offer followed by the earlier L/L2.

As far as tractors I agree with you but not entirely. I think the biggest reason AC didn't get the sales it should have was because of marketing. Deere and IH was waaaay better at marketing everything they sold. The 190 was hurt by it's first year and a half of production having weak rear ends and they should have gave a whole new name to the beefed up 190 in 1966 to escape the bad rep. But if reliability of a model or two was the problem then IH should have given up much sooner.

I worked in both an AC shop and at an IH dealership. I know the weak spots of the 7000 series and the 56-86 Series. There are so many weak spots on the IH compared to the 7000 series it isn't even funny. Like how IH built such complication into the front axle and 3-point. They wear out and they break parts that 7050 doesn't even have to do the same task. Look at the front axle on a 1566 and compare to a 7050. The 7050 is heavier and pretty much trouble free while the 1566, as on all 06/56/66/86 series, had a front axle that would wear out fast and or break right off at times. The rear ends weren't the most reliable, the PTO gave troubles that the Allis didn't. The shidfting mechanism even with the updates were a problem, they shucked hydraulic pumps regular enough so that when you rebuild or replace the TA (which 90% of these tractors will have a bad TA in the first 2 or 3 thousand hours) you automatically replace the pumps, The IPTO shaft splines commonly go bad not to mention the dry clutch. I could go on but you get the point that even with all these common problems (that the 7000 series Allis didn't have) they sold a ton of them. marketing marketing marketing.

As far as Allis being technologically behind everyone else. I can't agree there either. The 190 had an operator platform later copied by every other manufacturer. Right hand side console controls for the remotes, 3-point, draft contol, Power Director, throttle and the optional hydraulically actuated Live PTO. It came standard with tilt steering, turbo, an alternator, dry air filter, and a quiet helical gear transmission. Most did not have all these features. It did lack a differential lock but Deere was about the only one offering it and only as an option (in that hp class). It lacked an IPTO but with the hydraulic PTO engagement you can shift the PTO in and out of gear on the go and you can stop the tractor motion with the PD. It's not ever been noticeable to me that when I shift from forward to reverse that I ever needed the PTO to keep running. The 190 lacked a power shift but so did IH up until the Magnum.

The 7000 series fix everything the 190 lacked. By 74 or so AC had a power shift with 12 speeds vs Deere's 8 speed. The 7000 series IMO had the best built most reliable transmissions and rear ends in the 7010 thru 7080 in their day. The quietest cab, Though they looked small they have about the same cubic feet as the fabled Deere Sound Guard. The 7080/7580 had lots of crankshaft problems that were mostly fixed when you rework the pump to lower the rated rpm to 2400. The biggest problem with a 7000 series is if they sit the shift cables can freeze up but that's a quick fix with a new cable and the updated heavier cables give little trouble. Yet with all that AC still went bye bye and IH (although it's CaseIH) is still around with their tractor and combine lines still intact.

So I don't accept that Allis had a poor out of date product at all or that is why they went down the tubes.

Jack, I work the harvest in 73. With the big crews that we were around all of em were JD or MF equiped. Plus living at Ft Riley Ks 3 different times (74-76) (78-80) and (93-96) I never saw a large custom crew move through with anything in the 74-80 time frame that wasn't JD or MF. In the 93-96 era you saw some of the crews with CaseIH. I'm not talking about farmer doing some custom work here. I'm talking about guys who made most if not all of their money working the trail

IH did not survive, they were bought out and the only reason Case kept the IH name was brand loyalty.

Most of the Farmers in our area though of the AC's as being a poor 2nd choice and even though the dealership in Parkers was great they were not well liked up here after they changed over to the D series. I know of one farmer north of Alexandria, one near Wadena and my BIL currently farming with AC's. I know of one hobby farmer with a WD45. There were a fair number of Gleaners around. I do know my BIL who has always had IH isn't happy with his 8030 MFW and after owner it for about 18 months is wishing he's have spent a little more to get something else (the Parkers dealer sold out and his replacement sucks).

I did notice that the last time I went from the cities to SD that west of the cites is an area where there were a lot of AC's. Must of had one heck of a dealer/dealers in the area.

Rick

(quoted from post at 07:01:46 06/29/12) Jack, I work the harvest in 73. With the big crews that we were around all of em were JD or MF equiped. Plus living at Ft Riley Ks 3 different times (74-76) (78-80) and (93-96) I never saw a large custom crew move through with anything in the 74-80 time frame that wasn't JD or MF. In the 93-96 era you saw some of the crews with CaseIH. I'm not talking about farmer doing some custom work here. I'm talking about guys who made most if not all of their money working the trail

IH did not survive, they were bought out and the only reason Case kept the IH name was brand loyalty.

Most of the Farmers in our area though of the AC's as being a poor 2nd choice and even though the dealership in Parkers was great they were not well liked up here after they changed over to the D series. I know of one farmer north of Alexandria, one near Wadena and my BIL currently farming with AC's. I know of one hobby farmer with a WD45. There were a fair number of Gleaners around. I do know my BIL who has always had IH isn't happy with his 8030 MFW and after owner it for about 18 months is wishing he's have spent a little more to get something else (the Parkers dealer sold out and his replacement sucks).

I did notice that the last time I went from the cities to SD that west of the cites is an area where there were a lot of AC's. Must of had one heck of a dealer/dealers in the area.

Rick

Click to expand...

I was talking about the big CH too not the type of custom harvester around here.

IH the company did not survive for other reasons but the IH line of equipment mostly did survive. The Magnum was born out of the 88 series and of course the tillage lines and combine lines survived until DMI was bought to replace some of the tillage. Case equipment was all but eliminated before the buy out and the only tractor line continued was the Maxum out of the old David Brown which later went to McCormick brand later.

Around here AC was gaining with a real good dealer in Stewartville called Suess Equipment. They were converting several to AC including our neighbor who bought a new 7040 PS bit by about 1980 the neighbor went bust and the dealer sold out cause, as he told Dad, he saw the writing on the wall. He said if he had sold out one year earlier he would have saved about a million dollars. Gleaners were everywhere here but too many farmers were going broke and owed the dealership lots of cash.

I can't figure out why your BIL doesn't like his 8030. They are pretty sought after here and the dealers in Chatfield and Spring Valley never have them on the lot very long. I guess if you compared them to a generation newer tractor like a 7800 series or Magnum then maybe can see it but compared tp a 50 series or 88 series an 8000 series does well in my book.

Around Northfield there are a lot of Gleaners due to Issacson being a pretty decent dealer. They are in the small town of Nerstrand. Our Case dealer in Kasson was always griping about Isaacson's, calling them cut throat cause they would scoop a customer from them once in a while.

On edit I would add the biggest thing the 190 lacked above anything is power brakes but the brakes weren't bad just they require upkeep.

Jack my BIL had about 30 hours on it when a sleeve seal leaked antifreeze into the crank case. They were chisel plowing at the time. They took it too the "new dealer" in Parkers and it was there for over 4 months for an over haul. Needed a new crank that the dealer couldn't find (BIL didn't know that until he stopped in one day to see if his tractor was ready) (I found out that Cat dealers are also a parts and repair source for AGCO) and he had to get a new crank from the Cat dealer in Fergus Falls. All in all it was just a big mess. I don't think it's a bad tractor but my BIL isn't impressed with the guy who took over the dealership in Parkers. I guess the new guy shipped back to AGCO over a million dollars in parts that he didn't want to carry in stock. I know one of the parts guy there.....who now works for Deer. He cut his mechanics from 5 to 2. All he cares about is selling new equipment. Problem here is not many guys want AGCO. I was looking at replacing some of my equipment in the next year or 2 and was thinking about going AGCO but if I can't get service after the sale guess I'm going with JD or CIH. Right now here to get parts and service in a 50 mile radius of my place we have 2 CIH, 1 NH and 5 JD dealers besides the Cat and Agco places mentioned. I could not recommend AGCO supported products to anyone here. Just isn't any support.

As far as your dealings with the TA and front axles on IH tractors......I know a lot of people running em with a heck of a lot more than 3K hours on em without any TA or axle issues. BIL has an 826 that he and his dad got new. That darn thing has over 15k hours on it and he has had the TA replaced once. He has had more engine problems with it than anything (his fault). Was his primary tillage tractor for years plus had a loader for moving round bales. He bought a 1586 in 98 with a fresh TA and has had no trouble with it. Was his primary tillage tractor until he got the AC. Friend has a 706, 856, 986, 1086, 1486 and 2 1586's. He hasn't had TA troubles. The 856 and 1486 are his loader tractors too. He plants about 700 acres a year.

The only people that I know local who complain about the TA are guys that own JD and other brands. In fact the guy who yells about them the loudest had/has 2 970 Cases, 806 TA delete, Case 530 and a MM U. He went broke milking cows a few years ago.

Rick