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
:

1256 and field cultivators

Welcome Guest, Log in or Register
Author 
Brian in MO

01-17-2004 19:07:51




Report to Moderator

I know this has a lot of variables but what size field cultivator can a 1256 with duals and weights handle, and how big of a disk (I know it depends on the number of blades not just the width) just wanting a idea. I see a lot of bigger (18'-24') old disks and field cultivators cheaper than the small ones too big for little guys and too small for the big guys, thanks Brian.




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

01-18-2004 03:46:26




Report to Moderator
 Re: 1256 and field cultivators in reply to Brian in MO, 01-17-2004 19:07:51  
Brian: I would question one part of Al's opinion, that being the field cultivator. I farmed for many years and when the disk was 8' the cultivator was 10', later the disk went to 10' and field cultivator 13'. In 1975 with a new 1066 with duals, but no weight in tires or on wheels, I pulled a 20' disk and a 25' cultivator. The cultivator was a much easier pull than the disk. Your 1256 will compare quite favourably with a 1066, as both of them will exceed their rated hp.

The 1066 was equiped with no weight added as my real heavy work load was PTO. I had no problems whatever pulling either the 20' disk or the 25' cultivator. These big tractors don't need as much weight added as one might think. My 1066 did have chloride in tires when delivered to me new. I removed as I felt tractor was too heavy and too much hp was being used hauling that extra weight. I have chopped corn with forage harvester, pulling wagon. Field was partly done when I arrived. I had to start off in 2' deep ruts left by a 90 hp 4x4 tractor. Quite good advertizing 90 hp 4x4 on the dry side of field and that 4x4 was loaded with weights, and here is the 2 wheel drive 1066 doing the wet section of field. They had been using a second tractor to pull the wagon, before I arrived.

As I said I farmed for many years, Farmalls SA, 130, 300 and 504 all had weight added, they needed it to pull loads on hard ground. All the big ones need is more rubber on the ground. I never had any added weights on my 560, 656, 100 hp Deere and not very long in 1066. The chloride was dumped less than a month from new. Remember this the very best traction you can find is on loose tilled soil, dry enough to be worked. We got the notion years ago tractors needed extra weight added when tractors under 50 hp were quite often hauling loads to barn weighing 3 times weight of tractor.

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

01-18-2004 12:09:52




Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: 1256 and field cultivators in reply to Hugh MacKay, 01-18-2004 03:46:26  
Thanks Hugh, I was hoping you might jump in on this as I always like to hear your first hand experience. I was hoping that maybe I could pull a 20'-25' field cultivator but unsure how well. As for the weights I should have said front weights (the front gets a little light with the chiesel plow on back) I don't have any weight on the back (calcium or wheel weights). Thanks Brian



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

01-18-2004 14:03:24




Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: Re: 1256 and field cultivators in reply to Brian in MO, 01-18-2004 12:09:52  
Brian: I did have front end weights. I had racks on 656, 560 and 1066. If I remember correctly I had 18-100 lb. weights. I never used them very often except for heavy 3 point equipment, where they added a bit of steering control. As for tires , my 1066 had 18.4x38 axle duals, never took them off. I had 16.9x38 rear tires on 656 and 560 and a pair of snap on duals I could use on either. That 100 hp John Deere I speak of was actually a 540A forestry skidder, 6 cylinder turbo diesel with 8 speed power shift. I had 500 acres of forest land. We often used the weights on the back of it pushing silage, plowing snow or on disk. Did a lot of disking with that unit, it wouldn't pull the disk quite as fast as 1066. With the few stones I had and the cowboy operators, that wasn't all bad.

I'll give you something to think on regarding tires. A Farmall Super A will pull 3 times it's own weight on a 4'x 10' flat bottom stone boat, on hard ground. Not many tractors will do that. The pounds per square inch of rubber on the ground is actually quite high on a Super A. This weight habit we in North America find out selves in got started when reasonably light tractors were pulling some quite heavy loads, primarily on hard roads to the barn. It also greatly stabilized some of those lighter tractors working on slopes. By lighter tractors I am refering to tractors under 6,000 lbs. One of the biggest thrills of my life on tractor came with 1066 on ice with duals and 12 ton manure spreader behind me, there again hard surface. If we further look at those big tractors, 90% of what they do is done in a field conditions. When it is wet enough that duals cant get traction on the field we probably shouldn't be there. Soil compaction can have some severe, adverse effects on crop production, and the damage will happen more quickly on rain soaked ground. In my opinion we in North America have to take a long hard look at soil compaction. The industry in my opinion has not been building great tractors to achive less soil compaction. I think articulated tractors with duals on both ends is the way to go. Problem is industry doesn't build them small enough. There is a use for the big ones, but so is there for small lighter articulated tractors as well. And definately not a 2+2, they just had less power, not much lighter.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Al, Runner

01-17-2004 19:38:47




Report to Moderator
 Re: 1256 and field cultivators in reply to Brian in MO, 01-17-2004 19:07:51  
A 1256 can pull a 21ft, disk. Also a 16-18ft field cultivator. A 13 shank chiesal plow. You can also turn the pump up another 30 or some hp. 1256's are tough and very good tractors.



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

01-17-2004 19:46:16




Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: 1256 and field cultivators in reply to Al, Runner, 01-17-2004 19:38:47  
Thanks Al that was about the sizes I was thinking but I wanted some more opinions.(Sometimes I tend to think too big!) Brian



[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