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
:

Farmall H vs. M

Welcome Guest, Log in or Register
Author 
Rod Jenkins

12-21-2003 12:48:27




Report to Moderator

Not being REAL familiar with H's and M's, can someone compare the two a little for me? Weight, HP., wheelbase, weight, axel diameter measurements, sheet metal, etc. It is amazing to me how similar they appear. I have operated both. I know they competed with the Case SC and DC. Is the H physically smaller in every way? Thanks, Rod




[Log in to Reply]   [No Email]
tractorboy

12-24-2003 21:06:52




Report to Moderator
 Re: Farmall H vs. M in reply to Rod Jenkins, 12-21-2003 12:48:27  
Dad always said the M was advertised as being one third larger than an H. One interesting thing to think about if this is true is that it takes 5 gallons of grease to fill the rearend of an H while it takes 15 to fill an M. You figure that out.



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

12-22-2003 09:10:39




Report to Moderator
 Re: Farmall H vs. M in reply to Rod Jenkins, 12-21-2003 12:48:27  
Very simular in appearance. The H considered a 2 bottom plow tractor, and the M is 3 plow. In really loose soil they might pull those plows with ease (leaving room for a little more). The M is however larger in scale. Not only in horse power but in height, and weight, and most parts are bigger. The M rides better on an operators stand point, probably because of the extra weight, 2" wider, and larger rear tires. I think both have 38" rear rims but the tire is a wider and bigger tire for the M. The M will drink more fuel. Sheet metal will not interchange. I have operated both and consider the H as a lighter more of a get around tractor (doing light work), and the M as more of a power house that you would do the more hard pulling jobs with. Works out pretty nice since I have both.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Michael Soldan

12-21-2003 17:01:30




Report to Moderator
 Re: Farmall H vs. M in reply to Rod Jenkins, 12-21-2003 12:48:27  
Rod I will leave the specs to others but will simply tell you that an M is twice the H and would pull one all over hell's half acre, I own two H's and an M and the M is a brute compared to an H, I like the H 's for economy, I can rake hay all day with an H on a few gallons, the M guzzles but puts out raw power, there are few parts that interchange...fenders lights generators..... engine size sheet metal,torque tube rear end , and gears are all different....Mike in Exeter Ontario

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Delbert

12-21-2003 16:17:35




Report to Moderator
 Re: Farmall H vs. M in reply to Rod Jenkins, 12-21-2003 12:48:27  
The H is 2 inches narrower than a M the only defference. The same equipment will fit a h that will fit a m. With the exception being 2m corn pickers not recomended for the h. The old mounted lister, cultvator, mower will fit.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Delbert

12-21-2003 16:16:33




Report to Moderator
 Re: Farmall H vs. M in reply to Rod Jenkins, 12-21-2003 12:48:27  
The H is 2 inches narrower than a M the only defference. The same equipment will fit a h that will fit a m. With the exception being 2m corn pickers not recomended for the h. The old mounted lister, cultvator, mower will fit.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
CNKS

12-21-2003 14:35:44




Report to Moderator
 Re: Farmall H vs. M in reply to Rod Jenkins, 12-21-2003 12:48:27  
Factory rated drawbar HP's for the H and M were about 25 and 34 respectively. Weights without wheel weights or loaded tires were 3725 and 4910. Weights are from Guy Fay's data book, and are likely without fluids.



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

12-21-2003 15:27:12




Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: Farmall H vs. M in reply to CNKS, 12-21-2003 14:35:44  
CNKS: The hp figures I quoted just before you, didn't really satisfy me, I must confess. I guess the Super figures weren't too bad, but must confess I thought H and M would have been higher. These came from a site someone here at YT recomended called Tractortips. Can you suggest a better site for specs. The weights I recieved from that site were obviously with weight added, question is how much. From my experience the weight figures you quoted from Guy's data book would be shipping weight.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
CNKS

12-21-2003 17:33:22




Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: Re: Farmall H vs. M in reply to Hugh MacKay, 12-21-2003 15:27:12  
HP numbers vary all over the map. The ones I gave are from the IH brocures I had when I was a kid, and are good for comparing the H to the M. Probably the best numbers are from the NE tractor tests? In which case the M was rated at 33.05 drawber, 33.66 belt; the H was rated at 24.17 drawber, 26.20 belt, meaning that IH's advertised HP ratings were pretty close. NE also lists the "SAE drawbar" hp's at 25.83 for the M and 19.13 for the H. This is for gasoline engines, distillate is less. I don't trust many of the sites for accurate info -- one exception is justins www.weberstractorworks.com, don't think it gives HP ratings, though.

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

12-21-2003 18:28:05




Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: Re: Re: Farmall H vs. M in reply to CNKS, 12-21-2003 17:33:22  
CNKS: I find I can't rely on memory on these anymore, just stuffed too many up there over the years. From my earliest days of farming the one thing I do remember is you picked up new tractor specs from IH, you could almost bet the Nebraska test would come in higher. Another item I noticed without exception was after that new tractor was nicely broke in it would dyno higher than either IH specs or Nebraska. I compared notes once with the two former owners who's farms made up my farm. Out of the 16 tractors the 3 of us bought new the only disappointment was the 504 gas. Most of them were just a few point over rated hp. The exceptions being 10% or more over were 300, 560D and 1066. I admit the 560 was tampered with to get more hp, but the rest were as they came from factory.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
CNKS

12-21-2003 17:35:11




Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: Re: Re: Farmall H vs. M in reply to CNKS, 12-21-2003 17:33:22  
And, the numbers I give are often wrong too -- belt hp for the M is 36.66, not 33.66.



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

12-21-2003 13:49:33




Report to Moderator
 Re: Farmall H vs. M in reply to Rod Jenkins, 12-21-2003 12:48:27  
Rod: The wheel base is the same at I believe 90". Axles on M are larger as well as longer, diameter is 2.5 for H and 2.75 for M. Standard axle length on M, SH and SM was 84" end to end on tractor, H was about 6" shorter. Weight is about 1200 lbs heavier for M. Figures I picked up were 5550 for H and 6770 for M, that must be with wheel weights and chloride added. Horse power, drawbar was all I could find on all of them; H 20. SH-30.6, M-24.8 and Super M-41.7 These figures were not listed as Nebraska test so I asume were IH figures. In those days IH were quite conservative.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Alvin Dick

12-21-2003 13:27:45




Report to Moderator
 Re: Farmall H vs. M in reply to Rod Jenkins, 12-21-2003 12:48:27  
The H and M have the same wheel baseand implements that fit the H also fit the M. The H is smaller in every, the axles have a smaller diameter. The H was considered a 2 plow tractor whereas the M was considered a 3 plow tractor.



[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