I would enjoy hearing thoughts and feedback regarding the Case 1070 and Allis Chalmers 200. The tractor would be used primarily as a haying tractor. We have Deere 435 and 375 round balers and a New Holland 316 square baler with PTO thrower pulling 18 and 20 foot bale thrower wagons on gently rolling land. Both are cab tractors, are in similar good condition and have not had hard work lives. Both 6 cylinder diesels made in the 1970's. I realize the Case has a little bigger engine and more HP. Is one much more preferred than the other? Thanks.
- Thread starter CamR
- Start date
Probably the Case is better for you. Most 200 Allis don't have a real independent pto. Low and high range selecter has neutral. 200 has a turbo.and will probably out work.and use less.fuel than the 1070. But I am a Allis kind of guy. I would move up and get a better Cab and a newer model of both.
fixerupper
Well-known Member
That's a tough call. The 200 has quicker steering and faster hydraulics but in my opinion the Case is more comfortable. The Case will have a little better low end grunt for part throttle work. When you let the 1070's clutch out at 1/3 throttle it will take off and go without worrying about killing it unless you are in a really tall gear. The Case is non-turbo the 20 has a turbo.
tomstractorsandtoys
Well-known Member
You can shift the hyd pto in and out of gear but if you push the foot clutch in the pto will stop. You need to go to a 7000 series AC to get fully independent pto. That would be what would keep me from the Allis as sometimes baling it is nice to back up before kicking a bale out. I have no experience with a Case so can not say good or bad. Tom
The Case would be my pick. I absolutely hated the PTO setup AC used until the 7000 series tractors. SO if your using the Square baler and want to stop the tractor to allow a slug to go through you going to have to used the HI/Lo shift lever to go into neutral. IF everything is in perfect working order you can shift to reverse with the PTO running but if you kick the tractor to neutral and want take off again they usually will grind until you use the Foot clutch that stops everything.
I bought a AC 185, the little brother of the 200. I hated that tractor on hay equipment. I kept it less than one year and traded it in. Mainly because of the PTO setup. Also drive the AC 200 and coast it down a hill in 4th gear. They would not take off pulling heavy loads in 4th lo so guys tried to speed shift them after they where rolling. This wears the shift collars out in 4th gear. Then it will jump out of gear when your not pulling it.
Another thing is the Case motor would be far superior to the 301 cu. one in the AC 200. They are not a real long life motor. 3500-4000 hours per engine overhaul is kind of normal for them.
The cab on the Case would be better too. The Case should be a little cheaper as the ACs 200 are starting to be collected.
I bought a AC 185, the little brother of the 200. I hated that tractor on hay equipment. I kept it less than one year and traded it in. Mainly because of the PTO setup. Also drive the AC 200 and coast it down a hill in 4th gear. They would not take off pulling heavy loads in 4th lo so guys tried to speed shift them after they where rolling. This wears the shift collars out in 4th gear. Then it will jump out of gear when your not pulling it.
Another thing is the Case motor would be far superior to the 301 cu. one in the AC 200. They are not a real long life motor. 3500-4000 hours per engine overhaul is kind of normal for them.
The cab on the Case would be better too. The Case should be a little cheaper as the ACs 200 are starting to be collected.
Dieseltech
Well-known Member
- Location
- Akron, Indiana
Case 1070 would be my pick. MUCH better cold starting engine than either AC 301 OR the 426..
farmer boy
Well-known Member
I would go on condition. If the 1070 is a powershift. I'd want to buy it cheap. They are expensive to rebuild if you can get parts, so typically they're parked when the PS goes out.
-
People b!tch about the Power Director on the 200, but of all the things I didn't like about the 200 (mostly related to be worn out), the hand clutch wasn't one of them. Very durable, and if you don't let it go too far once worn out, typically not terrible to rebuild. The 301 wasn't a 3500 hr engine. Cavitation was typically it's only enemy (other than the cold). If they had a filter, and it was changed on a regular basis, they would go 7000+ hrs. I think for haying, you'd never notice the difference in engine displacement, and for sure the Allis would be better on fuel. It was easily one of the most efficient tractor engine in it's day. Still respectable today. The 4 speed manual transmission is just another old gear crasher. Once you get onto it, it's not bad to shift without the clutch,(without grinding) using the PD and throttle. Check if it jumps out of any gears. Labour intensive to rebuild, and not all that cheap either.
-
People b!tch about the Power Director on the 200, but of all the things I didn't like about the 200 (mostly related to be worn out), the hand clutch wasn't one of them. Very durable, and if you don't let it go too far once worn out, typically not terrible to rebuild. The 301 wasn't a 3500 hr engine. Cavitation was typically it's only enemy (other than the cold). If they had a filter, and it was changed on a regular basis, they would go 7000+ hrs. I think for haying, you'd never notice the difference in engine displacement, and for sure the Allis would be better on fuel. It was easily one of the most efficient tractor engine in it's day. Still respectable today. The 4 speed manual transmission is just another old gear crasher. Once you get onto it, it's not bad to shift without the clutch,(without grinding) using the PD and throttle. Check if it jumps out of any gears. Labour intensive to rebuild, and not all that cheap either.
farmer boy
Well-known Member
There were 200's with manual PTO. I'm 100% certain in saying that. There are quite a few people on nnalert that have been around them.
RandyB(MI)
Well-known Member
1070 by far. These tractors are old. Which engine would you think would stand the test of time best. A 451 cube non-turbo engine with a 5" stroke making 110 hp or a 310 cube short stroke turbo screamer making 110 hp ?? Just look at the beef in the chassis castings and the 3pt arms etc. One is a throw-away tractor , the other built for the long haul.
Traditional Farmer
Well-known Member
- Location
- Virginia
Actually if you have some intelligence and take time to learn it a little the AC PTO set up is great baling.I have a lot of different brand tractors but I'd as soon round bale with the AC 185
as anything.And the 200 works the same way.Never run one of those case tractors so don't know about that.
as anything.And the 200 works the same way.Never run one of those case tractors so don't know about that.
I've run both of them. A late 200 with factory cab and hydraulic PTO is the way to go. If the 200 you are looking at has the manual PTO then the go with the Case. A 200 will start at 35 easily with a touch of the manifold heater. Case might be a little faster on the road than the AC. If you are going to run a big baler, the 200 must have 18,4x 38's on the rear. The it doesn't it will catch heavy windrows and pull them apart. I like both tractors. Most 200 had both 540 and 1000 pto's. I cannot remember if the Case does. Operate the AC, make sure it doesn't jump out of third gear going down a steep hill. Sorta expensive to fix. Good luck with your decision.
Traditional Farmer I will tell my wife you think she is stupid for hating that AC 185 tractor with it's "HAND" clutch for the PTO. LOL
Short lever with a strong detent mounted on the dash at about the end of your arm's reach, was NOT a good design. The AC 200 with it right by your right hand was better but still not great. Also in a sudden/hurried stop 90% of the time you would hit the foot clutch before the HAND clutch. If you where running the square baler you usually had a plugged up one then. Maybe if you had ALL AC tractor and never drove anything with a more modern style setup you would grab the lever first.
Short lever with a strong detent mounted on the dash at about the end of your arm's reach, was NOT a good design. The AC 200 with it right by your right hand was better but still not great. Also in a sudden/hurried stop 90% of the time you would hit the foot clutch before the HAND clutch. If you where running the square baler you usually had a plugged up one then. Maybe if you had ALL AC tractor and never drove anything with a more modern style setup you would grab the lever first.
This is an interesting discussion as I have never run either one but wondered why AC had a much greater market penetration in New York. To me it says quite a few people will accept layouts different from what is typical due to price or dealer support. AC was heavily sold in small (50-100 cows) dairy country here where they definitely had to do jobs that would be easier with independent PTO such as mowing hay, baling, or chopping forage.
farmer boy
Well-known Member
I won't be as harsh as Traditionalfarmer, but I really don't understand the hatred of the 200 gated power director. The 185 is a different matter. It's alright, but it's a heavy detent, and a good reach to get it. Once you're use to grabbing the PD handle to stop, I never find myself going for the pedal when I really need to stop. That includes being on different brand tractors, such as a Deere 4030 and a Kubota. Of the things I would change on a 200, it's certainly not the first thing I'd go after. By far, the 4 speed transmission would be first. What a POS. It's just so old. They should have added synchros to it.
-
Allis never did design their own transmission with synchros. The only decent shifting transmission they ever made was the 7000 and 8000 PS transmission.
-
Allis never did design their own transmission with synchros. The only decent shifting transmission they ever made was the 7000 and 8000 PS transmission.
There were very few 8000 series sold here due to the tough times of the 1980's but I would say that there are far more Power Director tractors here in the 7000 series than Power Shift. The local AC dealer brought out a 7045 black belly to try and it did alright on a 9 shank Glencoe. I never got to try it doing PTO work.
Always great feedback on this site. Thanks to all for the ongoing information and opinions. I appreciate them all. You cant beat the information of those with actual hands on information at the grass roots level! I will check further into the advice and things to look for, that has been given. It's great that we don't all want to own the same make model and color of vehicles and equipment. That would make things pretty mundane.
farmer boy
Well-known Member
I don't doubt you. The power director transmissions were a good transmission durability wise, but they sucked to shift. You essentially had to come to a stop to shift. Some guys could shift on the go, but if you didn't do it right, you'd break stuff, and you wouldn't try again.
Traditional Farmer
Well-known Member
- Location
- Virginia
Your YOU certainly isn't ME,like I said I have several different brand tractors I use for various jobs on the farm and each tractor is different and the big thing is
I have to THINK when running whatever tractor or what ever equipment and the AC style tractor is no more or less difficult to operate than any other.Also have a D15 and a D19 I use regularly for
various things.If you have trouble reaching the controls on a 185 you must have some stubby arms.Seems a hand clutch would be 2nd nature for someone that has run 2 cylinder
JD tractors.
I have to THINK when running whatever tractor or what ever equipment and the AC style tractor is no more or less difficult to operate than any other.Also have a D15 and a D19 I use regularly for
various things.If you have trouble reaching the controls on a 185 you must have some stubby arms.Seems a hand clutch would be 2nd nature for someone that has run 2 cylinder
JD tractors.
tractorguy2
Well-known Member
The 190 and 200 are super rare around here. Lots of 1070's though. Grandpa had 970. Was a very good tractor. Bought it new in 76 sold it in 2002. In all those years the dealer only touched it once. That was to charge the air conditioner.
Should be a good match for a baler. Knew three guys that ran 1070's on balers.
Should be a good match for a baler. Knew three guys that ran 1070's on balers.
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