Anonymous-0
Well-known Member
While we all have our brand preferences, how did these tractors (and other competitors) compare performance-wise?
No fish stories please.........
Glenn F.
No fish stories please.........
Glenn F.
- Thread starter Anonymous-0
- Start date
Anonymous-0
Well-known Member
And of course the VAC Case, (my favorite)....
randy hall
Member
I always thought that the allis b's and c's were the guttiest little tractors made back in'39.
randy hall
Member
by the way didn't henry ford cheat a little on the Nebraska test by running the test tractor engine faster and I believe he used dual rear wheels too.
larry@stinescorner
Well-known Member
this one brought 2000 at an auction last week in pa,it was in original condition ran nice,what do they usually bring,?I dont know much about them.
Bryce Frazier
Well-known Member
hmmmm, good question! I on one hand like the little fords because of the three point, but I don't really care for the fact the the 2/9n didn't have a fixed drawbar. I agree with the person below the said the AC, B's and C's were the most powerful tractor in their little group. I have seen these tractors at pulls and working in the field and their power seems un-matched! Plus AC seemed to have a good variance of attachable implements. kind of like three point, just not as easy! Never really cared for the Farmall B, seems like it would be a real pain to maneuver any where!
Overall, I think that out of the three the AC's are the best, Ford/Ferguson's second, and the Farmall. Just my penny.
Bryce
Overall, I think that out of the three the AC's are the best, Ford/Ferguson's second, and the Farmall. Just my penny.
Brycefixerupper
Well-known Member
I don't have anything else to compare it to but the little B Farmall we have is a mighty puller for only 18 HP. It has cast centers in the rear wheels plus one weight per wheel so it has the traction but I'm just amazed at how much of the power from that little engine gets to the wheels. The 60" belly mower hanging under it is about all it wants so I doubt if the engine has more HP than what it had when it came from the factory. I'm pretty sure the pistons and sleeves I put in it in 1974 were standards. Jim
Harry Ferguson believed the tractor was to be used for plowing primarily hence why there was no fixed drawbar on either the 9N/2N or the Ferguson TO-20 or TO-30. Even though I am a Ferguson tractor person I would have to pick the 9N over the others. It was a good looking,stable,safe tractor. It's the tractor that revolutionized farming. The Ford tractor combined with the Ferguson system put us where we are today. The Ferguson system was more than just a hydraulic lift. Harry Ferguson believed in mechanized farming, he had a pay as you go financing plan and other things. Look at the plug on the intake manifold that you could remove to run vacuum milkers. He was very detailed in trying to help all the farmers and industrial people too.
I'm partial to the Fords of that era.
Nimble, versatile utility tractors.
That said, I still think HP to weight ratio the AC's had it.
The FarmAll A/B/BN had a definite advantage in cultivating.
That offset engine/steering wheel provided a great view.
I still own one or more of each of the above.
The Fords are the ones that get used because of the 3PT.
Nimble, versatile utility tractors.
That said, I still think HP to weight ratio the AC's had it.
The FarmAll A/B/BN had a definite advantage in cultivating.
That offset engine/steering wheel provided a great view.
I still own one or more of each of the above.
The Fords are the ones that get used because of the 3PT.
The weight transfer when plowing or other ground engaging implements made the Fords shine. When you took the implement off took away much of their traction. That is what made some of the others look /perform better. The AC,s with their center pull hitch also did a great job.
Just my 2 cents worth. joe
Just my 2 cents worth. joe
Paul from MI
Well-known Member
I grew up on an Allis B and a John Deere H. The H was the best all around for all jobs, in the field, cultivating, mowing, etc.---but the Allis could out pull it any day, and twice on Sunday.
I believe that for those tests the tractors are/were turned over to the testing facility. That would mean that belt/PTO HP would be measured at speed so extra RPM's would matter.
The biggest single problem with the N's is weight. Dry they are just too light.
In todays world, using one on a farm, stock, I'd have to take the N with the 3 point unless all I was going to do was mow lawn. Too hard to find any implements for the others while I can still buy many new CAT 1 3 point implements new. Now put an after market 3 point of the others and they are all contenders.
Rick
I haven't run an A/C B or IHC A enough to make a real accurate comparison, but as far as a VAC to 8n I can. If we put ourselves back in the day when these came out the only advantage Ford had was cost, dealership support and financing. The Case VA series had hydraulic power lift for plows, culitvators, etc. It was heavier, a better puller, easier to work on IMO, larger tires were available that helped traction IMO. The standard 3 pt implement as we know it wasn't available at every farm store, you had to get it from Ford, just like you got proprietary implements for Case, IHC, Deere, etc. The ubiquitous cat 1 3pt as we know it didn't appear until years later when Fords cheap tractor had a good market share. Then you could get stuff from Sears, Wards, etc. and every farm store. I contend the main reason Ford succeeded was the same reason he succeeded with his cars- cheap prices and financing. The tractors were okay, but they weren't so much better as they were so much easier to afford. And every Ford dealer had people that could work on the engines and get factory parts if they wanted to.
So if you were a farmer after WW2 and you wanted a tractor and the choice between a Ford or something else, you got Fords national financing rates, you didn't have to go to the local bank and beg or take dealer financing at a much higher rate. You had the choice of either buying Fords proprietary 3 pt implements or doing what everyone else did and adapting what you had to fit. But Fords stuff was relatively cheap and they had easy financing. It sold well. And that, IMO, is why Ford did well.
Anonymous-0
Well-known Member
If we limit the discussion to the time period of the N tractor, in AC, you had the B, C, WD tractors. Snap coupler did not enter the picture, till 1954, if I have that history right. The B & C tractors had about the same HP as a N series, and about the same weight, if not, a little lighter. The WD definitely outclassed the n series both in weight and HP. My chief complaint with the AC's of this period, were the seats were some of the most uncomfortable ever, for a man my size, 6'0" and 275 lbs. B and C is a roll over the tire affair, and the wd is a climb up the back, to the spring loaded ground hog hole ejector seat! I own D-series tractors, seat is way more comfortable, but out of the time frame of the original discussion.
The thing was that Ford sold the N series in terms of productivity as well as power and that created confusion as farmers then were not sophisticated in terms of talking about PTO horsepower versus drawbar horsepower and related topics. Also, there was a lot of talking through hats as to what tractor could do what. Plowing was still the big chore on a lot of farms and then N series could perform neck and neck with a tractor several horsepower or more larger. I think one of the Ford books you could buy at TSC had a piece on how the N could match a Farmall M in terms of acres plowed per hour which was due to the light weight and weight transfer of the Ford. Where things got screwy if the salesman and farmer were less than sharp were figuring the belt/ PTO/ associated needs for the farmer. If a farmer had a 1 row PTO driven forage harvester he needed to have more horsepower than a N or if he had to cultivate a crop standing in excess of 3 feet he needed a row crop tractor. Reasons like the forage harvester or cultivating were why you did not see very many N series where I live back in the day. Now if Ford had developed a 35 plus Belt horsepower N then who knows.
The Ford N was the only one with draft control on the 3 point hitch. That was what made the difference in the work-ability of that little tractor. Lots of farmers laughed at them then but look what the rest did as soon as they could; 3-point draft control.
Anyone ever change from a plow to a cultivator on an AC-C? The N would have had a field half done in that time.
Anyone ever change from a plow to a cultivator on an AC-C? The N would have had a field half done in that time.
The reason the others will outpull a Ford on the track is simply speed, They have lower speed gears. At pto speed they are running close to wide open and the ground speed is what they are geared for, The Ford for the pto speed the engine is run at a little over half throttle and that gives you the same ground speed as the others in low but for pulling you do not want the engine running that slow so if you runn the engine at same speed like you would do the others then low in the Ford is equal in travel speed to second in the others. If you would have the under drive in the Ford shifted to under (and in my 70 years I have never seen an underdrive as they are that scarce) and run it at the engine speed the others are run then it would travel at closer to the ground speed of the others and would more compete on the sled pull.
In response to the guy that made the statement, a n will keep up with an M farmal plowing. In 1956 my dad bought a new WD45 with a 3X16 mounted plow. His brother had a newer M with a 3x16 IHC pull type plow. Neighbor has a newer 8n with a 2X12 mounted plow. He hired dad and brother to plow up 80 acres of soil bank bottom ground. I stood at the end of the field and watched them all 3 in the same field. Dad and brother would make 3 complete rounds and the guy with the 8n would make 1.5 rounds and have to get out of their way so they could go around him.dad and Keith got so mad at him they threatened to go home if he didn't get that damford out of the road. he took the hint and went to the west side of the field to scratch some dirt. They will not now nor would they ever work with an M.
85_Ranger4x4
Member
The CA came out in 1950/1 and had draft control. From the seat hitching is something three point couldn"t muster until the quick hitches came out long after Ford had faded being a remotely larger player in the tractor world.
I am a big fan of snap coupler, you don"t have to wrangle three hitching points into the exact correct alignment. Get the bottom one within about 8" side to side and 6" up and down and it really is "good enough" Reach back snap the lift arms and you are done. Don"t even have to get off the tractor.
The only reason I have three point for my WD-45 is because I cannot afford one of the few snap coupler blades that are floating around out there. It spends more time laying in the garage than on the tractor.
I am a big fan of snap coupler, you don"t have to wrangle three hitching points into the exact correct alignment. Get the bottom one within about 8" side to side and 6" up and down and it really is "good enough" Reach back snap the lift arms and you are done. Don"t even have to get off the tractor.
The only reason I have three point for my WD-45 is because I cannot afford one of the few snap coupler blades that are floating around out there. It spends more time laying in the garage than on the tractor.
Similar threads
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.
Copyright © 1997-2024 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