Weight of an MD

What is the weight of a '50 MD? No weights or fluid in tires. Thanks, Doug N

My point was, you should compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges. If the rear wheel weight and tires are the same, you'll not see much difference between the MD and 77.

If I go back to my youth and as young as 12 years of age we used to compete in quite a lot of tractor activities, some of it plowing and some of it pulling and our pulling was starting away with and pulling the full load. I can tell you, coming from a Farmall family we had a lot of respect for those 6 cylinder Olivers and Cockshutts. Man, if those boys had the right weight and tire equipment they could make us look rather stupid. No question in my mind, those 6 cylinder engines of the 40s and 50s were king as long as owner and operator had them equiped right. Have you noticed something? I never mentioned Deere, we never feared those two bangers. What does Deere use today in big tractors? It's not two cylinder any more. Two bangers have sharp torque rise and fall between firing, they were notorious for jumping belts while threshing, and the same will happen where the tires meet the ground.

What opinion I did get is you maybe were hinting the Farmall had more drawbar wallop than the Oliver. I am a dyed in the wool Farmall man, however when it comes to 40s and 50s tractors, I have a lot of respect for those 6 cylinder row crops. In my opinion the real edge the Farmall had was manuverability. I did notice you liked the Oliver comfort and smoothness. Cockshutt was smooth, just not as comfortable.

Doug seemed to be indicating traction was the difference. If you go to his post on Tractor Talk, shows photos of both tractors. The Oliver looks like 11.2 or 12.4 x 38 whereas the MD has definitely larger tire, maybe even 15.5x38. I don't think a 3 bottom plow is going to overburden either the MD or 77 engine, thus if he puts the same weight on rear tires and same size tires, they should be close. Like you say the MD will have a bit more torque and pull the plow a wee bit faster.

Lets face it Doug's test is about as unsceintific as if you and I compared tractors 500 miles apart, one of us in clay soil and the other in sandy loam. I guess any one of us could make any tractor look bad, if we tried hard enough.

Guy Fay"s tractor data book says 5285lbs with liftall.

Also, the oliver has 2 weights on either side in the back which would make it heavier than the MD. TD's info just doesn't add up. Doug N

You put the same rear end weight and rubber on both tractors and there will be very little difference. By the way, next time your plowing, plow that tractor data book under an extra deep furrow. Don't post on here guessing weight and comparing tractors.

I never said I live for tractor data. If I don't post on here, how will I learn? Just curious. Doug N

I learned this one many years ago, IH dealer delivered me a new 1066 with 20.8x38 single wheels and full of calcium chloride. After a season I drained the chloride and added duals. On the field, summer working conditions, it was far superior on drawbar pull in the field, to the singles with chloride. I will tell you this, I had one of the most merry rides of my life on hard frozen ground pulling a 12 tom manure spreader with those duals. Took the duals off, close to doubled the pounds per square inch, got along fine on hard frozen ground.

I had never been happy with my 560 or 656 with 15.5x38 with chloride, just never had the traction or flotation I figured they should have in the field. After the 1066 experience, I installed new 16.9x38 on 560 and 656 and didn't replace the chloride. It made field tractors of both in my opinion. I did keep the chloride and wheel weights on my Farmall 300 with 13.6x38 as it was mainly hauling wagons to barn on hard roads, and did need the weight. In fact as equiped I suspect my 300 was close in weight to 560 and 656. No question, match the tire equipment to the work being performed, it will surprise you how well any tractor performs.