Welcome! Please use the navigational links to explore our website.
PartsASAP LogoCompany Logo (800) 853-2651

Shop Now

   Allis Chalmers Case Farmall IH Ford 8N,9N,2N Ford
   Ferguson John Deere Massey Ferguson Minn. Moline Oliver

Attention Forum Users: On the 28th of December 2023 at 9:00am Central Time, we will be taking the forums down for maintenance while we prepare the new forums for your use. Please click here for more information.

John Deere Tractors Discussion Forum
:

model 60 vs Farmall super M

Welcome Guest, Log in or Register
Author 
B-maniac

01-30-2006 18:51:57




Report to Moderator

Anothertest.. Set both tractors just above idle/in high gear ,see whuch one will start out without stalling or burning up the clutch. I rest my case ...TORQUE !




[Log in to Reply]   [No Email]
scrapy

02-02-2006 21:43:41




Report to Moderator
 Re: model 60 vs Farmall super M in reply to B-maniac, 01-30-2006 18:51:57  
I think the Green horns have a serious case of the verbal dihharea. go red!!!



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
DickD

01-31-2006 11:37:02




Report to Moderator
 Re: model 60 vs Farmall super M in reply to B-maniac, 01-30-2006 18:51:57  
If you're going to take that SuperM to the field, where there is tromped clay, or black gumbo,and set the plow 8 in. deep where it should be, then you should do it at night. That way, when it won't handle it, you won't be embarassed. lol



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Mike M

01-31-2006 05:52:31




Report to Moderator
 Re: model 60 vs Farmall super M in reply to B-maniac, 01-30-2006 18:51:57  
That has nothing to do with torque and everything to do with gear ratio. If you want to have a tractor race then the Farmalls will win everytime.They have a very fast road gear.

You can soup up a super MTA enough to kick butt on a late 820 2cyl.Diesel running stock 72 HP ? and weighted up to 10,000 lbs. And the Farmall wasn't weighted up as much as he ran out of weights. I saw it done at a local tractor pull (just for fun)

Made my cousin (820 owner) sick for many years until he finally saw the insides of that Farmall engine and what was done then he felt a little better. LOL

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
buickanddeere

01-31-2006 15:13:48




Report to Moderator
 Re: model 60 vs Farmall super M in reply to Mike M, 01-31-2006 05:52:31  
Many of these guys with 80/820/830's that get beat seem to be amateurs. Just because it�s a JD they think they only have to hook on and win. They either run the tires too tight, too slack, hitch too low, have the front end up 1/2 way down the track or they never get the weight transferred off the front end onto the rear tires. 23.1x26 tires are the saddest thing I've seen on a hard clay track. Around here the guys with experience and a notebook to keep track of the various factors win no matter what the tractor colour. Hitting or not hitting an old spin hole from a previous pull often decides the winner.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Mike M

01-31-2006 17:50:06




Report to Moderator
 Re: model 60 vs Farmall super M in reply to buickanddeere, 01-31-2006 15:13:48  
Losing has more to do with running a bone STOCK field ready tractor. NOBODY I've seen that does much pulling is even close to stock.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
G/MAN

01-31-2006 07:18:10




Report to Moderator
 Re: model 60 vs Farmall super M in reply to Mike M, 01-31-2006 05:52:31  
A very high road gear that you may as well forget about transporting anything BUT the tractor with, and forget even that if you have long, steep hills. Been there and done that. Get in hilly country, and a "60" will keep up with an "M" by and large, because you're not downshifting for every hill. Been there and done that. Not to mention that with most of those old Farmall front-ends being worn out, that fast road gear is scary at best. Been there and done that, too.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
billde

01-31-2006 15:40:16




Report to Moderator
 Re: model 60 vs Farmall super M in reply to G/MAN, 01-31-2006 07:18:10  
Tell that story to all the guys driving A's &G's that I beat to the elevator with a Super M 40 years ago. I may have shifted on a hill but I still made the round trip faster. And by the way JD front ends get sloppy too. I love my Deeres but when going on the road I opted for a Farmall every time.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
G/MAN

02-01-2006 07:30:38




Report to Moderator
 Re: model 60 vs Farmall super M in reply to billde, 01-31-2006 15:40:16  
Yeah, I got a similar story from a clown that claimed he pulled two 300-bushel gravity wagons up and down hills with a Super M. I almost believed it. I can leave the driveway and head up the hill at my grandpa's place from a dead stop with my "60". Try it with his "M" and you'll be sitting there dead in the water. By the time you get the hill climbed in 4th so you can hit 5th at the top, I'll be a quarter-mile away on the Deere.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Mike M

01-31-2006 17:53:45




Report to Moderator
 Re: model 60 vs Farmall super M in reply to billde, 01-31-2006 15:40:16  
For sure don't try shifting on the go with a 2 cyl. Deere you will be picking up the pieces.

I still don't see how those Farmalls take all that shifting on the go ?



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
G/MAN

02-01-2006 07:28:21




Report to Moderator
 Re: model 60 vs Farmall super M in reply to Mike M, 01-31-2006 17:53:45  
It's pretty simple - a foot clutch and tiny little gears that you can easily force into mesh. Do it enough times and you'll scatter the tranny on a Farmall just like any other.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
toot

01-31-2006 05:43:16




Report to Moderator
 compare apples to apples in reply to B-maniac, 01-30-2006 18:51:57  
the 70 is rated with Super M, as the G was rated with the regular M.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
jd2830

01-31-2006 03:55:33




Report to Moderator
 Re: model 60 vs Farmall super M in reply to B-maniac, 01-30-2006 18:51:57  
If IH (instant headache) was so good why did case and Ih have 2 merge. worst bought second worst or second worst bought worst



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
scrapy

01-31-2006 20:20:13




Report to Moderator
 Re: model 60 vs Farmall super M in reply to jd2830, 01-31-2006 03:55:33  
ever herd of poor management? nothing to do with the company.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
billonthefarm

01-30-2006 21:01:52




Report to Moderator
 Re: model 60 vs Farmall super M in reply to B-maniac, 01-30-2006 18:51:57  
Maybe we ought to be comparing a 70 to the super m to really be fair? Any thoughts? bill



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Mike S 806/H

01-30-2006 20:32:46




Report to Moderator
 Re: model 60 vs Farmall super M in reply to B-maniac, 01-30-2006 18:51:57  
The old 2 cylinders are so good and have soooo much torque in a 2 cylinder engine why did deere quit building them? think about it



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
B-maniac

01-31-2006 18:00:48




Report to Moderator
 Re: model 60 vs Farmall super M in reply to Mike S 806/H, 01-30-2006 20:32:46  
They quit building them for the same reason they quit building anything that was that good...It's just bad economics for a company to keep building something that lasts that long with so little repairs. If they don't wear out it's hard to keep selling new ones. If more cylinders are better then why has Deere,IH,MF,Oliver etc ,tried V/8s only to scrap the idea and go back to 6s ? Why hasn't Harley D. went to 4 or 6 cyl? If you answer "tradition" it just proves you don't have a real answer.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Mike S 806/H

01-31-2006 21:11:05




Report to Moderator
 Re: model 60 vs Farmall super M in reply to B-maniac, 01-31-2006 18:00:48  
lasts that long with so little repairs!!!! LOL these two cylinders have had so many cracked heads and blocks!! I have worked on alot! of JD's , I could just picture a new JD 9320 with a two cylinder engine in it!!! I have 3 JD tractors I use my G for tractor pulling pulls great but I would never want to farm with it! give me the Super M any day! Oh yea the G had a cracked head and block! to no suprise, as for V8 diesels yea there not the best, for a V8 Gas engine there great, and Harley D you gota love the shaken ,noisy, bike! My buddie flys buy them and a nice smooth running 4 cyl Honda 954RR on a wheelie! at 100+ mph!

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
G/MAN

01-31-2006 07:29:12




Report to Moderator
 Re: model 60 vs Farmall super M in reply to Mike S 806/H, 01-30-2006 20:32:46  
I suggest you learn the horsepower formula and start computing the torque at rated speed of say a JD "60" and a Super M. You're going to be disappointed in a hurry...



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Mike S 806/H

01-31-2006 21:16:16




Report to Moderator
 Re: model 60 vs Farmall super M in reply to G/MAN, 01-31-2006 07:29:12  
A formula!!LOL I do my computing on my M&W p-2000 dyno here and had lots of JD's and Farmall's on it and a Farmall hasnt disappointed me yet!



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
G/MAN - and one other thi

02-01-2006 07:33:08




Report to Moderator
 Re: model 60 vs Farmall super M in reply to Mike S 806/H, 01-31-2006 21:16:16  
What's the HP capacity of that M&W? Got an AW 600 sitting out in the shop. Can you pull 600 on yours???



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Mike S 806/H

02-01-2006 15:13:25




Report to Moderator
 Re: model 60 vs Farmall super M in reply to G/MAN - and one other thi, 02-01-2006 07:33:08  
My M&W goes to 310 hp, IF you have really have a AW 600 why would you really need a dyno like that unless you selling new BIG Jd's and caseIh tractor's ,I would like to see the Price that dyno would cost!!! As for Horse power, torque = horse power come on you should know that!



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Mike S 806/H

02-01-2006 17:28:38




Report to Moderator
 Re: model 60 vs Farmall super M in reply to Mike S 806/H, 02-01-2006 15:13:25  
Ops I was wrong on the Hp of the P-2000 is 400hp at 1000 and 210hp at 540, all the dealers I have been to, the P-2000 is all they have



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
G/MAN

02-01-2006 15:32:21




Report to Moderator
 Re: model 60 vs Farmall super M in reply to Mike S 806/H, 02-01-2006 15:13:25  
Trust me, I know the horsepower formula backward and forward, after having to explain it to performance experts countless times. And no, torque doesn't equal horsepower. Horsepower = torque multiplied by shaft rpm and divided by 5252. You can have torque without making horsepower, but you sure can't make horsepower without torque. And yes, we sell big new JDs. Seeing as how even an old 8400 can push 300 at the PTO and the new 8530 is a 275-hp tractor at the PTO, you need that kind of capacity to be able to dyno one long enough to break it in - full load for hours on end. With our water supply, we can dyno 375 horsepower continuously. You also need that much capacity to pull a torque-curve on a big tractor when you pull down to 1300 engine rpm. We basically destroyed and AW 375 after years of dynoing 4840s, 4960s, 8400s, etc. The drum wasn't even repairable last time we grenaded it, so it got traded in on the new 600. I heard that the new one is in the $15,000 range, but I can't say for certain.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
G/MAN

02-01-2006 07:32:03




Report to Moderator
 Re: model 60 vs Farmall super M in reply to Mike S 806/H, 01-31-2006 21:16:16  
Not another "performance expert" that doesn't understand what a dyno actually does... Got a news flash for you. That dynoe MEASURES TORQUE and shaft speed and displays it as horsepower.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Mike S 806/H

02-01-2006 21:36:38




Report to Moderator
 Re: model 60 vs Farmall super M in reply to G/MAN, 02-01-2006 07:32:03  
Your right the dyno measures TORQUE and displays it as horsepower! The more torque the more horsepower it shows! It sounds like YOU are tring to be the "performance Expert" You can do your pencil work on paper for Torque but the real test is on a dyno (remember the torque/horsepoer thing?). For all that Cubic inch them 2 cylinders have, a 60 with 321ci vs a Super M 264ci, boy that 264 really kicks A$$. Just wondering are you a sales man at that JD dealer?

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
G/MAN - also...

02-02-2006 07:30:49




Report to Moderator
 Re: model 60 vs Farmall super M in reply to Mike S 806/H, 02-01-2006 21:36:38  
I grew up on red tractors - Ms, Hs, 66-series, 86-series, etc. So you're not going to blow any smoke up my tailpipe about how good they are.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
G/MAN

02-02-2006 07:28:34




Report to Moderator
 Re: model 60 vs Farmall super M in reply to Mike S 806/H, 02-01-2006 21:36:38  
Nope, a service technician in the tractor shop. Want to compare rated speeds on those two tractors you mentioned? Why don't you multiply the cubes of that "M" by its rated speed, do the same for the "60" and see what kind of cubic inches per MINUTE each is displacing, and then see just how bad that 264 is after all... Or, let's put that 264 at 975 rpm and see what it can turn...



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Mike S 806/H

02-02-2006 09:50:11




Report to Moderator
 Re: model 60 vs Farmall super M in reply to G/MAN, 02-02-2006 07:28:34  
Ok if you want to turn the 264 at 975rpm you will have to have a cam ground to run at 975! any engine builder will know that! I have nothing against any brand of tractors I have JD's and IH tractors, But the two cylinder is outdated if they were soo good they would of kept building a two cylinder engine. Hell Oliver had the 1600 out and JD had a 730!! you cant compair that! Thats the best JD could do! I sure didnt see a 4010 with a two cylinder engine,

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
G/MAN

02-02-2006 10:25:11




Report to Moderator
 Re: model 60 vs Farmall super M in reply to Mike S 806/H, 02-02-2006 09:50:11  
You're a genuine expert, aren't you? Did you do the calculations on cubic inches displaced per minute, or just run off on another tangent about camshafts? Deere discontinued the two-cylinders because a new generation of them after the 30-series (and 840) two-bangers would need to be far too big in displacement and engine size to compete with other manufacturers in the horsepower wars. Development of the New Generation (3010, 4010 etc.) tractors began in the early 50s, as the writing was already one the wall that the two-bangers weren't going to be able to cut it that much long. But then again, they only stayed in production for 40 years or so, so yeah, they MUST have been a poor design. And sorry to say, but a 730 out-features and Oliver 1600 to hell and gone. I recently worked on a 770 Oliver diesel. I've never seen such undersized and inadequate engine components in my life. So do you want to get in a serious discussion of Deere history, or are you going to simply skirt the issues and repeat drivel you've heard at the coffee shop???

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Mike S 806/H

02-02-2006 11:26:10




Report to Moderator
 Re: model 60 vs Farmall super M in reply to G/MAN, 02-02-2006 10:25:11  
A 730 out featured a 1600 NO WAY! thats like saying a 730 was better then the 10 series tractors! I dont have a 1600 but know people that do , I had used both tractors, You say JD had the 10 series in the works in the early 50's ok but they were going with the design of IH, Oliver, Moline, ect, 4 and 6 cyl engine, foot clutch, better hydraulic's, so JD knew the 2cylinder was outdated in the early 50's JD had had the horespower to compete in the early 50's We can keep going on and on about this subject, I could bring up Oliver and Over and Under, Ih had a TA ,then you will come back saying the TA was junk, Then I will say its not junk, it's how it was used, You just act like JD is the best, News for ya they ALL had there problems Our 1066 had the ring gear bolt's back out, our 826's the cylinder sleeve O-rings started leaking at 3000 hr's but they ARE great tractors, out neighbor's 806 has 9000hr's on it never touched it, original TA, clutch, engine and still a great tractor hell he never changed the rear end/hyd oil.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
G/MAN

02-02-2006 13:31:45




Report to Moderator
 Re: model 60 vs Farmall super M in reply to Mike S 806/H, 02-02-2006 11:26:10  
You'd better just quit now. They were going off IH, etc designs? Better guess again. What Brand X tractor from the early '50s had closed-center/constant-pressure hydraulics, hydrostatic power steering, a synchronized transmission, power wet-disk brakes with inboard planetary final-drives and on down the line of 10-series features? How many were installing balancers in their 4-cylinders? NONE. The New Gens were state of the art in '60, let alone when first conceived and when development started while Deere was still building "A"s and "B"s. Heck, some of the initial mock-ups of the New Gens were built on the "A" chassis. Deere even experimented with V-type diesels for the new tractors - a V-4 for what would become the 3010, a V-6 for the 4010 and even a V-8 for the 5010. They were dropped because they interfered with visibility during row-crop operations. As for the T/A and over/under, those are nothing but torque substitutes, used to provide "powershift" capabilities to outdated transmission. Too bad Deere had a two-speed prototype mounted in a two-cylinder belt pulley in the late 20s, isn't it? They even patented it. So who was copying who? Tell me, if those two-bangers were so outdated, why did Deere take over the farm equipment sales lead in '58? Two years before the end of two-banger production? But don't feel bad - you're just posting the same crap I've seen from a dozen or so Binder Babies on various discussion boards over the last few years. Get yourself some books and start learning some FACTS, and you might be able to play the game a little better. Your comments are typical Binder Baby drivel right down to the one about all tractors breaking down. Yeah, I'm pretty well aware of that. I've only made my living for the last 12 years or so fixing various colors of iron, 6 on Deeres. I can post a list of Deere problems that would make your head spin. While I'm hard-pressed to find ANY Binder Baby that wants to get into IH's numerous problems at all...

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Mike S806/H

02-02-2006 14:24:03




Report to Moderator
 Re: model 60 vs Farmall super M in reply to G/MAN, 02-02-2006 13:31:45  
Boy this all started about a two cylinder engine now we are in it alot Deeper now, yea the 10 series may have been ahead of the 460/560 series I havent cut the 10 series tractors down, you make it sound like I did, Just the TWO CYLINDER was out dated, So what ever happened to the prototype 2 speed must not or been any good. If JD took over in 58 I said if, then who was it before that?? hum??? As for this binder babies thing you bring up maybe, just maybe the binder baby is you? Give your definition binder baby, Boy your sure stuck on JD's, I have no problem with any brand tractor's ,

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
G/MAN

02-03-2006 07:24:38




Report to Moderator
 Re: model 60 vs Farmall super M in reply to Mike S806/H, 02-02-2006 14:24:03  
You sure have done a lot of talking for some reason, to now all of a sudden back down. Why? Come on, let's talk tractors. Not maintaining that Deere was copying the others when designing the New Gens anymore?



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Mike S806/H

02-03-2006 10:03:39




Report to Moderator
 Re: model 60 vs Farmall super M in reply to G/MAN, 02-03-2006 07:24:38  
When I said going with IH,Oliver,ect , I said with 4 and 6 cyl engines, Well why didnt Deere stay with the 2 cyl in a 2010,3010,4010,them 2 cyl were sooo great! you cant tell me the 2cyl wasnt making as much HP, the 830 was very close to a 4010 in hp, You talked about horsepower wars the 2cyl was up there, But Deere knew it was Outdated! oh you didnt answer about the 2 speed on the Belt pulley, couldnt deere make a go of it? so I wouldnt say IH and oliver copied Deere!

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
G/MAN

02-03-2006 13:29:34




Report to Moderator
 Re: model 60 vs Farmall super M in reply to Mike S806/H, 02-03-2006 10:03:39  
Kind of a slow learner, aren't you? Was the 4010 the top of Deere's lineup in the early 50s? Not hardly - ever heard of a 5010. How big would a two-cylinder had to have been to make 100+ horsepower? Especially since the 5010 REPLACED the 830 as Deere's big standard-treat tractor. How many times do I have to explain this?? I couldn't tell you the reason Deere didn't produce the two-speed belt pulley. Maybe because they didn't need a "torque substitute". Oh, that's right, two-cylinders are SO short on torque. Done the math on the "60" and Stupor M yet???

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Mike S 806/H

02-03-2006 14:26:38




Report to Moderator
 Re: model 60 vs Farmall super M in reply to G/MAN, 02-03-2006 13:29:34  
Well since im a slow learner, JD could of kept the 2 cylinder in 4010 on down and they really could of produced a bigger 2 cyl ,since the 2 cyl is sooo good maybe deere F' ed up? I dont think so! So if Deere didnt produce the two speed Ih and oliver conldnt of copied it! Your just the JD Expert!!! Boy maybe you could just about talk me into a 2 cyl is better!!! NOPE!! Also didnt do the math, you know they should use the math for tractor pulling that way a JD B probley pull against a Farmall M , Yea that would be fair! NOT! Well maybe all that 2 cyl torque it could do it. LOL, Also let me guess you must drive a Ford!

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
G/MAN

02-03-2006 15:28:02




Report to Moderator
 Re: model 60 vs Farmall super M in reply to Mike S 806/H, 02-03-2006 14:26:38  
You're living proof of the adage "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with b.s." No, I don't drive a Ford. In fact, I prefer anything BUT Fords. As for keeping everything below the 4010 a two-cylinder, that's about the biggest load of crap I've ever heard. Yeah, they were going to go to a clean-sheet design ONLY for the 5010, which was obviously going to be the lowest selling tractor, seeing as how it was only a standard-tread and too big for the majority of farmers. Yeah, companies generally pour the most R&D money into the smallest markets, don't they? The 4010 most certainly wasn't built to replace the 830. Ever seen a row-crop 830? I sure haven't. Want to compare weights and the horsepower-to-weight ratios of the 4010 and 830? There are a lot more considerations than just horsepower levels, aren't there? Looks like YOU could use the math lessons, seeing as how you're comparing a smaller and slower-running "B" to an "M" now. Let me guess, you're one of those Binder Baby geniuses that likes to compare the "M" to the Deere "A". Too bad the "G" was the main competitor for the "M", isn't it? Yep, I sure do know a boatload more about Deere than you ever will. You've proved yourself more or less completely ignorant of the subject so far. Want to drop it, or keep digging deeper in that hole you're in?

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Mike S806/H

02-03-2006 18:34:59




Report to Moderator
 Re: model 60 vs Farmall super M in reply to G/MAN, 02-03-2006 15:28:02  
Boy I really thought you were a Ford Guy! Well good for you on one thing. What I was getting at is if a Two cylinder is soo great they would of kept building them! As for horse power to weight ratio lets see a 830 at 8300 pounds, 75 hp and a 4010 diesel STANDARD 8470 pounds 84 hp, I think that standard 4010 replaced the 830 pretty good!!! this is out of a Official guide /tractors and farm equipment 1972 /dealers got these books, Ok lets compair hp to weight, nuff said! Oh yea I bet every farmer that had a 830 to replace bought a 5010, 133 hp 12,800 weight thats alot more tractor then a 830 , And no I dont compair a A to a M , I have a G, Great tractor for pulling but if this was 1948 and farming I would get the M, For row crop work the G can even get to 28" rows, As for digging a deeper hole I think your in deeper then me, Man that Ford thing really gets to me all them JD guys drive Ford's, LOL

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
buickanddeere

01-30-2006 23:01:47




Report to Moderator
 Re: model 60 vs Farmall super M in reply to Mike S 806/H, 01-30-2006 20:32:46  
Because agriculture changed. The size of farms, size of equipment, type of equipment, HP requirements. 1923 to 1961 was the two cylinder era, that's a pretty good run. Sounds like you are bit sore that Deere is doing fine and your company went bust and had to have a shotgun marrage then get bailed out.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Mike S 806/H

01-31-2006 20:52:44




Report to Moderator
 Re: model 60 vs Farmall super M in reply to buickanddeere, 01-30-2006 23:01:47  
I have no problem with JD's we have a G, 70 gas, and a B also a 4400 diesel combine and a 8 row 7000 planter, there's no way a 2 cylinder is better then a 4 or 6 cylinder engine hands down!, I have had alot of two cylinder tractors, I do all my own work on them, been through every part on them , they cant compair to a Farmall



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
buickanddeere

01-31-2006 23:05:09




Report to Moderator
 Re: model 60 vs Farmall super M in reply to Mike S 806/H, 01-31-2006 20:52:44  
Somehow I just can't believe your previous statement is the whole truth or devoid of bias. " been through every part on them"



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Mike S 806/H

02-01-2006 15:03:59




Report to Moderator
 Re: model 60 vs Farmall super M in reply to buickanddeere, 01-31-2006 23:05:09  
I have been through every part, I have restored JD's from ground up every part was taken apart. done the same with Farmalls also



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Jonesy

01-30-2006 20:25:25




Report to Moderator
 John Deere 70 LP VS Farmall F20!!! in reply to B-maniac, 01-30-2006 18:51:57  
TRUE STORY
A guy brought a bakers fan to our show this past year. It had rained and was quite muddy. We belted up a WK-40 IH, W-30, Farmall C and my 1936 Farmall F20 on full steel. Hard to belt that old bugger up in the mud. Anyway the old 20 hadnt run smooth since I bought it so a good load is what it needed. The 20 could pull the Baker Fan %100 loaded. We ran it for quite some time until she boiled over. A fellow on a John Deere 70LP said he was next. After finally getting her belted up (JD'S not good in this dept. darn pullys always turnen) it slowly gets the fan up to speed. We begine to "load" the fan but the old 70 couldnt take it and the fan shut her down. They fellow quickly responds with " she aint runnin right". Hum sounds like the F20. For some reason none of the JD guys would hook up after that. Thats when they hooked a Farmall C up to really rub it in. Ill take a Farmall on the belt any day.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
G/MAN

01-31-2006 07:31:27




Report to Moderator
 Re: John Deere 70 LP VS Farmall F20!!! in reply to Jonesy, 01-30-2006 20:25:25  
I've got a news flash for you. If the "70" couldn't run the same load as a "C", it most certainly was NOT running right.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Jonesy

01-31-2006 08:07:50




Report to Moderator
 Re: John Deere 70 LP VS Farmall F20!!! in reply to G/MAN, 01-31-2006 07:31:27  
Hillsboro TX, Memorial Day weekend, 2006, You and me, showdown on the belt, hahha. Im going to hook up my 41 JD B to the thing this year and wear that new shiny paint right off. None of the other JD guys with pretty tractors want to hurt their paint, what a shame. Ill have some Farmalls there too.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
G/MAN

01-31-2006 10:07:00




Report to Moderator
 Re: John Deere 70 LP VS Farmall F20!!! in reply to Jonesy, 01-31-2006 08:07:50  
I guess I'll have to get my "G" together, lol. If they don't want to wear the paint off the pulley, that's their business. I know plenty of two-banger guys that USE their tractors.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
RalphinWI

01-30-2006 21:45:36




Report to Moderator
 Re: John Deere 70 LP VS Farmall F20!!! in reply to Jonesy, 01-30-2006 20:25:25  
If you check you will find that the belt speed for two cylinders is much higher than for a McCormick. The John Deere runs the fan at a much higher speed than the McCormick. If I remember correctly the silage cutter (stationary at the silo) used a 14" pully for McCormicks, while the John Deere needed a 21 or 22" pully on the cutter.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
buickanddeere

01-31-2006 14:59:33




Report to Moderator
 Re: John Deere 70 LP VS Farmall F20!!! in reply to RalphinWI, 01-30-2006 21:45:36  
Jonesy can't do math either. He doesn't realize that that a Baker fan's load increases to the 3rd power with relation to rpms. For example, if the driving pulley was changed from 10.0" to 12.26" and the rpm kept the same. The baker fan would require twice the HP to operate. The operator of the 70LP should have known better too. Did a bunch of students, now adults. Skip math in high school or drop out of high school?

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
billde

01-31-2006 18:59:52




Report to Moderator
 Re: John Deere 70 LP VS Farmall F20!!! in reply to buickanddeere, 01-31-2006 14:59:33  
If the fan takes twice the horsepower it should have been a pretty even match between a 70 and a Farmall C. The 70 has more than twice the HP of a C or an F20.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
buickanddeere

01-31-2006 23:07:39




Report to Moderator
 Re: John Deere 70 LP VS Farmall F20!!! in reply to billde, 01-31-2006 18:59:52  
The 70 tries to drive the baker fan a lot more than 1.26 times faster than the C.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
buickanddeere

01-31-2006 23:06:41




Report to Moderator
 Re: John Deere 70 LP VS Farmall F20!!! in reply to billde, 01-31-2006 18:59:52  
The 70 drives the baker fan a lot more than 1.26 times faster than the C.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Jonesy

01-30-2006 20:08:13




Report to Moderator
 Re: model 60 vs Farmall super M in reply to B-maniac, 01-30-2006 18:51:57  
How bout the "REAL TEST". 100 acres each, 3 bottom plows each, Texas black land. Who will get er done and make it home before dinner gets cold?? Ok now we can forget torque, My B JD will stall every time like you say by the way. They have a horrible reverse too, to fast and stalls when you idle it down. We can also forget about a sled and legnth of pulls. These machines were meant to pull all day and night long. not just 300 ft. Ill take the Farmall. Any takers??

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Mcred

01-31-2006 13:30:13




Report to Moderator
 Re: model 60 vs Farmall super M in reply to Jonesy, 01-30-2006 20:08:13  
Ill agree with ya the only time Id use a Deere on the plow is If I wanted my right Knee all busted to hell if ya know what I mean.LOL!!
My old M with its Firecrator pistions 450cam and stock head runs 53 horse and pulls a 4-14 molboard plow in this rich black Iowa soil in 2nd gear no problem plow in the ground 8 inches
schould see the other turn there head in amasment at the plow day. the farmall boys usually eat last only because the rest bailed out first an left it for the red ones and at the end of the day I can STILL HEAR and do not have an offly sore knee for the clutch on the red one never gives a hell of a wack when you hit a rock.LOL. oh well all them tractors in them days were good it just a mater of seperating the boys from the men.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
buickanddeere

01-31-2006 15:07:18




Report to Moderator
 Re: model 60 vs Farmall super M in reply to Mcred, 01-31-2006 13:30:13  
If your souped Super M is fair game to compete against a 60. Then lets put a stock 80/820/830 in the competition against the Super M?



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
buickanddeere

01-31-2006 15:05:18




Report to Moderator
 Re: model 60 vs Farmall super M in reply to Mcred, 01-31-2006 13:30:13  
How are you getting a sore knee from hitting rocks? Spring reset ploughs have been built since the 1950's. Why use a misorable p.o.s. when better antiques are out there? Anybody ploughing without spring reset mouldboard bottom should have thie rhead head down behind the clutch lever instead of their knee.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
RalphinWI

01-30-2006 22:09:09




Report to Moderator
 Re: model 60 vs Farmall super M in reply to Jonesy, 01-30-2006 20:08:13  
If you have three bottoms behind a B John Deere you are not plowing. As a matter of fact the 60 or Super M are both short of power in alfalfa sod that a few Holsteins have been stomping on. I would wager that the stock Super M (no fluid or weights) will not pull 3 x 16 in the alfalfa pasture sod I have plowed (anything short of 20 - 25 HP per bottom is underpowered). A 70 (again without fluid or weights) might make it in low gear or a slow second because of the different weight distribution.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
G/MAN

01-31-2006 07:27:26




Report to Moderator
 Re: model 60 vs Farmall super M in reply to RalphinWI, 01-30-2006 22:09:09  
Absolutely. Saw a Super M try to plow in those conditions pulling 3 14s, and he had all he wanted and then some. We were pulling the same load. We could run him down with an unstyled "G" with hi-comps and nothing else. When the rubber meets the dirt, it's hard to beat the outright lugging ability of a two-banger. It was so tough in places - clay alfalfa ground - that the "G" would pick her front end up and try to set it over in the furrow at times. We'd run up on that SM, have to throttle back to let him get back a little ground, and then crack the throttle again and listen to that old "G" talk. I believe that after an hour or so of that, he was getting a little sick of hearing that old "G" open up, and the old-timers were sure getting a kick out of that old "G" stomping that shiny Super M into the ground.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
2 Cylinder

01-30-2006 19:07:21




Report to Moderator
 Re: model 60 vs Farmall super M in reply to B-maniac, 01-30-2006 18:51:57  
I know the 60 will do it, no problem!



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Dennis Andres

01-30-2006 19:32:33




Report to Moderator
 Re: model 60 vs Farmall super M in reply to 2 Cylinder, 01-30-2006 19:07:21  
A good friend helped me haul hay on our country roads last summer with his Super M and he could go off and leave me with my JD60. Then one day there was a local pull and I talked him into pulling in my class. Well he accepted and was able to pull the sled 75 ft. I pulled 215ft.These were stock tractors in 1st gear 6000lb class



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
[Options]  [Printer Friendly]  [Posting Help]  [Return to Forum]   [Log in to Reply]

Hop to:


TRACTOR PARTS TRACTOR MANUALS
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. [ About Us ]

Home  |  Forums


Copyright © 1997-2023 Yesterday's Tractor Co.

All Rights Reserved. Reproduction of any part of this website, including design and content, without written permission is strictly prohibited. Trade Marks and Trade Names contained and used in this Website are those of others, and are used in this Website in a descriptive sense to refer to the products of others. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy

TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER: Tradenames and Trademarks referred to within Yesterday's Tractor Co. products and within the Yesterday's Tractor Co. websites are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Yesterday's Tractor Co., our products, or our website nor are we sponsored by them. John Deere and its logos are the registered trademarks of the John Deere Corporation. Agco, Agco Allis, White, Massey Ferguson and their logos are the registered trademarks of AGCO Corporation. Case, Case-IH, Farmall, International Harvester, New Holland and their logos are registered trademarks of CNH Global N.V.

Yesterday's Tractors - Antique Tractor Headquarters

Website Accessibility Policy