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

Farmall & IHC Tractors Discussion Forum
:

For Hugh MacKay

Welcome Guest, Log in or Register
Author 
BOBM25

05-23-2007 09:23:25




Report to Moderator

In regards to the earlier post, by "ahead of its time" I was referring to to the torque amplifier. Although other manufacturers may have had more gears, the ability to shift on the go was a major advancement. The SMTA was the first tractor to come out with the TA, an option which remained on IH tractors until the company's merger and complete revamping of its product line. Add to the fact that IH had the foresight to make the tractor easily adaptable to the fast-hitch system and in my opinion the MTA was impressive for its time. This is my opinion.

I am fully aware that tone of voice can easily be mistrued from simple text, but I respectfully asure you, sir, that I "know my way around" farming and tractors and most things agriculture related, as the profession has been in my family for generations. I feel I am a very respectful young man, but I will not allow myself to be "talked down to". I welcome your and everyone else's knowledge and insight on this board. If I interpreted your reply wrong I apologize.

[Log in to Reply]   [No Email]
Diana JH

05-25-2007 02:58:21




Report to Moderator
 Re: For Hugh MacKay in reply to BOBM25, 05-23-2007 09:23:25  
For anyone interested, here's the post:

http://www.ytmag.com/cgi-bin/viewit.cgi?bd=farmall&th=216994 and for Bob, you need a bit of an attitude adjustment! You kind of sound like my brother, knows all-and won't be told otherwise, never would admit there could be an ounce of truth to what someone else has to say, and the world is only in black and white. The day you can take other peoples opinions like a man is the day day you mature. I see you aren't there yet.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
BOBM25

05-25-2007 09:32:31




Report to Moderator
 Re: For Hugh MacKay in reply to Diana JH, 05-25-2007 02:58:21  
I doubt you will come back this many pages to read this, but I'm putting it in anyway. There was truth to what Hugh said. Oliver and Cockshutt did have IPTO and 6 cylinder engines, did it make them better tractors, maybe or maybe not. Thats arguable. I really don't know how this has turned into an Oliver/IH debate. I thought it was about your favorite tractor. The TA was an advancement. A fairly major one at that. It would be many years before any manufacturer would come out with another on-the-fly shifting setup.

Do not insult my character. Do not call me names. Name calling is immature. I did not call anyone names. I do not think I "know it all". There is alot of stuff I don't know about. What I do know is "Don't talk fast hitch to me" and "I'll now go one step further" are rude remarks and unnecessary.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Diana JH

05-25-2007 13:07:44




Report to Moderator
 Re: For Hugh MacKay in reply to BOBM25, 05-25-2007 09:32:31  
The post WAS about what your favorite tractor was. It doesn't also say "and tell us why other tractors are bad".

YOU insulted Hughs character. You also insulted other people by saying their tractors were bad, and with a snotty attitude, just as you began the last reply...with a snotty attitude. As for the rest of your post...if the shoe fits, wear it.



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

05-23-2007 18:00:38




Report to Moderator
 Re: For Hugh MacKay in reply to BOBM25, 05-23-2007 09:23:25  
Bob: Wardner is correct you might have been polite enough to link this to the previous thread. Since your not, I'll speak my peace.

I said the Super MTA was not as you claimed. "ahead of it's time" my feeling was IH were about 8 years behind the time. Both the Cockshutt 40 and Oliver 88 had 6 cylinder engines, both Cockshutt and Oliver had Independant PTO by 1946. Cockshutt had live dual action hydraulics by 1946. Not sure when Oliver go the live hydraulics. Both Cockshutt and Oliver had a much better range of gears at working speeds. I also said that SMTA could not hold a candle to Cockshutt 40 or Oliver 88 either at the drawbar or on the pto shaft. I stand by that and if that creates a problem for you, so be it.

I'll now go one step further, and by the way I clocked over 75,000 hours on 5 TA equipped tractors. TA did not give one a wider range of working speeds, it did little more than reduce 4th to 3rd and 3rd to 2nd. We waited for 8 years for a TA that would hold back on the low side. Cockshutt and Oliver both had durable IPTO from day one in 1946. I had a 300, 560 and 504, let me assure you IH IPTO was not durable until the introduction of 06 tractors.

Don't talk fast hitch to me, I cut two of them up for scrap before the tractors were 10 years old. By the way Harry Ferguson won the hitch war before IH sold it's first fast hitch on the Super C.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Steven@AZ

05-24-2007 06:50:30




Report to Moderator
 Re: For Hugh MacKay in reply to Hugh MacKay, 05-23-2007 18:00:38  
I'm with Hugh on this one - Oliver had a far superior tractor to IH in the late 40's and early 50's... IH didn't get ahead until the 56 series in my opinion, and even then they were behind JD.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
BOBM25

05-24-2007 04:55:41




Report to Moderator
 Re: For Hugh MacKay in reply to Hugh MacKay, 05-23-2007 18:00:38  
75000 hrs on 5 tractors. Thats 15000 per tractor, average! Your fast hitches probably were wore out, along with everything else.

I am deeply sorry to all those whom I may have offended with MY choice of MY favorite farmalls. Apparently both of them were the worst 2 tractors ever produced by International Harvester.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
billonthefarm

05-23-2007 18:55:25




Report to Moderator
 Re: For Hugh MacKay in reply to Hugh MacKay, 05-23-2007 18:00:38  
YOU clocked 75,000 hrs on those tractors. You know of course that means that YOU spent 8 hrs a day 365 days a year for 25 plus years on those tractors. I was trying to remember how many hours you put on that 1066 you talk about. Wasnt that like 30,000 or something. You think a mta was behind the times, what about that 1066? bill



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

05-23-2007 19:52:57




Report to Moderator
 Re: For Hugh MacKay in reply to billonthefarm, 05-23-2007 18:55:25  
Bill: I should have said my farm operators clocked 75,000 hours. I don't have a great opinion of 66 series tractors, great tractors, but inefficient. My 560 and 656 diesels turned out far more economical hp.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
randy hall

05-23-2007 10:02:21




Report to Moderator
 Re: For Hugh MacKay in reply to BOBM25, 05-23-2007 09:23:25  
bob, i don't know how you can consider the ta an ahead of it's time advancment. it is the same as a model t ford transmission. the fast hitch was a very good advancment in hitching systems. i always thought that it was the best system for four plow or less sized equipment. just my opinions, going out to bale hay now, randy



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
chadd

05-23-2007 15:26:09




Report to Moderator
 Re: For Hugh MacKay in reply to randy hall, 05-23-2007 10:02:21  
The design was old, but technically, its application to a tractor could probably be considered an "advancement." In the following years, other manufacturers came up with their own versions, so it must have been something worth having. It certainly seems to help, because in the local competitions, I have yet to see a stock Super M that out-pulls a stock Super M-TA.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Wardner

05-23-2007 09:55:17




Report to Moderator
 Re: For Hugh MacKay in reply to BOBM25, 05-23-2007 09:23:25  
Anytime a rebuttal or comment is made on a previous post, you should link to that thread. I went back a couple of pages and couldn't find Hugh's contribution.

The search function does not work on recent content.



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

05-23-2007 09:59:31




Report to Moderator
 Re: For Hugh MacKay in reply to Wardner, 05-23-2007 09:55:17  
Page 3 under "What's Everyone's Favorite Tractor". :>)

Allan



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
georgeky

05-23-2007 09:58:59




Report to Moderator
 Re: For Hugh MacKay in reply to Wardner, 05-23-2007 09:55:17  
Wardner, I think he is refering to the thread about everyone's favorite tractor. Should be on page 2 or 3



[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