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

Shop Now

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

Tractor Talk Discussion Forum

Why Not An IH 2+2 ?

Welcome Guest, Log in or Register
Author 
davpal

11-30-2006 23:44:18




Report to Moderator

I have always wondered why I don't see more of the IH guys who are interested in buying an older international tractor go for the 2+2 . I see a ton of people buying 1066, 1086, 966, 1206 etc but hardly anybody picks up these 4wd beasts. I considered buying one a few years ago but actually ended up with a white. I actually saw a mint condition 2+2 at an auction about a year after I bought mine. Just wonder why more of them don't get used a lot more. I could see not buying one new because you were looking at 50-$70,000 dollars way back then but it is different now and they can be had for $4000 to about $10,000 for a really nice one. They are basically the same as the bigger IH two wheel drives but with the added benefit of being 4wd which helps a lot in wet falls and springs where a 2wd tractor is limited. They remind me of a hopped up MFWD tractor at a fraction of the price. I guess if they are terribly problematic I can understand but you would think they would be almost as good as the two wheel drive versions with a whole lot more to offer for the price. I would think one of these set up with a oversized set of radial single tires all around would be about unstoppable and a great no till planting or strip till pulling, grain cart pulling, manure tanker puller. Many of you out there still using them? Just seems like all the IH guys would want them including Allen in NE. Later people.

[Log in to Reply]   [No Email]
Amo in nebraska

12-01-2006 17:22:31




Report to Moderator
 Re: Why Not An IH 2+2 ? in reply to davpal, 11-30-2006 23:44:18  
I drive one very fall pulling a silage wagon. Needless to say staying on the rows isnt that important but, he likes me to drive it becasue the nose is so long hes afraid sometimes of getting side swiped in the chopper tractor if someone isnt use to it. Also you needed to make and extra round around the field for endrows. Unless you wanted to take the fence out on every turn!



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Moline_guy

12-01-2006 11:43:59




Report to Moderator
 Re: Why Not An IH 2+2 ? in reply to davpal, 11-30-2006 23:44:18  
Everyone likes to complain about these, but with every older tractor they have their place. Neigbors use it in front of a 90 foot pull type sprayer and it walks over water, uses it on the silage cutter with no problem, and on the mixer wagon in the winter time, goes through feedlots rain or shine. I don't think they were made for long hard days doing tillage but neither is our 4-150. If you need traction some horsepower and get places a MFWD can go at 1/8 the price they work just fine. My 2 cents.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Glenn FitzGerald

12-01-2006 09:50:47




Report to Moderator
 Re: Why Not An IH 2+2 ? in reply to davpal, 11-30-2006 23:44:18  
I guess I'm in the minority here. I can't speak in specifics, but my brother had the biggest of the three in the first series. It had bald 20.8x38 radials on it. He liked it VERY well. He used it for tillage, harvest, and the manure spreader in the wet months. He'd still have it today but it unexpectedly spun a bearing and with 4 worn out tires and all he thought it was not worth fixing. However he has often wished he'd kept/overhauled it. For a "big" articulated tractor he found it quite handy.

Glenn F.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
glennster

12-01-2006 09:33:31




Report to Moderator
 Re: Why Not An IH 2+2 ? in reply to davpal, 11-30-2006 23:44:18  
i read somewhere the 2+2 was one of the downfalls of i-h. apparently, the machinery used to build the tractor was out dated and pretty much wore out. machine work was out of tolerance causeing premature failure. the tractor itself, design wise was good, but the craftmanship left something to be desired. similarly, like the 560 when it came out, the rear end was not strong enough for the power the tractor developed and caused major recalls.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
jhill52

12-01-2006 06:37:02




Report to Moderator
 Re: Why Not An IH 2+2 ? in reply to davpal, 11-30-2006 23:44:18  
Some friends of mine bought 2. They thought they woud be good for cultivating-not. When you made a steering correcting the back would move and take out several feet of row. They ended up setting most of the time. Everyone around here called them Anteaters.

Jerry



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Allan In NE

12-01-2006 04:12:21




Report to Moderator
 Re: Why Not An IH 2+2 ? in reply to davpal, 11-30-2006 23:44:18  
Mornin' Dave,

Hugh MacKay pretty much summed it all up. They are a total waste of red paint; about like those V8s were back in the day.

Watched my neighbor fight one of 'em one time. Just wasn't good for anything. He kept it about 3 months and sent 'er down the road.

Total boon-doggle. Large, expensive door stop. That is, if you can keep it out of the shop long enough.

Have never, ever heard a good word about a 2+2.

Allan

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
migraine

12-01-2006 11:39:01




Report to Moderator
 Re: Why Not An IH 2+2 ? in reply to Allan In NE, 12-01-2006 04:12:21  
Hey wait a minute! Those v-8's were not a waste of red paint. If guys would use them as they were intended and not try to turn them into monsters they were a very functional tractor with good life. After all, they have the same drive train and rear end as the heavy 66 series and that certainly is good. I had two neighbors who put a lot of hours on them and one still is using his 1468 today. I wouldn't sell mine at any price, well maybe for some price I guess. The 2+2 yes, was not I.H.'s best effort. Migraine

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Hugh MacKay

12-01-2006 02:33:17




Report to Moderator
 Re: Why Not An IH 2+2 ? in reply to davpal, 11-30-2006 23:44:18  
davpal: I tried one the 3588 at a demonstration back when they were new. At the time I already owned a 1066 with duals, plus I owned a John Deere 540A forestry skidder which I used a lot for tillage. Basically that 540A, much the same chassis as 7520 with less hp and it had 8 speed power shift.

I came away from that 3588 quite disappointed. It gave you the feeling you were pulling a tillage tool the 1066 could handle, and doing it with a locomotive. Much too clumsey in my opinion. With articulated tractors, if the operator is seated on the front half you actually have a much better view, and very much smoother ride. I found the 3588 very rough if front wheels encountered rough teraine. When you start to turn right, the back half actually goes left for a brief period, enough so you loose complete view of the implement over your right shoulder. This is very much improved on machines with operator up front.

A friend of mine bought a 3388 for use on his dairy farm. I stopped in one day when they were doing corn silage. I had rained a soil was greasy on top but not soft. They were actually using Allis 200 on the harvester and had 3388 on silo blower. They told me that under greasy conditions it was hard to keep harvester on row while pulling wagons using the 3388. I think it would be a case of not being able to make correction as quickly as you could with conventional 2 wheel drive tractor. I have a feeling all articulated tractors are harder on pto shafts than conventional tractors.

History also tells us that pivot point on 2+2 was a disaster. 2,000 to 3,000 hours and you were replacing all pivots including steering cylinders. My 540A Deere had new bushings in the main pivot at 9,000 hours, and at 13,000 hours the steering cylinders had never been touched. Every winter my Deere got sent off to the bush, and hammered over granite rocks. Much harder lifesyle than farming, although I will admit dust was not a factor in winter. Regular greasing should keep dust out of those pivots.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Brad in WI

12-01-2006 01:50:40




Report to Moderator
 Re: Why Not An IH 2+2 ? in reply to davpal, 11-30-2006 23:44:18  
A friend has a 3788 2+2 and an articulating JD. I hate to say it but the JD is a nicer unit to manuever around the yard and getting to and from the fields. The 2+2 is just to long of a nose. The best of all is their CIH MFWD though.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Robert in TN

12-01-2006 00:21:30




Report to Moderator
 Re: Why Not An IH 2+2 ? in reply to davpal, 11-30-2006 23:44:18  
My uncle had a 3588 2+2 and loved it. ut, it was a maintenance nightmare. The motor was solid but the piviot point and all that is connected there gave him lots of problems. He had the 20.8 X 38 Rice & Cane radials on it and it never got stuck. It was used on a sugar cane farm and did all the heavy work. Then, he got his first MFWD tractor and liked it better than the 2+2. He sold it when he bought his next MFWD.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Don-Wi

11-30-2006 23:51:01




Report to Moderator
 Re: Why Not An IH 2+2 ? in reply to davpal, 11-30-2006 23:44:18  
I'm not an IH guy, but one of our neighbors had one, forget the model. They used to use it for everything. It pulled the chopper till they gto an older JD sp unit, and they did all of theire heavy tillage with it too. About 3-4 years ago they must've traded it off for another Case MFWD, as now they've got 2, one that has a loader frame on it but I've yet to actually see the arms mounted on it, and the other one they now use with duals on the back pulling the heavy tillage.

I've heard more bad than good about those in our area, plulling themselves in half whe the center pivot pin gets worn, etc. etc..... I guess if a guy would keep up on the maint. they may not be too bad, but most would rather have a regular MFWD tractor with the same HP. Those old 2+2's sure are long, and probably a little clumsy in smaller feilds.

Donovan from Wisconsin

[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