Why did J I Case Lose Respect?

Ron Sa

Member

This is a follow-up of a post of the question 1370 Rod posted on 11/21/18 ?Why doesn?t J I Case get respect anymore? Notice I titled this ---?Why did J I Case loose respect??


I waited to see what others would write in Rod?s post. I decided to break the post rules and write this because some criticism is needed to answer the question. I?m snowed in so will finish and post this for better or probably WORSE!!!! LOL


Growing up, I became a Case fan because we had a C Case that was a great tillage tractor for the time. I drove a lot of brands growing up and I never hated any brand. The 50s vintage 400 Farmall and the LA Case were ?WOW? tractors. Case remain my sentimental favorite tractors because of the C Case BUT-


Case had respect in the 20s and 30s but would gradually loose respect for tractors and combines among farmers in the 40s and early 50s. Respect would still floundered for Case until the 30 series tractors arrived and the Case rotary combine showed up.


WHY did farmers ?vote disrespect? for Case for 2+ decades??starting in the late 30s and early 40s? Over time, farmers vote with their pocketbooks regarding features that stayed or finally went.


Here are some of the Case features that farmers have VOTED down i.e. not favorable.


* Farmers voted the goose neck to go away. Other brands listened but not Case.


* Farmers voted for more gears than Case offered. Some other brands listened but not Case.


* Farmers voted for a 3pt hitch that had the sway feature?making the tractor steer much better in the field. Some other brand listened much sooner than Case.


* Farmers would vote down the use a torque converter in tractors for a power shift i.e. for ?steady pull? use--- unlike wheel loaders cyclic use etc.


* Farmers voted in favor of insert bearing rather than Babbitt bearings in the engine crankshaft.


*Farmers voted in favor of the way in which band brakes nicely responded to the pedal ---which Deere, Allis, etc. kept. (Our C?s band brakes were much better that the D?s disc brakes--- i.e. Case made this backwards move when the D series arrived.) Responsive, low-pedal-pressure brakes contribute to tractors seeming more nimble. Disc brakes needed, and were eventually given, power assist and nimbleness improved.


*Farmers voted in favor of power steering (or roll-o-matic) used on tricycle tractors so Case, and others, lagged behind to have good tricycle steering (and thumb protection LOL).


*Farmers voted in favor of styling upgrades. Case seriously lagged in styling upgrades during the 40s and early a50s.


* I thought that Case was one of the worse tractors to display oil weeps because the right side of the engine was almost totally on display. The valve cover gasket was poorly restrained and the cork would creep---leak happened!! (Farmers never voted for the ?greasy look?. LOL)


* Case drawbars lagged on adjustment features--- i.e. in and out and up and down.


* J I Case CEOs, and other J I Case leaders, unwisely decided what farmers would vote in favor of or against.


Our family?s personal votes for dad and us sons were --- Dad acquired a 36 B John Deere for light work and a 38 C Case mainly for tillage. We loved our C Case for tillage, pto, and belt work where HP counted. We were inclined to think the VAC was no match for the ?nimbleness? of our 36 B since HP tended to NOT count--- such as for mowing, raking, cultivating, hauling, etc.


I think the bigger, tillage Cases held their respects but the smaller Case tricycle tractors LOST respect in the 40s and 50s when small tractor were still in greater demand than bigger ones. It may be ironic that the SMALL Fordson holds the #1 all-time sales for a model number--?replacing big, clumsy tractors. The SMALL 8N Ford holds the #2 spot --- probably mainly for having a 3P hitch that would sway which allowed likeable steering characteristics. The H Farmall (little bigger ---no goose neck ----5 gears --- upgraded styling etc.) holds the #3 spot. Overall the other IH letter series were voted ?respectable? by farmers.



Thus the farmers, having voted sufficient respect for IH, this would save the CaseIH merger. I understand the farmers voted overwhelmingly to stick with IH colors. The IH powershift designs(TA and beyond)won out over the Case powershift designs (COM and beyond). CaseIH would soon switch to the IH powershift and stay with it in the Magnums.



For dad's family after the C Case, we voted with our pocketbook for a 49 D Case for tillage and pto (belt work was mostly gone). For lighter work, we also voted with our pocketbook for a 49 style-upgraded, 6-speed, nimble, B Deere with roll-o-matic, band brakes, powertrol hydraulic, and good drawbar adjustments, rather than vote for a 49 style-stagnant, 4-speed, clumsy, mechanical lift, no hydraulics, inadequate-adjustment drawbar SC Case for lighter work. The bigger, 2-cylinder, Deere?s never found favor with us?nor would a 4010 Deere that I used for several years. After having a 1170 for 40+years, it is still a keeper?in spite of having a few design wart's.

Your thoughts?
 
Case for so many years never had the "IT" product and that was the biggest factor that led to them eroding away. Companies like JD had the 494 and later the 7000 planter to command that segment of the market. New Holland had the auto-tie baler and later the haybine. The haybine was unique in that a given part of a field could be cut in one attempt instead of working around down hay from a storm. Not only that but the product was pretty reliable. Not that any tractor manufacturer built a 100 percent flawless tractor but companies such as IH, JD, and Oliver built tractors with desired features such as a high operator's platform which helped in field vision and face less dust off of the engine. So due to the positives farmers ignored disadvantages such as 2 cylinder power pulses and cracked heads from gas start diesels. Had Case built more market leading products that would have carried them through the tougher times from the 1960's to 1985.
 
Although more marginal in my mind the Oliver plow and Gehl forage harvester can be considered "IT" products. If a guy was not going to buy the product that his preferred tractor line offered in a plow or harvester then more times than not it would be an Oliver or Gehl respectively.
 
No such thing as a perfect tractor and back in the1950?s and 1960?s Case was as good as any other tractor available at the time. I believe they had the eagle claw hitch before JD or IH had any sort of 3 point. The SC had live power PTO in the early 50?s where others didn?t. I don?t think they were behind on much compared to other companies. By 1955 Case had tractors with more gear selections too.
They are still being used by farmers today and seem to be tough tractors. Just my opinion.
Jim
 
But that was the problem in that they may have been good but nothing to put them ahead of the competition in terms of features or performance. Also, Oliver had leading edge features in the late 1940's with live PTO, live hydraulics, and a simple reliable diesel engine. IH reasserted itself in 1954 with the TA effectively doubly the gear selections of the transmission. Not that Case was bad but the competition was definitely not napping.
 
Well, I am not going to get into a debate with you over technology of the times, BUT I will say CASE never healed a back seat to other tractor companies over the years.
Case management did lack in realizing the power of a great marketing department to promote their products.
JD was and still is the "PT Barnum" of marketing their product lines.
JD was very late to convert from 2 cyl. engines to 4 and 6 cylinder powered tractors which many competitors already had, but their marketing staff made the best of what they had, and turned a negative into a real innovation in agriculture, when the "New Generation " was introduced..
JD marketers adopted an consistent color scheme-- Yellow Wheels and Green bodies that has endured for years and years. Instantly reconcilable, IH also did the same with silver wheels and red bodies.
Case floundered with colors for years, and suffered an identity crises.
Just walk into a Big Box or a toy store and what colors pop out, and you know what brand they are
.
Back to technology, the COM trans was a first for Ag tractors and although now widely accepted in industrial applications, it was not widely accepted in the Ag market, because it was not properly promoted by Case marketing and explained to customers by dealer sales staff.
The COM trans did the same things that modern CVT trannys do today, but it also had to deal with engines that were not on steroids.
Loren
 
The John Deere 60 was out in mid-1952 so another early 1950's tractor with live hydraulics and live PTO.
 
Back a few replies I said I pretty much done leaving comments here! But Ron my thoughts are this.....I have put many hours on most of the major brands of tractors back in the 50s and 60s. I have heard enough crap from you about respect about j. I. Case. So give it rest dam it. Sorry guys know I am done!!!
 
Ron you did hit on most the items farmers did not like about Case tractors through the years. There are many things we do like also. We can all be proud of what these tractors have done. I sure like the 70 series and would not trade them for a new one, I guess I might be a bit crazy but that I what makes me enjoy operating them. I would think people familiar with other brands can make a list of unlikes on those also. I think CASE tractors just sort of got lost after the merger simply because IH and red paint has a larger following. Like you said, farmers vote with their pocket books. Fiat knows that and they will work to keep a majority happy pushing red, Rod.
 
Keep in mind when I type this I'm only speaking for my area (northern MT). And when I talk tractors I'm only referring to the big wheatlands. I agree with you for the most part. Case tractors were just as good as the competition overall and better then some. Really the only two tractors I prefer from the 50s would be the 2 cylinder diesels and Case. But Case did loose out somewhat in the 60s when they were still making the 6 speed 930 that was early 1950s tech. They were good drawbar tractors but they didn't give you any reason to keep them around after they were retired. For example, we bought a 4020 wheatland in 1964 and was one of our primary tillage tractors. Pulled a IH chisel plow and a disc. As the farm got bigger and we bought bigger tractors we still kept the 4020 but we mounted a loader on it and used it for PTO work like baling hay, pulling the bale wagon and other misc jobs any 90 hp loader tractor would do. I'd hate to try to do any of those jobs with a 6 speed 930. Plus Case seemed to realize a little late that farmers wanted more hp. I know Case responded with the 1030 but it was no match for a IH 1206/56 or JD 5010/20. Those tractors were a success for both companies especial the 5010/20 in my area. Also, believe it or not, I've had a few Case guys around here tell me the 1030 didn't hold up as good as the 930. Now Case did have success later on with the 70 series on up crab steers. Steiger and Versatile ruled roost but I'd say Case was about as popular as JD 4 wheel drives but hate to say this they also carried the same kind of reputation as JD too.

Other things it didn't help around here Case dealers were out numbered by JD and IH something like 3 to 1 or better. I referenced this in the other thread but Case implements didn't seem to sell near was well as JD and IH and I kinda wondered if the hurt tractor sales in the long run. If you walked into either dealership to buy a set of drills, hay baler, or combine why not buy a tractor or look at them anyway. I understand Case dealers might have supplemented their offerings by offering short line products but then that just diminishes the Case brand. What didn't help either is they got off to a horrible start on their self propelled combines and they never could catch up to JD, Massey, Gleaner sales wise. The later ones like my 600 might have been good combines but the early right side driver combines just made your head scratch. If there is anything that farmers voted no on when it comes to Case it was those combines.

Finally, over the years reading this board I get the feeling Leon Clausen did some damage to Case in the long run too. That's ironic because over at JD he almost single handily put JD in the tractor business to stay. And we see the result of that today. Plus if I'm not mistaken it was him how steered Case away from the cross motors into the more modern and successful L and C series tractors.
 
yep, Loren nailed it. I don't believe any other company's marketing could have had the loyal "Poppin Jonny" fans come in to Dallas Die Hard two cylinder fans and listen to those purring engines roll into the stadium and go home die hard green loyalists.
They did her didn't they?
Andy
 
The failure of Case to hit on other products aside from tractors doomed their dealers and ultimately the company as it was before the merger. The more products to sell, service, and provide parts for is more opportunities to interact with the customer base for the dealer. Case was not the only one to do this as Oliver, MM, AC, and others were crippled from a shrinking product line as well. Most dealers of these brands were already on thin ice during the prosperous 1970's and certainly pushed them into closing during the 1980's when parts were the main income source for a dealer. Around NY there were a number of stand alone dealers for these brands as New Holland, Gehl, and Hesston were not options for every last dealer.

Clausen should get credit for his early achievements at Case and I don't see him as a true villain. Just a person that overstayed his usefulness. Probably a tremendous benefit to a company such as Deere that when it was extremely critical the company changed top management. Deere had 3 different CEO's during its years building a tractor line after the Waterloo Boy days up to the New Generation tractors. Had Charles Deere or William Butterworth (Charles Deere's SIL) been around when the pace quickened on tractors the hesitation might have been fatal. Sometimes it was having the right guy at the right time such as it was with William Hewitt. Not having the right guy is a large reason for the decline of IH after 1950.
 
Marketing was a fairly minor reason despite the thoughts of anybody that worked for Case, JD, IH, or any other company. Simply put JD and IH did more right in terms of product, dealer network, and support. They all had slick marketing. IH and JD while not perfect by any stretch developed enough products to get customers into the showrooms of their dealers which was most of the battle. Got a better chance to sell a tractor if a customer is in once a week for parts for a manure spreader, baler twine, plow shares, disk bearings, etc. throughout the year versus a few times a year total. The good dealers had salesmen obvious not far from the parts department with racks full of literature.
 
I've held out on this thread waiting to see what others have said. A lot of great points made. IMHO there were many blunders made by Case management that ushered Case downhill. Leon Clausen may have been the biggest problem. He fought rubber tires, he fought more than 4 speeds, he fought the mid sized R series, he fought the union for 410 days in 1946, killing off many prospective new dealers and using up precious cash flow that should have gone into research and marketing. Case also went heavily into government contracts during WWII which put them behind in machinery production right after the war when you could sell anything that you could manufacture.

In addition, in most communities JD and IH had tied up the most well financed and aggressive people as their dealers-and if they didn't perform they were replaced. Case and the other manufacturers got everybody else, sometimes very good people and sometimes not. My last local Case dealer was a horse and cattle jockey and he preferred selling used machinery over new Case machinery. The next Case dealer south was also a horse jockey and Oliver dealer besides. He liked Oliver better than Case. At the same time there were 2 very aggressive IH dealers in our county that advertised weekly in the local paper and radio stations. A Case ad appeared once every couple of months or less.

Loren brings up a very good point. The continual changing of colors was bad for brand loyalty. I like every Case color combination but the changing colors was a nightmare for marketing. If there is one thing farmers crave it is consistency.

At one time Case was very competitive in forage harvesters, balers, grain drills, corn planters, plows and other equipment, but they seemed to drop the ball along the line and let the competition move ahead of them. Case was the No. 1 baler manufacturer and was offered a superior self tying knotter design. They said it was not needed and New Holland ended up with it. In one year Case baler sales plummeted. No wonder Case dealers took on short lines, they were forced to in order to stay in business. Most of the dealers who survived into the 60's had NH or NI or Gehl as well.

It is a shame that Case gets so little respect. It was a great brand with some great engineering (and some not so great engineering)and a great history. I attribute it's downfall to bad management, bad marketing, (Can you imagine selling an obsolete design from 1918 to 1960?) and lack of capital during the 50's and 60's that lead to it's downfall. On the plus side that lack of interest allows us to reasonably fill our sheds with some of the best tractors, value wise, ever made. We are almost fortunate in that regard.

Thanks to all for chiming in. Don
 
Interesting and glad you joined in the discussion. I think the single biggest thing that harmed Case in terms of tractors was not adopting the high operator platform that IH developed for the original Farmall. Anything based on a Wheatland or standard design even intended for row crops did very poorly in a lot of areas of the East and I would imagine other parts of the US as well. Heck, there are guys like myself that liked the row crop over the utility for jobs like running a mower-conditioner due to the visibility and chassis clearance. I know that companies bought their competitors' products as soon as they came out to study them but really wonder if anybody at Case actually ran the original Farmall to see what it offered.
 
I would bet Case did study the Farmall regular and I would bet they just shrugged their shoulders and thought "whats the big deal". To me it looks Case took the C, added taller rear wheels and a tricycle front end to get a rowcrop tractor. That took very little engineering time/expense I'm guessing and simplified the manufacturing process. Compare that to IH who spend years and years and tons of money to come up with the Farmall which used a special frame/transmission/final drives and had limited axle tread width. Also, the CC had a unit frame design which the Farmall didn't. As "groundbreaking" as the original Farmall was IMO, the design was inferior in just 6-7 years. Even some of my IH sources state the CC was a concern for IH. I rather sit low and out of the wind and have a place to stand on vs sitting on a spring board with nothing to stand on like the Farmall.
 
Again, this discussion requires a warm fire, beer & maybe a cigar or 2, but 2 subjects you mention, need to be discussed here. "Combines". In this area CASE never lost respect for their combines, and I think this rings true everywhere. I don't think any historian would agree with your statement. My Dad used to say that his best combine salesman was the local grain mill. "You want less dockage, get a CASE Combine".

The other statement was about Band brakes vs Disc brakes. CASE was ahead of their time with the disc brakes, and when maintained, work excellent. Our DC will still lock the rear wheels if needed. On one hand you criticize CASE for being behind the times, then criticize CASE for being ahead of everyone.

I have a question, why is the IH T-A a better system than the Case-O-Matic? The T-A will last if you don't use it under load, but that is where the C-O-M shines. Bullet proof when used properly.
 
Having grown up all RED Dad worked at the dealership until it closed. Grandpa always had red equipment. Dads Uncle was a Case man through and through so I got see RED and Flambue red ( sorry about the spelling). And another Uncle was totally green. So I got to be around a couple of different colors of equipment. Now to my point. THEY ALL MADE GOOD STUFF AND THEY ALL MADE JUNK.
 
Mckerrow630

Gregg, well said. You said what I feel. What the h_ll is this a biology class? Dissecting a frog? I can tell you there is much more to this, and there are several on here know much more of what was going on. But those that didn't post are telling you they don't like those throwing used motor oil on our Eagle. And that is all I got to say about that...PERIOD
 
I think it all boils down to marketing and promotion more than anything. Case tractors were as good as any other brand produced. There are other products I can think of that were exceptional but never gained a high status, similar to Case.
For instance the model 94 Winchester rifle gained popularity as the gun that won the west. But Marlin who made exceptional lever actions at the same time as Winchester never gained the notoriety of Winchester. An old Marlin which I think is superior to Winchester in many ways is not sought by collectors as much or does not sell for as much today as a Winchester. Even though Marlin has a great history and reputation.
The plus side is you can buy a model 1893 Marlin for a lot less than a model 94 Winchester.
Marketing and promotion are big factors. I remember in the spring they had John Deere days, where the local JD dealer showed films about all the new Equipment at the local theatre, with door prizes and free popcorn.
Jim
 

The reason the N series Fords had such great sales had pretty much nothing to do with the 3 pt hitch. At that time it was as much an orphan as any other proprietary hitch. It wasn't until the mid 50's that the Ford type 3pt was adopted as "the standard". What got the N series all the sales was really pretty simple- Name recognition, easy credit and widespread availability through any Ford dealer of both tractors and parts if we are to believe the advertisements of the days. IOW, it was an household name with massive advertising and credit backing and unequaled availability. You couldn't ask for an easier ride.
 
I think the $585 price tag had as much to do with popularity of
the N series as anything else starting with the 9n. That price
included rubber tires, electric start, PTO, and of course the 3-
point. I don?t care much for th N series but I will drive one of
those for a week before I spend an hour behind a team of
horses.
 
Spot on about the 9N introductory price. IIRC the Farmall H was around 750-770 dollars at the same time not fully decked out. A couple of hundred dollars was a petty big deal for many famers coming out of the Depression. The only place the 9N did not shine was with heavy drawn implements such as a manure spreader or corn picker in wet conditions which was not a consideration for a lot of farmers for one reason or another. The three point hitch was gaining favor over the production of the N series or the competition would have not adopted it for their own products down the road.
 
(quoted from post at 21:43:38 11/27/18) I think the $585 price tag had as much to do with popularity of
the N series as anything else starting with the 9n. That price
included rubber tires, electric start, PTO, and of course the 3-
point. I don?t care much for th N series but I will drive one of
those for a week before I spend an hour behind a team of
horses.

Yup, I hesitated to mention that because a lot of people get mad when you point out it was a cheap tractor. And it was a CHEAP tractor that had a huge credit line backing it, unequaled advertising and that Ford name. Pretty hard to beat.

I'd take the horses over the N any day of the week if they were decent horses and was doing just drawbar work. Once we figure out how to add a pto out a horses backside and get his heart to run a hydraulic pump, tractors will be a distant memory! :wink: :lol:
 
(quoted from post at 22:49:02 11/27/18) Spot on about the 9N introductory price. IIRC the Farmall H was around 750-770 dollars at the same time not fully decked out. A couple of hundred dollars was a petty big deal for many famers coming out of the Depression. The only place the 9N did not shine was with heavy drawn implements such as a manure spreader or corn picker in wet conditions which was not a consideration for a lot of farmers for one reason or another. [b:8370b0c606]The three point hitch was gaining favor over the production of the N series or the competition would have not adopted it for their own products down the road.[/b:8370b0c606]

You don't think Henry was pulling some strings back in the day and talking to implement makers about carrying his version of the 3pt tools? You don't think that Ford name meant dollar signs to those guys? I got a lot of old magazines and catalogs from the 40's and 50's and you see those full page Ford centerfold ads and the pages following have ads for Ford 3pt adaptable implements. But there were also lots of ads for stuff that fit the Fast Hitch, Snap Coupler, Eagle hitch, etc. And there were kits sold to adapt one to another. I have no proof, but I do have a suspicion Henry was showing his sales records to those guys and pushing for HIS 3pt to be the standard.
 
Bret, The standards for the features to be included in the 3 point hitch (including the sway feature) was set by the ISO. I copied a brief description of the ISO below. The 3 point was standard #730. Every tractor company had a right to be on the committee.

I think the odds are ZERO that any one Company could control this International committee that standardized the 3 point hitch.



Copied from the Internet----- ISO (the International Organization for Standardization) is a worldwide federation of national standards bodies (ISO member bodies). The work of preparing International Standards is normally carried out through ISO technical committees. Each member body interested in a subject for which a technical committee has been established has the right to be represented on that committee. International organizations, governmental and non-governmental, in liaison with ISO, also take part in the work.
 
(quoted from post at 11:38:23 12/01/18) Bret, The standards for the features to be included in the 3 point hitch (including the sway feature) was set by the ISO. I copied a brief description of the ISO below. The 3 point was standard #730. Every tractor company had a right to be on the committee.

I think the odds are ZERO that any one Company could control this International committee that standardized the 3 point hitch.



Copied from the Internet----- ISO (the International Organization for Standardization) is a worldwide federation of national standards bodies (ISO member bodies). The work of preparing International Standards is normally carried out through ISO technical committees. Each member body interested in a subject for which a technical committee has been established has the right to be represented on that committee. International organizations, governmental and non-governmental, in liaison with ISO, also take part in the work.

The ISO wasn't even created until 1947 and the oldest standard I could find on their site for the 3pt dated from 1983. I believe the original standard was put forth by the ASE back in the 1960's. Maybe you can find something other than that, but yeah, I definitely think the head of the largest auto maker in the world who was pushing his 3pt tractor hitch at the time could certainly have pushed implement makers in the USA to favor his hitch based on sales numbers, name recognition and dealer outlets alone. That is what I wrote, not anything about forcing tractor makers to adopt it or any standards organization to do so. Sorry if you didn't catch that, but it seemed very clear to me as I wrote it and review it now.
 

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