100HP class 1965-1970 comparison

Pre-read:
I tried to eliminate some things so it wasn't so long. The Ford was tough to pick a model in this time frame. I picked the 8000 because the 7000 was just not big enough to put with these other models. A handful of brands have two tractors in here. Feel free to give me any feedback as well as your own rankings. I try to stay as non-oliver biased as I can but sometimes my true colors show.

Comparing 100ish HP Tractors 1965-1975

John Deere 4020 (diesel):
PTO HP- 95.83
RPMS- 2200
Cylinders- 6
Weight- 8,645-13,980
Transmission Gears- 8/2, 8/4
Original Cost- $10,345
Total Produced- 184,879
Production Years- 1963-1972
PTO Fuel Use Max- 6.4
Drawbar Fuel Use Max- 6.4
Drawbar Max Pull- 10,184

Allis Chalmers 190XT (diesel):
PTO HP- 93.64
RPMS- 2200
Cylinders- 6
Weight- 7,675-11,300
Transmission Gears- 8/2
Original Cost- $8,672
Total Produced- 22,419
Production Years- 1964-1971
PTO Fuel Use Max- 5.7
Drawbar Fuel Use Max- 5.7
Drawbar Max Pull- 8,917

Farmall 856 (diesel):
PTO HP- 100.49
RPMS- 2400
Cylinders- 6
Weight- 9,270-12,035
Transmission Gears- 8/4, 16/8
Original Cost-
Total Produced-
Production Years- 1967-1971
PTO Fuel Use Max- 6.6
Drawbar Fuel Use Max- 6.6
Drawbar Max Pull- 9,417

Farmall 806 (diesel):
PTO HP- 94.93
RPMS- 2400
Cylinders- 6
Weight- 8,460-9,2220
Transmission Gears- 8/4, 16/8
Original Cost- $6,800
Total Produced- 42,957
Production Years- 1963-1967
PTO Fuel Use Max- 6.3
Drawbar Fuel Use Max- 6.4
Drawbar Max Pull- 9,182

Massey Ferguson 1100 (diesel):
PTO HP- 93.94
RPMS- 2200
Cylinders- 6
Weight- 9,255-14,920
Transmission Gears- 6/2, 12/4
Original Cost- $7,700
Total Produced-
Production Years- 1964-1972
PTO Fuel Use Max- 6.1
Drawbar Fuel Use Max- 6.2
Drawbar Max Pull- 11,122

Ford 8000 (diesel):
PTO HP- 105.74
RPMS- 2300
Cylinders-6
Weight- 9,980-15,000
Transmission Gears- 8/2, 16/4
Original Cost- $10,000
Total Produced-
Production Years- 1968-1972
PTO Fuel Use Max- 6.6
Drawbar Fuel Use Max- 6.5
Drawbar Max Pull-11,502

Oliver 1850 (diesel):
PTO HP- 92.94
RPMS- 2400
Cylinders- 6
Weight- 8,965-16,225
Transmission Gears- 6/2, 12/4, 18/6
Original Cost- $8,500
Total Produced-
Production Years- 1964-1969
PTO Fuel Use Max- 6.3
Drawbar Fuel Use Max- 6.3
Drawbar Max Pull- 14,407
Oliver 1855 (diesel):
PTO HP- 98.6
RPMS- 2400
Cylinders- 6
Weight- 11,150
Transmission Gears 6/2, 18/6
Original Cost- $13,000
Total Produced-
Production Years- 1969-1975
PTO Fuel Use Max- 6.2
Drawbar Fuel Use Max- 6
Drawbar Max Pull- 11,487

Minneapolis Moline G900 (diesel):
PTO HP- 97.81
RPMS- 1800
Cylinders- 6
Weight- 10,300-15,145
Transmission Gears- 10/2
Original Cost- $8,200
Total Produced-
Production Years- 1967-1969
PTO Fuel Use Max- 7
Drawbar Fuel Use Max- 6.8
Drawbar Max Pull- 11,954

Case 1030 (diesel):
PTO HP- 101.79
RPMS- 2000
Cylinders- 6
Weight- 9,335-16,220
Transmission Gears- 8/2
Original Cost- $10,300
Total Produced- 13,763
Production Years- 1966-1969
PTO Fuel Use Max- 7.7
Drawbar Fuel Use Max- 7.6
Drawbar Max Pull- 12,056

Case 970 (diesel):
PTO HP- 93.87
RPMS- 1900/2000
Cylinders- 6
Weight- 10,050-11,190
Transmission Gears- 8/2, 12/4
Original Cost- $10,000
Total Produced- 8,542
Production Years- 1970-1978
PTO Fuel Use Max- 5.5
Drawbar Fuel Use Max- 5.4
Drawbar Max Pull- 10,604

How I would rank them:
1. John Deere 4020
2. Oliver 1850
3. Farmall 856
4. Massey Ferguson 1100

For my own personal use:
1. Oliver 1855
2. Oliver 1850
3. Massey Ferguson 1100
4. John Deere 4020

sorry there is not a space between the oliver 1850 and 1855

Have owned and used three of these in the past. My first choice from the standpoint of operator would be the 1850. That is the most comfortable for me to use.

Second choice would be the 4020. Not quite as nice in shifting, no over/under, but downright dependable and almost bulitt proof.

Had an 856 for a while in the mid 80s. Liked the motor and it was ok to use in the field, but the darn T/A was an expensive problem with those the and reason it was eventually replaced with a 4020.

No experience with either the Ford, Allis, or Massey of that size.

Just my opinion only and I have no skin in the game. I have no particular brand loyalty. Buying one today, the decision would be all on condition and price between the 1850 and the 4020.

I think the resale value of the 4020's is a big upside. The 1850 has slower hydraulics to my knowledge. the 3 speed is certainly a plus though. Very few would say a 4020 would outpull an 1850.

From what I have been told, very few 1850's left the dealerships under 100hp. And very few people will say an 1855 will outpull an 1850.

You could put ALL of those tractors in the same field, side by side, pulling the exact same tillage implement, and you wouldn't see a nickel's worth of difference in the performance or fuel economy.

the fuel economy sold me feeding a 1850 at 310 ci or a 4020 at 404 the choice was easy

Olliekid you got to much time on your hands. :>) But not many sound as good as that 1030 Case pulling a full load.

I see the 1100 could be had for 2600 less than the 4020. In 1960's dollars, that's a huge chunk of change.

Reverse 1 and 2. Or split them in half and make one out of them.

OK Here's my 2 cents, remember I'm partial to Olivers.
When I started farming and had absolutely no equipment the first thing I bought was the tractor and was impartial as to brand--that came later. The dealer had 2 tractors he offered up saying both would do the job, a 4020 and a 1855. Yhey were both the same year snd after I drove them around the yard a bit and talked to the dealer a bit decided on the 1855. The selling points 1) 1855 had that 3 speed shift which meant I could come down a gear or 2 without stopping; 2) 1855 turned sharper; 3) 1855 was easier to get up on and 4) 1855 rearend, transmission and front axle assembly was still available at the factory because in 1990 white was still making tractors with those components.
The 4020 was a nice tractor but I thought the 1855 was a better machine and still do.
Almost all 1850's came with a 2 speed extra transmission not the 3 speed.

Case has 2000# more pull than 4020 for same price? Case CK,s were very comfortable and ergonomic workhorses and grossly underrated. Could pull a 4020 around backwards. Even the 930 could.

I'd love to have an 1850 or White 2-105 on the property. They haven't held their prices like the JD but are cheap to keep running.

I like them all, and have drove and owned most except the 1100 Massey and the 1850. (we had a 2255) I told my son once about this very same thing. Hook them all up to a 15 ft disk and head them for California,(we live in SE Il.) and I would bet on the 4020. And the market place agree's. We had a XT 190 for a while and it will out work them all. I liked to drive it better than our 4010. But the JD wins. Sorry, Vic

I don't think the prices listed are very good. Dad bought a new 4020 narrowfront diesel with cab in 1968 for $6800. In 1972 he priced a new 4320 narrowfront with rollguard for $9300.

f vckn f agco di k sucker

I will admit the 806 and 856's were pretty darned good, too, especially if you deleted the TA. But all are crude compared to the 4020.

4020: no torque amplifier, hi-lo, over/under to fail--and they ALL FAIL. I would bet all others are "split" at least twice as much as a 4020.Steering/maneuvering was LIGHT YEARS ahead of the rest, unbelievably nimble. You could do a figure 8 inside the turning radius of many of the others.

I have one w 13,400 hrs--never had the head or pan off, one clutch, one axle seal, 2 radiators, 3 injection pump rebuilds, one hydraulic pump, 3 starters, 4 alternators. That's it.

Many of the others remind me of Belarus.

The marketplace decides these things, as the public is pretty darned astute--production numbers and resale tell the story.

Interesting comparison and all things considered the 69/72 4020 is an easy winner.None of these had a decent cab as far as noise level so considering open station only and in most situations they wont be a main tillage tractor.The easiest to get on,the handiest,the lowest sound level,and the tractor with the highest resale value[about 25% more than new]is a 4020 JD.The IH tractors have a double PTO that is inexpensive to fix which is their best feature.

You would give a better comparison on how much work one tractor can do over another by providing the horse power hours per gal figure. I"d bet none match the 190 XT. Also you gave the stats on a late 4020 and not the earlier 4020 which was a poorer performer.
I"ve worked a 4020, 806, 190XT and 1850 in a field and they all have there good and bad points but the view, comfort and convenience of the 190 is hard to beat. Meaning the operator comforts and controls are best on the 190. The ride alone is best on the 806. 4020 at least equals the 190 on maneuverability. Hydraulics are the worst on the 1850. Very jerky. 190 has the best 3-point and the best traction control. Our 190XT Series III Landhandler has the best name and is about my favorite tractor to drive on the farm. I am biased and for good reason.

You would give a better comparison on how much work one tractor can do over another by providing the horse power hours per gal figure. I"d bet none match the 190 XT. Also you gave the stats on a late 4020 and not the earlier 4020 which was a poorer performer.
I"ve worked a 4020, 806, 190XT and 1850 in a field and they all have there good and bad points but the view, comfort and convenience of the 190 is hard to beat. Meaning the operator comforts and controls are best on the 190. The ride alone is best on the 806. 4020 at least equals the 190 on maneuverability. Hydraulics are the worst on the 1850. Very jerky. 190 has the best 3-point and the best traction control. Our 190XT Series III Landhandler has the best name and is about my favorite tractor to drive on the farm. I am biased and for good reason.

prices are tough to guesstimate. The market is different everywhere around the U.S. A tractor worth 10k one place might only be worth 7k somewhere else.

ALMOST all of them fail. My cousins have two tractors over forty that have not been opened up at all. In fact their 1655 has only had brakes, and an injection pump just a year ago. Other than that just routine maintenance.

The 4020's definitely had the least failure though. Not disagreeing on that.

I would agree on those points. Thats why I had to put the 4020 1st even though the 1850 was a pretty stout tractor.

My view is skewed a little. I would guess that a 4020 is at the top or right there though. Boy I sure wish I had a picture of that JD guys face when I out dyno'd him on his hot dog 4020 diesel with this 1850 gasser at a tractor show a few years ago. It was priceless.

they were pretty rough on fuel though! use the most fuel by far. I have also heard they are a bear to start.

I kind of disagree. Over time it would make a huge difference. Using
7.5 gallons of fuel compared to about 6 wouldnt make a big
difference in a day of use. But in a whole year you could save a lot
on diesel!

Yeah they are both nice tractors. I hope to have at least an 1850 someday but probably a 2-105 with C/H/A too

hah sounds awesome. As far as pulling power goes, I wouldnt put the 4020 near the top of this list. But it had other things going for it such as resale, reliability, durability etc.

I'm going to take the 1100 all day long even if it was $2600 more than the 4020.

You know what,it's a rotten dirty shame or maybe a crime what JD did to the farmers in the 60s-70s-80s MAKING THEM BUY JDs over the other makes.The others did it too themselves, not JDs fault they HAD what the farmers wanted and the others didn't.As far as fuel economy Case and AC had about the best of anybody.

can you elaborate more on that? What exactly did they do? Are you saying they just made a large mass of tractors and therefore controlled the market?

Features!!JD started with a new clean slate where the others kept some old ideas too long.You could get any other tractor faster(quicker) then JD.My remark was sarcasm in that JD was building a better mousetrap(features)and that is what people wanted and bought.They could have failed,but they had what people wanted at that time.JD didn't cause others to fail,they did that on their own.