WD Allis vs 300 farmall

We have a WD Allis that my grandson pulls with. Over hauling the engine now and was going to break it in doing some field work this spring. We are not going to get it done in time so that is out. I also have a 300 Farmall that I picked up on a sale that I want to try out in the field.Grandson had some high expectations of what the WD could pull. I think the 300 being heavier, 38" wheels and the TA would be better. What do you guys think? My grandson will probably see this and since he bleeds orange don't hold back on pointing out the short comings of the WD . Thanks.

I think the Allis has more 'ponies'.But due to the 300's heavier wt and larger tires the 300 would probably out pull the WD. However.Three WD/WD45s showed up at a local pull last year.They flat 'walked the dog'! I was impressed. So was everyone else!

Allis WD has a top notch engine top notch engine and pseudo live PTO is nice. The rest of the design I do not care for at all.

Really the WD is more comparable to a Farmall h but I would still prefer the Farmall h to it anyways even though the WD has more features.

Farmall 300 is way superior in may ways, true live PTO, 9 more hp, 38" rubber, better gearing, TA if it works doubles the speeds, true live hydraulics as well.

Not really much to compare...I would like to own a Farmall 300

Farmall 300 in Nebraska Test #538 pulled a max of 5650 lbs in 1st gear low TA. Tractor weighed 8255 lbs w/operator. AC WD45 in test #499 pulled a max of 5441 lbs. Tractor weighed 8005 lbs w/op. AC WD in test #440 pulled 4304 lbs. Tractor weighed 6313 lbs w/op.

My money would be on the 300 due to larger wheels/tires and TA. But, I've seen Allis WCs outpull Olivers.

Put the same size mounted plow behind each one and then see what one walks the dog. I guess that's why when growing up dad had a WD and 400.

All you people touting the WD45 hp numbers and specs need to go back and reread the Original Post again. It said "WD". No where in the OP did it say WD45. A WD is around 30 hp where a Farmall 300 is around 39 hp.

Sure a WD can be hopped up but so can a 300. Stock to stock there is no comparison.

And if anyone wants to slam the door closed on this comparison then lets discuss some operator ergonomics and comfort. The Farmall 300 has some comfort. The WD has absolutely NONE.

(quoted from post at 12:08:42 04/18/15) All you people touting the WD45 hp numbers and specs need to go back and reread the Original Post again. It said "WD". No where in the OP did it say WD45. A WD is around 30 hp where a Farmall 300 is around 39 hp.

Sure a WD can be hopped up but so can a 300. Stock to stock there is no comparison.

And if anyone wants to slam the door closed on this comparison then lets discuss some operator ergonomics and comfort. The Farmall 300 has some comfort. The WD has absolutely NONE.

Click to expand...

Wel if you really want to get picky my wd is getting a 45 crank oversize pistons, wider tires and cam work. The Farmall will be staying stock as far as I know at this point.

As for weight lets say they are both in the 4500 to 5000 pound weight class for pulling. The torque on the 300 works as well.


As for comfort the only thing I like about the 300 is the seat in the middle. The offset seat on the allis bugs me a little bit otherwise Its a toss up for me, other than the clutch being on the stiff side on the 300, and yes I do like the torque on the 300

Actually, the stock WD produced about 32.5 HP and pulled about 4300 lbs. The stock Farmall 300 produced about 36 HP and pulled about 4800 lbs.

Pretty comparable.

You doubt? Refer to NE tests 440 (1950) and 538 (1955). Note: In 1955, the WD hac been out of production for about three years, having been replaced by the 45.

Few cared about creature comforts in the early 1950s and the term ergonomics was unknown to all or nearly all.

What was important was cost and the WD was considerably less expensive than the 300, which is why AC sold far more WDs than International sold 300s. Though not certain, I expect that in 1955 one could buy a WD45 for less than one could buy a 300, which is why AC sold more WD45s than Internationsl sold 300s.

Frankly, I have no dog in this fight so do not care, but history is history.

Dean

(quoted from post at 12:19:35 04/18/15)

(quoted from post at 12:08:42 04/18/15) All you people touting the WD45 hp numbers and specs need to go back and reread the Original Post again. It said "WD". No where in the OP did it say WD45. A WD is around 30 hp where a Farmall 300 is around 39 hp.

Sure a WD can be hopped up but so can a 300. Stock to stock there is no comparison.

And if anyone wants to slam the door closed on this comparison then lets discuss some operator ergonomics and comfort. The Farmall 300 has some comfort. The WD has absolutely NONE.

Click to expand...

Wel if you really want to get picky my wd is getting a 45 crank oversize pistons, wider tires and cam work. The Farmall will be staying stock as far as I know at this point.

As for weight lets say they are both in the 4500 to 5000 pound weight class for pulling. The torque on the 300 works as well.


As for comfort the only thing I like about the 300 is the seat in the middle. The offset seat on the allis bugs me a little bit otherwise Its a toss up for me, other than the clutch being on the stiff side on the 300, and yes I do like the torque on the 300

Click to expand...

Iam the grandson by the way

Shall we say ..."In Your Opinion"..??

I find them perfectly comfortable, Compact and Superior (Pound-for-Pound)...no matter what the HP is..

Ron..

Okay then. make sure after all the moldboard plowing is done that each tractor gets a disc hooked to it. See which operator can still stand upright and walk at the end of the day after a 8 to 10 hour day of discing a plowed field and who got more ground disc'ed up in the process too.

Although it sounds like like I am bashing the Allis I actually like the motors even wanted a WD or a WD45 for my piddle patch collection myself (I truly loves those old motors and their responsive governors and distinct sound). Found a very late WD with the newer improved style WD45 rear end close to my house for dirt cheap. I did not find it comfortable at all. My wife refused to even take it for a test drive after frowning it over. I did not buy it due to its total lack of comfort. That sealed the deal as I need the wife to tedd and rake with any tractor I own. Wife will willing drive any of my other old clunkers Farmall h, Farmall M, John Deere A, Case DC, but prefers her 850 Ford.

My uncle had a WD45 back in the day too and he always complained how it beat him up. I ran the tractor a little as a young kid course I was thrilled for the opportunity alone. That tractor did not stay around very long due to that. Believe it got traded of on a John Deere G with 3 point and then the G was later traded on a JD 720 diesel.

And you are right Allis sold lots of em cause they were cheaper than everything else at the time and for that reason alone. However, their greatness is truly reflected in today's resale value which is not all that great at all. I will say a WD are a bargain for their capability though, but still not better than a Farmall 300 and no I do not own a Farmall 300 but wish I did. A WD45 is a real bargain for what it can do and might put up a closer fight.

You get out and start disking with both tractors putting them under a strain and the 300 will be overheating doing the same thing as the WD and the 300 will need overhauling long before the WD.Plus Farmalls of that era were famous for trans problems.

Neither one the 300 or the WD will win any comfort ride contest the difference is all WDs had fenders to catch you and 95% of the 300 Farmalls I've seen didn't.

Only the first models of the farmall 460 and 560 had tranny/rearend problems.

I have seen several of them in "pulls" and they do very well, however in the field, I do not think that they would hold a candle to a 300...

BUT! I am a Farmall guy!

I think that:

The WD/WD45's are just kind of funny looking. HATE the seat, HORRIBLE room for a 6'5 guy (H/M/300/400 have lots of room...) Controls are kind of hard to reach, and the tractors are kind of "wobbly"

I would own a 300 in a heart beat, just cause!

The only way you will get an unbiased, true answer, is if you put them head to head and see who can do what! Bryce

As someone who owns both a WD and a 300, I feel somewhat qualified to answer this question. I will start off by saying I haven't run the WD as much, since I haven't had it as long. Also, I'm a Farmall guy, so I'm a little biased.

The 300 has power steering, the WD, not so much. The 300 has a true live PTO, the WD, not so much. The 300 has good traction and ground clearance because of the 38" rims, the WD, not so much. The 300 has 10 forward speeds, the WD has 4. The 300 has around 38 HP, the WD has around 32. The 300 has multiple sets of hydraulic outlets, can't say that about the WD either.

Personally, I like both tractors. The 300 is better for running my haybine and baler because of the extra HP and live PTO. The WD makes a nice rake tractor and chore tractor. I like the WD in the woods because of its smaller footprint and lower center of gravity. As far as pulling goes, I can not say from experience, but I would imagine the 300 would be a little better. As far as use goes, I definitely like the 300 better. The controls are easier to reach, the power steering is nice, and it is easier to get on and off of. Just my bit of free advice.

Back in the '70s my uncle had an 80 acre 'hobby farm' in the clay hills along Pope Creek in West-Central Illinois and he had two WD-45s, a WF & a NF. Both of them had what he called a 'D17 kit' in them. There was still an AC dealership in Alexis at the time and they had dynoed them at 54 (WF) and 56hp (NF). I was doing a lot of the plowing and discing at the time and they both pulled a mounted AC 3-14 plow in 3rd, nearly against the governor. We used the WF with duals (kept the spinning down) when discing. The thing is I don't remember my back being sore from the seating position but it kills me now (40 years later) and that's from minutes, not days of 10-12 hours in the field so I no longer own an AC but, it was fun while it lasted! :lol:

Sooo, what, pray tell, does pulling a sled 300 feet have to do with a 10 hour day discing a field. No where, I mean, NO WHERE, in the original posting was even a hint given to any intent whatsoever to go out discing all day long. YOU were the guy who brought that up. Now, with your last post, you're trying to do a verbal dogpaddle back to shore. Didn't it occur to you that when, in the original post, they stated they were intending the tractor to be used for pulling, and that they were overhauling the engine for that purpose, that just maybe they were going to upgrade the engine to WD-45 specs, or maybe even Gleaner specs? That's the first thing I thought of. Why wouldn't they? Sooo, you can harp about "ergonomics" all you want but please do it in a posting somewhere else. They never asked about comfort and why would they for a 300 foot ride?

If the governor hits on a wd like it does on a c, you'll hate the wd in adverse traction conditions.

(quoted from post at 14:53:56 04/19/15) Sooo, what, pray tell, does pulling a sled 300 feet have to do with a 10 hour day discing a field. No where, I mean, NO WHERE, in the original posting was even a hint given to any intent whatsoever to go out discing all day long. YOU were the guy who brought that up. Now, with your last post, you're trying to do a verbal dogpaddle back to shore. Didn't it occur to you that when, in the original post, they stated they were intending the tractor to be used for pulling, and that they were overhauling the engine for that purpose, that just maybe they were going to upgrade the engine to WD-45 specs, or maybe even Gleaner specs? That's the first thing I thought of. Why wouldn't they? Sooo, you can harp about "ergonomics" all you want but please do it in a posting somewhere else. They never asked about comfort and why would they for a 300 foot ride?

Click to expand...

Ah make sure you go back and reread the 2nd sentence of the OP where fieldwork is specifically mentioned. Also read the last sentence. The last sentence was asking for shortcoming jibs and that is exactly what this thread has turned into so the OP actually got what he wanted even if you can not handle reading it. If the thread was only related to pulling then it should have been posted in the external_link period as that is what that forum is for.

Replys should be given in the information posted in the OP as well as any follow up replys by the OP. Assumptions by me a replier should not be made. In short the OP did not ask how a WD with a souped up engine, custom cam, built to WD45, D17 specs, or even gleaner combine specs would fare on a 300' track pull compared to a stock Farmall 300 now did he in the OP?

I stand behind everything I have written in my posts. I will post my opinion as I please as this is still a free forum and that is what the OP asked for. You are free to read or not read them either way (I could care less).

Did anyone see the most uncomfortable riding tractor thread? Multiple posts in there on the WD and WD45 and their lack of comfort and none were by me.

(quoted from post at 14:53:56 04/19/15) Sooo, what, pray tell, does pulling a sled 300 feet have to do with a 10 hour day discing a field. No where, I mean, NO WHERE, in the original posting was even a hint given to any intent whatsoever to go out discing all day long. YOU were the guy who brought that up. Now, with your last post, you're trying to do a verbal dogpaddle back to shore. Didn't it occur to you that when, in the original post, they stated they were intending the tractor to be used for pulling, and that they were overhauling the engine for that purpose, that just maybe they were going to upgrade the engine to WD-45 specs, or maybe even Gleaner specs? That's the first thing I thought of. Why wouldn't they? Sooo, you can harp about "ergonomics" all you want but please do it in a posting somewhere else. They never asked about comfort and why would they for a 300 foot ride?

Click to expand...

Ah make sure you go back and reread the 2nd sentence of the OP where fieldwork is specifically mentioned. Also read the last sentence. The last sentence was asking for shortcoming jibs and that is exactly what this thread has turned into so the OP actually got what he wanted even if you can not handle reading it. If the thread was only related to pulling then it should have been posted in the external_link period as that is what that forum is for.

Replys should be given in the information posted in the OP as well as any follow up replys by the OP. Assumptions by me a replier should not be made. In short the OP did not ask how a WD with a souped up engine, custom cam, built to WD45, D17 specs, or even gleaner combine specs would fare on a 300' track pull compared to a stock Farmall 300 now did he in the OP? Now the grandson did eventy chime in with some of that info.

I stand behind everything I have written in my posts. I will post my opinion as I please as this is still a free forum and that is what the OP asked for. You are free to read or not read them either way (I could care less).

Did anyone see the most uncomfortable riding tractor thread? Multiple posts in there on the WD and WD45 and their lack of comfort and none were by me.

Ah make sure you go back and reread the 2nd sentence of the OP where fieldwork is specifically mentioned. Also read the last sentence. The last sentence was asking for shortcoming jibs and that is exactly what this thread has turned into so the OP actually got what he wanted even if some can not handle reading it. If the thread was only related to pulling then it should have been posted in the pulling portion period as that is what that forum is for.

Replys should be given in the information posted in the OP as well as any follow up replys by the OP. In short the OP did not ask how a WD with a souped up engine, custom cam, built to WD45, D17 specs, or even gleaner combine specs would fare on a 300' track pull compared to a stock Farmall 300 now did he in the OP? Now the grandson did eventually chime in with some of that info.

I stand behind everything I have written in my posts. I will post my opinion as I please as this is still a free forum and that is what the OP asked for. You are free to read or not read them either way (I could care less).

Did anyone see the most uncomfortable riding tractor thread? Multiple posts in there on the WD and WD45 and their lack of comfort and none were by me.

Looks like Grandpa (the OP) ruffled more feathers than just his grandsons with this thread...

(quoted from post at 09:02:10 04/19/15) Ah make sure you go back and reread the 2nd sentence of the OP where fieldwork is specifically mentioned. Also read the last sentence. The last sentence was asking for shortcoming jibs and that is exactly what this thread has turned into so the OP actually got what he wanted even if some can not handle reading it. If the thread was only related to pulling then it should have been posted in the pulling portion period as that is what that forum is for.

Replys should be given in the information posted in the OP as well as any follow up replys by the OP. In short the OP did not ask how a WD with a souped up engine, custom cam, built to WD45, D17 specs, or even gleaner combine specs would fare on a 300' track pull compared to a stock Farmall 300 now did he in the OP? Now the grandson did eventually chime in with some of that info.


I stand behind everything I have written in my posts. I will post my opinion as I please as this is still a free forum and that is what the OP asked for. You are free to read or not read them either way (I could care less).

Did anyone see the most uncomfortable riding tractor thread? Multiple posts in there on the WD and WD45 and their lack of comfort and none were by me.

Looks like Grandpa (the OP) ruffled more feathers than just his grandsons with this thread...

Click to expand...

Both of these tractors will be used for discing. The 300 to work the carbon out of it from its lazy life, and the wd to get broken in after rebuilding. I am not sure how long this will be as there are other tractors that need the carbon worked out this year as well on the disc