TRACTOR PARTS Allis Chalmers Case & David Brown Farmall & International Ferguson Ford & New Holland John Deere Massey Ferguson Massey Harris Minneapolis Moline Oliver & Cockshutt Kubota / Yanmar

TRACTOR MANUALS

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

Farmall & IHC Tractors Discussion Forum

986 or 1086

Welcome Guest, Log in or Register

Author

RFIRB

05-25-2007 16:42:34

Report to Moderator

Looking at 986 and 1086, and would like to know which is the better of the two, and which is better on fuel.

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

RFIRB

05-26-2007 15:03:46

Report to Moderator

Re: 986 or 1086 in reply to RFIRB, 05-25-2007 16:42:34

Thanks for all the feedback fellas.The reason for that big of tractor is some jobs will harder than others so instead of having 2 tractors I was thinking of 1 medium sized tractor.

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

Pat-CT

05-26-2007 10:17:59

Report to Moderator

Re: 986 or 1086 in reply to RFIRB, 05-25-2007 16:42:34

how come i never see anyone using a 1468 ??

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

vernMN

05-26-2007 04:03:54

Report to Moderator

Re: 986 or 1086 in reply to RFIRB, 05-25-2007 16:42:34

I do not know about the 86 series, but I have a 966 that I used on a haybine and was using less than 1 1/2 gallons of fuel per hour. I use it on my 605H Vermeer round baler and it is under 2 gallons an hour. Pulling 5 x 18s plowing it goes about 4 1/2 gallons an hour.

I have been thinking also of getting a 1086.

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

Allan In NE

05-26-2007 04:33:30

Report to Moderator

Re: 986 or 1086 in reply to vernMN, 05-26-2007 04:03:54

Hi Guy,

Just a "For what it is worth", but ya might want to drive a 886/986/1086/1486 first.

I think they ride just awful; will beat you to death as compared to your 966. :>)

Allan

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

todd hamilton

05-27-2007 05:28:54

Report to Moderator

Re: 986 or 1086 in reply to Allan In NE, 05-26-2007 04:33:30

Amen - my cousin (he farms my ground with a little assistance from me) has an 886, 1066, 1466 (no cab on 1466). We pull the corn planter with 1066 and the bean planter with the 1466 (we are all no-till). I think the shorter wheel-base and smaller front axel makes the 886 ride more rough.

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

vernMN

05-26-2007 21:34:56

Report to Moderator

Re: 986 or 1086 in reply to Allan In NE, 05-26-2007 04:33:30

Plan on keeping the 966, but the 1086 I am interested in was in better shape than any 1066 or 1466 I looked at.

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

Jimmy King

05-25-2007 23:46:29

Report to Moderator

Re: 986 or 1086 in reply to RFIRB, 05-25-2007 16:42:34

I have a cousin in law that has a 986 he has used for years a few years ago he told me he got a 1086 and he was very dissapointed with it as for as pulling with the 986.

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

Brent in Texas

05-25-2007 18:28:33

Report to Moderator

Re: 986 or 1086 in reply to RFIRB, 05-25-2007 16:42:34

I can't comment on 986, I use my 1086 to put ip hay with. I just finished with a 30 acre coastal field and I used 21 gallons of fuel to cut rake and bale. 11 hours of running time on tach. My discbine works it much harder than does the round baler.

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

GordoSD

05-25-2007 17:52:26

Report to Moderator

Re: 986 or 1086 in reply to RFIRB, 05-25-2007 16:42:34

For your needs a nice 886 would work. My 966 uses 1.75 for light work like baling small squares, pulling 4 row planter, and pulling 7 foot Woods Brushbull. No idea what it would use pulling a disc or plow .

Gordo

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

RFIRB

05-25-2007 17:08:46

Report to Moderator

Re: 986 or 1086 in reply to RFIRB, 05-25-2007 16:42:34

Thanks Allan ,does anyone have a rough estimate on gallons per hour doing light work ie.baling with a small sqare baler.

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

georgeky

05-25-2007 21:29:02

Report to Moderator

Re: 986 or 1086 in reply to RFIRB, 05-25-2007 17:08:46

I agree 100% with Hugh and Allen. I have never figured out why so many folks think they need 100+ HP to work the hay fields. I pull the square baler and roller with whichever of mine are running at the time. Usually my 666 as I like running it better than the others.. I have also rolled lots of hay with my 584, the book say's it has 52 hp. I keep it hooked to the moco now days. The 666 is one of the most fuel efficient tractors I have ever run of that size.

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

Allan In NE

05-26-2007 04:26:29

Report to Moderator

Re: 986 or 1086 in reply to georgeky, 05-25-2007 21:29:02

Morning George,

Just offering a guess on this, but I don't think it is because they "need or want" the big tractor for light work, but rather it's because the big tractors are so cheap to buy nowadays as compared to the smaller, more useful tractors.

Not uncommon to see the 100+ horsepower tractors under loaders too. I would also guess part of this stems from the fact that the original owner couldn't get anything back from the tractor on a trade in, so just kept it and gave it loader duty rather than just give the tractor away.

A good six series diesel will totally bend your wallet insideout, whereas the larger framed mules can be had fairly reasonably.

Allan

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

Hugh MacKay

05-26-2007 14:20:57

Report to Moderator

Re: 986 or 1086 in reply to Allan In NE, 05-26-2007 04:26:29

Allan: Your right about that cheap price, commercial farmers move on and have no use for the 100hp+ 2 wheel drive tractor, and when those guys don't want em, the price hits rock bottom.

Then part timers buy the big tractor, little do they know how quick these big machines can hit the $5,000. mark at the parts counter. That's average, 15 to 20K not unheard of. All of a sudden the big tractor gets shipped off to the back 40, and he hopes none of his neighbors know what a booboo he made.

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

georgeky

05-26-2007 07:09:32

Report to Moderator

Re: 986 or 1086 in reply to Allan In NE, 05-26-2007 04:26:29

Allen, that is true, but I know folks, one guy in particular that bought a new 4440 JD and all he ever done was plow about 30 acres of tobacco ground(with 4x16 plow) and pull a MF hay roller with it. The rest of the time it just sat around looking pretty. It was a good tractor. He kept it for 11 years and sold it with only 1400 hours on it. As mom says to each his own I guess.

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

Hugh MacKay

05-25-2007 17:54:44

Report to Moderator

Re: 986 or 1086 in reply to RFIRB, 05-25-2007 17:08:46

RFIRB: My experience, 1066 burnt 5 gph on round baler. 560 and 656 pulled the same baler on less than 1.5 gph and baled just as much hay per hour. At the end of the day you had baled just as much hay with the 60 hp tractors, and because they were agile and nimble not near as much hay was missed in field.

I never hooked the 1066 to my square baler, of course my square baler was old when I got the 1066, thus I figured the tractor would wreck it.

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

Allan In NE

05-25-2007 18:00:04

Report to Moderator

Re: 986 or 1086 in reply to Hugh MacKay, 05-25-2007 17:54:44

Yes Sir,

560, 656, 666 and the 686 got to be the best "nimble" tractors out there.

I use the 966 on the big baler just because it "plays with it", but it sure as heck feels "clumbsy" compared with the small framed guys.

Allan

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

Allan In NE

05-25-2007 17:15:22

Report to Moderator

Re: 986 or 1086 in reply to RFIRB, 05-25-2007 17:08:46

That's the down side of these tractors. They really were designed as a heavy plow tractor and as such they take a lot of fuel to keep 'em stoked.

Dunno, but I'll bet either one will still eat 3 to 4 gallons an hour on the lightest loads. Just not really a "haying" type tractor unless you get into the bigger sized implements.

Maybe someone else will come on here who has watched the fuel a little closer than I.

Allan

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

Allan In NE

05-25-2007 16:46:40

Report to Moderator

Re: 986 or 1086 in reply to RFIRB, 05-25-2007 16:42:34

Flip a coin, really. The 986 isn't turned up as much because it doesn't have the blower.

It does have a little bigger engine however (436), while the 1086 still uses the old 414.

Allan

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

[Options] [Printer Friendly] [Posting Help] [Return to Forum] [Log in to Reply]

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