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

806, 966, 4020 comparisons

Welcome Guest, Log in or Register
Author 
Tom3

01-05-2007 08:27:05




Report to Moderator

Dear Allan,
You are an inspiration to everyone on the board.
How does the 806 compare to the 966 as to power, handling, durability and reliability? How do these tractors compare to the late console 4020 using the same criteria?




[Log in to Reply]   [No Email]
two mile

01-05-2007 14:38:03




Report to Moderator
 Re: 806, 966, 4020 comparisons in reply to Tom3, 01-05-2007 08:27:05  
Just for fun.... The red ones are IH, The green one is JD, Duh!



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Rob Hartman

01-05-2007 14:32:39




Report to Moderator
 Re: 806, 966, 4020 comparisons in reply to Tom3, 01-05-2007 08:27:05  
I think the 856's used 2 differnt engines, an IH and a German Diesel. It seems the German was the one you wanted. They were a horse and a half and with the proper care would run well over 10,000 hrs. Fuel useage I don't know, I can tell you that I have been on a lot of IH and Deere's and the 856 German will out pull a 4020 hands down. Not to hurt anybodies feelings but I am a Deere fan at heart and it takes alot of guts to admit an IH outpulling a Deere, I've ran them both.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Brian in MO

01-05-2007 18:53:10




Report to Moderator
 Re: 806, 966, 4020 comparisons in reply to Rob Hartman, 01-05-2007 14:32:39  
Rob I think your confusing an 856 with a 706 they had a 282 diesel (IH American made) in the early models and the later one had a 310 diesel (IH German made) both were IH engines but one was made in their Germany Plant. The 856 only had a 407 non-turbo diesel. At least as far as I know.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
JDB

01-05-2007 11:20:38




Report to Moderator
 Re: 806, 966, 4020 comparisons in reply to Tom3, 01-05-2007 08:27:05  
806 and 4020 are both good tractors
Have ran 4020's and think they are more comfortable and easier to operate.
Grew up on an turbo charged 806. I always thought it would pull every bit as hard as the neighbors 1066 that I also spent a lot of time on.



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

01-05-2007 11:29:07




Report to Moderator
 Re: 806, 966, 4020 comparisons in reply to JDB, 01-05-2007 11:20:38  
Yep, I hear ya.

With a turbo, that 806 is for all intents and purposes a 1206. What? Somewhere in the neighborhood of 120 horse?

Allan



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
JDB

01-05-2007 14:08:20




Report to Moderator
 Re: 806, 966, 4020 comparisons in reply to Allan In NE, 01-05-2007 11:29:07  
Something around that they say



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
jdemaris

01-05-2007 10:40:37




Report to Moderator
 Re: 806, 966, 4020 comparisons in reply to Tom3, 01-05-2007 08:27:05  
When I was working for a Deere dealer, we had an IH dealer nearby. They were our biggest competitor. At that time 4020s were often a farm's main tractor - unless they were IH people. I'd heard the 856 most often - being compared to Deere's 4020. At the local county fair - they both were favorities for home-grown, off the farm pullers. Mid-70s the IH place went out of business. My boss hired their top mechanic and also bought some used IH tractor inventory. It was kind of funny at first - the new IH mechanic kind of had a attitude about Deere stuff - just as we did with anything that wasn't Deere green or yellow. Ended up, he was one of best mechanics I've ever met - and he also came to repect - actually like the Deeres. Not more than IH, but close enough. He said one day - somewhat reluctantly that the 4020 was at least an equal to the 856. High praise coming from him. My only complaint with working on the IHs was the small learning curve - after years of Deere experience. We bought and sold quite a few used IHs, but most got worked on by our resident IH man. I will say this though. I worked on many 4020s we rebuilt and then ran on the dyno for a full day - light load, med. load, full load, etc. Also did the same with 856s. The 856s under the same tests/dyno runs used less fuel than the 4020s. Not a tremendous amount, certainly enough to notice. Now, out in the field? I don't know.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
nickg

01-05-2007 09:55:18




Report to Moderator
 Re: 806, 966, 4020 comparisons in reply to Tom3, 01-05-2007 08:27:05  
I have a 67 4020 and a 66 farmall 806. Both are diesel and both are about in the same power and fuel consumption range. I think that the 4020 handles a little better and I like the steering and hydrualics better.When IH came out with the 806 it was based on competing with the 4020.



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

01-05-2007 08:48:55




Report to Moderator
 Re: 806, 966, 4020 comparisons in reply to Tom3, 01-05-2007 08:27:05  
Oh, I doubt that Tom,

I'm just an old guy that makes a lot of mistakes in real time and not afraid to show it publically. :>)

806 and 856 are "pretty much" the same darned tractor with a few minor changes.

The 966 is a generation removed and a larger tractor.

Don't wanna comment on the 4020 as I've never owned one. People sure like 'em tho so they must be a pretty darned good outfit. Last John Deeres that I was around were the 50s, 60s, and the 70. Couldn't stop 'em with a mallet.

However, they will all outlast us here. :>)

Allan

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
New-Gen

01-05-2007 09:51:42




Report to Moderator
 Re: 806, 966, 4020 comparisons in reply to Allan In NE, 01-05-2007 08:48:55  
When I was growing up one of our neighbors had an 806 and 856, both diesels, both bought new, both well maintined and cared for. I recall him having a lot of trouble with the 856, to tht point that when the 1066"s came out he traded it on one, with the remark that if it would have been the first IH he"d owned it would have been the last....The 806 and 1066 are still on the farm,still pretty much mainstay tractors. I don"t know what all went wrong with the 856....or know much about them in general...did he just happen to get a lemon?

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

01-05-2007 11:13:48




Report to Moderator
 Re: 806, 966, 4020 comparisons in reply to New-Gen, 01-05-2007 09:51:42  
Boy, I never even knew tractors broke down until I started buying these used ones. Thought that they just ran forever. :>)

Usually, you can easily get a good 3,000 hours out of one before you have to start "fixin'". Sure never heard of a bad one out of the box.

Allan



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
RustyFarmall

01-05-2007 08:39:32




Report to Moderator
 Re: 806, 966, 4020 comparisons in reply to Tom3, 01-05-2007 08:27:05  
I used to own a 1969 856, and dad had a 1970 4020. We often worked them in the field side by side pulling 13' chisel plows. The 2 tractors compared favorably to each other. In tough ground, they both lugged down a bit, and in easier going they both kept up. One could never outrun the other.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Matt Smith

01-05-2007 08:58:50




Report to Moderator
 Re: 806, 966, 4020 comparisons in reply to RustyFarmall, 01-05-2007 08:39:32  
What about fuel numbers? Did they use about the same amount of fuel or what?



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
RustyFarmall

01-05-2007 11:02:58




Report to Moderator
 Re: 806, 966, 4020 comparisons in reply to Matt Smith, 01-05-2007 08:58:50  
Sometimes the deere would use a bit more fuel, sometimes it was the IH that used a bit more. Not enough difference to even talk about.



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

01-05-2007 11:19:55




Report to Moderator
 Re: 806, 966, 4020 comparisons in reply to RustyFarmall, 01-05-2007 11:02:58  
Don't know about you, but I don't even pay any attention to fuel economy on a tractor. Just takes what it takes.

Well, unless it is a gasser, then all bets are off! :>)

Allan



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
RustyFarmall

01-05-2007 11:57:56




Report to Moderator
 Re: 806, 966, 4020 comparisons in reply to Allan In NE, 01-05-2007 11:19:55  
That's pretty much my opinion also. I kinda feel that the manufacturer has already done everything possible to make the tractor as fuel efficient as possible and still perform as expected.



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

01-05-2007 08:57:17




Report to Moderator
 Re: 806, 966, 4020 comparisons in reply to RustyFarmall, 01-05-2007 08:39:32  
Yeah,

That's probably about right. My old 966 with a huffer could hang right with a 5020.

Allan



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
russ hamm

01-05-2007 09:46:21




Report to Moderator
 Re: 806, 966, 4020 comparisons in reply to Allan In NE, 01-05-2007 08:57:17  
the 806 is my favorite. i think fuel wise, the 40-20 could use a little more by the book, but like allan, i never used one and folks tell me they were good.



[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