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

1066,Good or not?

Welcome Guest, Log in or Register

Author

Farmallkid

01-29-2004 17:49:09

Report to Moderator

I have heard people say that the 1066 is the best and other people say they are crap. I myself have never driven one, so i don't have a clue. My friends dad owns a ditching company, they have a 1066 with a big ditcher on the back, the thing with the big spiky ball on one side. This machine is massive, he said he'got the 66 puttin out 300+ horse. What kind of shifting do they have, is it like a 1086,or is it the power shift. Crap or not?

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

Tim Malin

01-31-2004 21:45:15

Report to Moderator

Re: 1066,Good or not? in reply to Farmallkid, 01-29-2004 17:49:09

Had a sweet black stripe 10 with a ROPS and let me tell you, it could do whatever you wanted it to. We had it turned up to about 225 at one point, actually didn't know it, but after the second overhaul in 9000 hours mechanic dynoed it and tuned it down to 180. No performance difference (4-18 plow and silage chopper) and used half the fuel. When traded for 2+2 it had 6000 hours on that overhaul and was good. I'm gunna find that tractor back some day, and I have a picture of it maybe I'll post here.

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

Larry B.

01-31-2004 07:14:20

Report to Moderator

Re: 1066,Good or not? in reply to Farmallkid, 01-29-2004 17:49:09

Well Farmallkid, where I live there are a lot of 966-(a bunch of 1066,) 1466, 1566, 986,1086,exct.still going strong. I have drove a few 66 & 86 series and I like the 1066 to drive. Cavitation was not only in IH tractors but also in JD's with wet sleeves, cummins and I think cat motors in semi trucks.That just a down fall with wet sleeves in any brand. One thing that causes earlier problens is taking a 1066, factory 116 hp and turning them up to 140-170 hp and the extra heat in the cylinders and exhaust temp. helped premature failure. The 14 & 1566's were designed for higher hp and extra cooling just the same as compairing the 806 and 1206. I know one man that ownes a 1066,( called him last nite to make sure,)bought it in 1986 with 5500 hrs and today a little over 14000 hrs and never in the motor but it has never been turned up and good maitanence. If you want 150hp, get you a 14 or 1566. I am also guilty also of trying to make a smaller tractor do what a bigger one does by turning it up.I like to show my neighbor my 706 can do what his 7710 Ford can.

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

Hugh MacKay

01-31-2004 18:40:20

Report to Moderator

Re: Re: 1066,Good or not? in reply to Larry B., 01-31-2004 07:14:20

Larry: Go take a lesson in English grammer then read what everyone has said. The damn tractors were put out without water filters and from the factory turning 160 horse power. Can you comprehend that.

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

Aces

01-30-2004 10:20:20

Report to Moderator

Re: 1066,Good or not? in reply to Farmallkid, 01-29-2004 17:49:09

One more thing about the red one's people like to call bad. Don't knoe what a DT414 will put out but about 2 seconds on a DT436 and it will get to 300+ HP and they will take it. First time I saw one at 300 HP road gear would not stop it.

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

Barney

01-30-2004 08:24:02

Report to Moderator

Re: 1066,Good or not? in reply to Farmallkid, 01-29-2004 17:49:09

I have driven the 1066s. I was younger then, and don't think I could hold out sunup to sundown on one of those anymore. Tillage is what these tractors were designed for. I never drove a faster tractor on the hiway. These were hard working tractors for people in good phyiscal shape. You had to be to drive them 6 days a week. They had lots of unique problems,but they were one of the cheap tractors that were available when there was a shortage of better tractors,and because they were not designed for comfort, they had to change them to try to keep from going out of business. The '86s were a bit hard to drive and operate themselves, and then the fact is this: Case had to bale them out! I think the 1066 is a fun tractor to have if you don't have to do much with it, or try to get someone to fix the TA. Today they sell anywhere from $2500.00-$4000.00 Don't pay too much! This is from my personal aching body experience! Barney

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

Paul in Mich

01-30-2004 15:52:44

Report to Moderator

Re: Re: 1066,Good or not? in reply to Barney, 01-30-2004 08:24:02

Barney, Where have you seen a 1066 or even a 966 for $2,500? I'll take a car load of them. Besides what do you mean 6 days a week? During planting time, we run them 14 to 16 hrs a day 7 days a week. No other way to get 4,000 acres planted with 3 men.

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

Red Dave

01-30-2004 11:26:46

Report to Moderator

Re: Re: 1066,Good or not? in reply to Barney, 01-30-2004 08:24:02

Barney, you have your "facts" wrong. Tenneco bought the agriculture division of IH and merged it with Case, which Tenneco already owned. IH was bleeding money and the Ag economy was bad, but the Ag division was the only thing of value left they could sell for cash. Case was on the ropes financially too. The Case brand name would probably have disappeared in the '80's without the infusion of the IH line. The Case/IH Magnum line was IH engineering's tractors with Case engines.
In a very real sense, IH saved the Case name.

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

Aces

01-30-2004 10:13:30

Report to Moderator

Re: Re: 1066,Good or not? in reply to Barney, 01-30-2004 08:24:02

Barney
The 1066 1086 one of the most popular tractors of it's time most would out work any in there class if JI case had to bale them out how come there are still RED how come the used the 50 series rear end on the first C IH. The way to put this is ( don't judge my tractor by what yours will do but judge your tractor by what mine will do.) 4440 had to hump to stay with 1086.

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

Jason

01-30-2004 09:37:34

Report to Moderator

Re: Re: 1066,Good or not? in reply to Barney, 01-30-2004 08:24:02

Barney,
I'll give you a horse then you can tell me wich is better!! lol..
I'd like to know where you see these 66's for that price. I will go buy a fleet of them if they are that cheap.
Jason

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

Hugh MacKay

01-30-2004 08:45:45

Report to Moderator

Re: Re: 1066,Good or not? in reply to Barney, 01-30-2004 08:24:02

Barney: My gosh, what would have ever done if it was an F-20, M, 400 or even a 560. Many many guys hammered them for 16 hours per day.

I'm 6'2" and really haven't found a more comfortable tractor since 56 and 66 series. I have driven CaseIH, new Deeres, Kubotas and Fords since.

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

supermpuller4

01-30-2004 08:34:57

Report to Moderator

Re: Re: 1066,Good or not? in reply to Barney, 01-30-2004 08:24:02

If you can get a 1066 that cheap buy it I can resale them for more than that, I drove a 1066 12 hrs a day when they were new no problem bought a used 1066 a couple years ago 150 hp. side dress corn with it good tractor.

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

IHMan3388

01-30-2004 07:11:08

Report to Moderator

Re: 1066,Good or not? in reply to Farmallkid, 01-29-2004 17:49:09

First off, I worked on a farm with 4 1066s, each one no more than 150 hp. These tractors are not junk as evidenced by the fact that they are still in use 30 years after manufacture. I also strongly disagree with Hugh MacKay, it sounds to me like he's had a few bad experiences with these tractors and blames the lot of 'em. The transmissions in these tractors was comparable to the quad-range in the deere's and still holds up today, sure it makes noise, but remember, it's probably not a helical cut or bevel cut on the gears. Don't be harping these tractors, EVERY tractor has it's faults, whether it's cavitation erosion or a powershift with bugs left in it yet (early 4020s). I was simply taken aback by Mr. MacKay's strong words, I mean no disrespect to him, but I had to reply.

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

Hugh MacKay

01-30-2004 14:16:23

Report to Moderator

Re: Re: 1066,Good or not? in reply to IHMan3388, 01-30-2004 07:11:08

IH man: I had one 1066 and the hours went on it at the rate of 1,200 per year. It was exactly 8 years old when the hole came in sleeves, at close to 10,000 hours. Percisely the same age as a lot of those engines did exactly the same thing, some of them with as few as 2,000 hours. My point is IH knew of this very early on, why not send out a bulliten to guys who bought them advising them of the same. At less than 10 years, most of those tractors were still in the hands of the original owners. I know full well my tractor could have gone 15,000 to first engine rebuild. My point is at roughly 8 to 10 years cavitation of sleeves occured, didn't matter how much or hard they had been worked. Don't get me wrong these were and still are a good tractor. Cliff said below his developed holes in sleeve from cavitation as well, even with the water filter, but just look at age of tractor when this occured. I can find you dozens of these tractors came new without water filters and at 8 to 10 years bingo. One heck of a heart break for the guy with only 2,000 hours on his tractor. I can tell you most of those guys today are running Deere.

No fault of the tractor, it lies squarely in the lap of the boneheads at IH.

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

Leroy

01-30-2004 15:38:53

Report to Moderator

Re: Re: Re: 1066,Good or not? in reply to Hugh MacKay, 01-30-2004 14:16:23

Hugh,

You seem pretty knowledgable so I really want to know your opinion. Please don't be offended by my ignorance. I simply don't understand what you mean. You've written a few times that it's no fault of the 1066 just the people at IH. I can't tell whether you think the tractor was good or the design flaw made it bad. I think you said the 66 series was comfortable but then said having more HP than the tractor was rated was one of the few things IH had going for it. Was the 66 series worth a darn or not?

Again I'm not meaning to question your knowledge I am just curious. I'm looking at buying a 966 with loader but if cavitation is caused by age and not necessarily the amount and kind of use then I'm more hesitant. These tractors are all getting close if not over 30 years old. Does that mean cavitation has already occurred so that they're already fixed?

Thanks for educating those out there that are ignorant like me.

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

Hugh MacKay

01-30-2004 17:10:54

Report to Moderator

Re: Re: Re: Re: 1066,Good or not? in reply to Leroy, 01-30-2004 15:38:53

Leroy: These are good tractors. Cavitation is a fact of life with wet sleeves. It is actually the corosion and rusting of sleeves on water jacket side. Water filters and good coolant maintainence wiil hopefully slow this down so the engine wears out rather than rusts out.

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

Cliff Neubauer

01-30-2004 07:08:02

Report to Moderator

Re: 1066,Good or not? in reply to Farmallkid, 01-29-2004 17:49:09

We have two of them, a '74 with 4,100 hours and a '76 with 7,100 hours that have both been great tractors. The '76 turns 150 on a dyno and the '74 will out pull it. The cavitation problem was not just an IH problem, Cummins and Deere both had problems with it too and I would sure not complain about an engine failing at just short of 10,000 hours due to cavitation even though I realize it could have gone alot longer. Last fall our '76 1066 started getting alot of blow by and recently I noticed it was blowing a little coolant out the blow by so I'm guessing cavitation finally caught up with it even though it has a coolant filter than we have changed every year as well as changing the coolant every other year.

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

Hugh MacKay

01-30-2004 14:32:21

Report to Moderator

Re: Re: 1066,Good or not? in reply to Cliff Neubauer, 01-30-2004 07:08:02

Cliff: Yes and at 28 years of age with water filter you have cavitation in your 76 - 1066. Sure you can say I shouldn't mind an engine rebuild at 10,000 hours, however my 1066 was only 8 years old when this occured. Right there in your statment is the proof my tractor could have gone 15,000 hours to first rebuild. Look at the headache this must have been for the guys that had them go at 8 years old with 2,000 hours on them.

By the way my 100 hp power shift Deere went 13,000 hours to first rebuild. My beef is not with 66 series tractors, they were fine tractors. I ask you why we can no longer buy a pure IH? The cavitation problem happened to a lot of 66 series tractors in my area, none of them had water filters. I can also tell you, the results of this have made that area Green and Blue today.

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

Cliff Neubauer

01-30-2004 15:30:10

Report to Moderator

Re: Re: Re: 1066,Good or not? in reply to Hugh MacKay, 01-30-2004 14:32:21

I agree with you that the tractors should have had the coolant filter from the day they were released but we were at a planter clinic at our Deere dealer yesterday and of course they had to talk up their lubricants and coolants and they said there was a guy there with three JD tractors over 10,000 hours that had never been overhauled. They also said that he was lucky to go that long without cavitation even with a good mainance program. The way I understand it age has very little to do with cavitation, it only happens while the engine is running so hours should be the bigger factor there. Even the coolant filters do not eliminate the cavitation, it is a natural occurance in a wet sleeve diesel engine with replacable sleeves but the conditioners in the coolant filters do help alot and some of the newer anti-freezes also contain additives to slow down cavitation.

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

Hugh MacKay

01-30-2004 16:19:19

Report to Moderator

Re: Re: Re: Re: 1066,Good or not? in reply to Cliff Neubauer, 01-30-2004 15:30:10

Cliff: I fully realize one will never eliminate cavitation. As we can see good maintainence goes a long way. To anyone who ever bought new tractors with the current days dollars, good maintainance was always the key to long term profits. You know this and I know this. Having said this, I believe when you lay out those dollars you have the right to be well informed, to assist you in performing that maintainence.

As I said before the area where I farmed is a sea of Green and Blue to day. An area where each and every one of SA, SC and H-SH out numbered Ford 8N. Today there is no CaseIH dealer for 120 miles. IH had many of these type short commings, but cavitation was the straw that broke the camel's in our area. A dealer told me if he takes an 06,56,66 or 86 series tractor on trade he has to farm it off to dealers in other towns.

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

Aces

01-29-2004 20:25:03

Report to Moderator

Re: 1066,Good or not? in reply to Farmallkid, 01-29-2004 17:49:09

Antifreeze and holes in the wet sleeves is not an IH problem trucks had the problem right when they can with wet sleeves. My brotherinlaw drove truck all his life and he said that is an old story.

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

Hugh MacKay

01-30-2004 05:36:16

Report to Moderator

Re: Re: 1066,Good or not? in reply to Aces, 01-29-2004 20:25:03

Aces: It wasn't an old story in the mid 1970s to a farmer who's only experience with diesels was Farmall and Deere. My point is I was milking 100 cows and relied on IH and their dealer network to keep my horse power efficient. Knowing what I know today, 66 series tractors should have come from factory with water filters.

It never happened to my 656D, 560D or my 100 hp Deere. So lets cut the crap and put the blame directly where it lies, with IH. Precisely one of the many reasons why IH as we know it no longer exists.

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

Chuck's Repair

01-30-2004 13:05:37

Report to Moderator

Re: Re: Re: 1066,Good or not? in reply to Hugh MacKay, 01-30-2004 05:36:16

Amen

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

scotc

01-29-2004 19:57:30

Report to Moderator

Re: 1066,Good or not? in reply to Farmallkid, 01-29-2004 17:49:09

we've got 2 1066, one with MFWD, its pretty well stock, can't complain about it, its only problem was a poor rebuild job right after we got it. the other had its heads shaved and a bigger turbo put on it by the previous owner, guy running the dyno cut it out at 172 horse, PTO clutches started slipping and the governors hadn't kicked in yet. I guess with power levels like that the 3 sets of pto clutches its eaten in 10 years aren't too bad. 2 torque's, but that one, if my dad hadn't gone sliding down that hill backwards..... .....

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

Hugh MacKay

01-29-2004 19:29:48

Report to Moderator

Re: 1066,Good or not? in reply to Farmallkid, 01-29-2004 17:49:09

Farmallkid: 1066 first problem was not with tractor but rather the boneheads that built it.
IH knew very early in production of the problem with cavitation of sleeves, yet did nothing to inform customers. If those tractors have the water filter and it is looked after they will run a lot of hours. At 8,000 hours my 1066 was putting out 160 hp as it came from factory. The engine was not using excessive oil, had no oil leaks. It looked as though it was headed for 15,000 hours to first engine rebuild. The rest of the tractor was performing just as well. At just under 10,000 one day the tractor started heating. Pin holes in sleeves allowed antifreeze into the crankcase and thus ruined the engine. You cant fault the tractor for that. Years ago a customer would have been warned of items like this, it could have been avoided, by a then less than $50. expendature. Because the crank was damaged the engine job went over $10,000. Can. Don't go thinking it's any better today these companies, all of them, want you to burn the machine out in about 5 years.

1066 is not a toy, nor is it a very good tractor for light work. Just too fuel hungary for light work.

Don't fault the 1086 either, as others have said it just needs some maintainence.

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

Farmallkid

01-30-2004 13:54:35

Report to Moderator

Re: Re: 1066,Good or not? in reply to Hugh MacKay, 01-29-2004 19:29:48

What is cavitation? I am just mad at that one 1086 not all of them.I would like to have one!

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

MT Pockets

01-30-2004 16:43:09

Report to Moderator

Re: Re: Re: 1066,Good or not? in reply to Farmallkid, 01-30-2004 13:54:35

Farmallkid, I tried to send you an e-mail. Did you get it? Steve in Texarkana.

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

Farmallkid

01-30-2004 18:15:55

Report to Moderator

Re: Re: Re: Re: 1066,Good or not? in reply to MT Pockets, 01-30-2004 16:43:09

I think you have the wrong farmall kid, i am farmallkid and someone else is farmallkid from ?

I forget where he is from.

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

MT Pockets

01-30-2004 20:43:19

Report to Moderator

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 1066,Good or not? in reply to Farmallkid, 01-30-2004 18:15:55

Sorry about that.I was trying to answer a question about cavitation.It is not caused by rust or corrosion.(perforation that is)Do a Google search for "Diesel engine perforation" and read what it says.I have seen sleeves out Cummins and DT466 with holes(perforations) in them.There was no rust or corrosion on them. They were as clean as a hound's tooth.The holes were mostly located on one side of the sleeve. I think the exhaust side but I'm not sure.I didn't make this post to be argumentive or offensive. Just trying to clarify misinformation. Thanks. Steve Norwood

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

Hugh MacKay

01-31-2004 03:27:38

Report to Moderator

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 1066,Good or not? in reply to MT Pockets, 01-30-2004 20:43:19

MT: Rust may not be a proper term but it is a form of corosion.

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

Hugh MacKay

01-30-2004 15:05:09

Report to Moderator

Re: Re: Re: 1066,Good or not? in reply to Farmallkid, 01-30-2004 13:54:35

Farmallkid: You certainly raised a lot of discussion for a young lad wanting to know a bit more about tractors. Actually something you have said indicates you live not very far from me. Send me an e mail on that one.

Cavitation is the corosion and rusting of engine sleeves from the water jacket side. This only happens in wet sleeve engines. This actually takes in a lot of the larger diesels, all makes. The problem can be reduced by filtering the coolant as well as regular changing of the coolant. There could also be some benefit in using distilled water in your radiator mix. You will never eliminate cavitation, the goal is to slow it down so engine sleeves wear out on the other side first. I hope this helps.

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

Allan

01-30-2004 07:00:05

Report to Moderator

Re: Re: 1066,Good or not? in reply to Hugh MacKay, 01-29-2004 19:29:48

Hi Hugh,

Are you sure about that 160hp figure?

They came from the factory at 125 hp.

???

Thanks,

Allan

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

Hugh MacKay

01-30-2004 07:32:43

Report to Moderator

Re: Re: Re: 1066,Good or not? in reply to Allan, 01-30-2004 07:00:05

Allen: Yes they were rated at 125, but a lot of them hit the 150+ mark with ease. My tractor was on dyno 3 or 4 times over the years and it always came in around 160. You can talk with many other people who found the same. Of 16 Farmalls that came to our farm new, I only know of one that didn't exceed it's rated hp. One of the few things IH had going for them. The one that didn't exceed it's rated hp was 504 gas.

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

BigRed

01-30-2004 12:06:30

Report to Moderator

Re: Re: Re: Re: 1066,Good or not? in reply to Hugh MacKay, 01-30-2004 07:32:43

Have to go with Hugh on that one. Grandpa bought a 1066 new in 1976, and not too long after it was new it was put on the dyno. It only put out 145, and it's been doing that since it was new.

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

42FarmallH

01-29-2004 19:24:53

Report to Moderator

Re: 1066,Good or not? in reply to Farmallkid, 01-29-2004 17:49:09

Have a couple neighbors that had 1066's - one lasted 10,000 hours before he traded, the other guy had constant problems and traded with 1500 hours after 3 years!

The good ones were good and the bad ones were bad...

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

Louie

01-29-2004 19:08:10

Report to Moderator

Re: 1066,Good or not? in reply to Farmallkid, 01-29-2004 17:49:09

I bought one used almost three years ago. Use it just for baling and it has loader. It has been an excellent tractor with plenty of power. Am more than well please with mine.

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

wolfy

01-29-2004 19:00:08

Report to Moderator

Re: 1066,Good or not? in reply to Farmallkid, 01-29-2004 17:49:09

Neighbor has a black stripe 1066 that should be in the Smithsonian Institute. He must farm at least 1000 acres of hilly s.w.Pa limestone. It has duals, a 15 front end, has often worked 3 shifts (3 operators around the clock); huge chisel plow, 22-ft disk, large square baler; at one time local mechanic insisted he cut it back some-it was putting out 325 horses on the dyno. It sounds recently like it needs an overhaul-but after 27 years of what it's been through, I can understand! Amazing tractor. Oh yes, this was his 4th tractor. the first 3 each lasted him one year-this one 27 years.

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

w gatewood

01-30-2004 05:35:40

Report to Moderator

Re: Re: 1066,Good or not? in reply to wolfy, 01-29-2004 19:00:08

the pto clutches would not hold 325 hp. thy to b/s somebody else

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

01-30-2004 06:58:05

Report to Moderator

Re: Re: Re: 1066,Good or not? in reply to w gatewood, 01-30-2004 05:35:40

dyno was wrong

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

If it was

01-29-2004 20:14:09

Report to Moderator

Re: Re: 1066,Good or not? in reply to wolfy, 01-29-2004 19:00:08

Putting out 325 HP on the dyno it would have burnt down to a pile of aluminum. I bet it had to be pullin 190 first. My 1066 heated after 160

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

dhermesc

01-30-2004 07:16:42

Report to Moderator

Re: Re: Re: 1066,Good or not? in reply to If it was, 01-29-2004 20:14:09

I hear guys talking about 200+ hp out of a 125 Hp tractor and I just have to laugh. When its turned up that much exhaust temps go through the roof and you end up with cracked heads, burnt valves and other high heat problems (cavitation?). If your going to WORK the tractor hard, its better off operating within its designed hp rating. The problems I have seen with 1066s (and 1086s) they where turned up to match the 1466 and 1566 tractors and where over worked in the past.

In the area I grew up in there where not that many 966-986 (I actually NEVER saw a "9" until I moved away) or 1066-1086 tractors around, they where seen as too light for reliable use with "full size" field equipment (24' disk, 28' field cultivators and 6-18 plows) in the ground in our area. Kind of like using a 3/4 ton to do the job of a 1 ton.

If the 1066 hasn't been used as a 1466 is should be a good tractor. We had (have) 5 1466s and 2 1566s over the years in our family and have never had an issue with cavitation.

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

scotc

02-03-2004 00:44:03

Report to Moderator

Re: Re: Re: Re: 1066,Good or not? in reply to dhermesc, 01-30-2004 07:16:42

ours was turned up by an engine builder. He used a little more than a screwdriver and 7/16 wrench on it. The motor's only been opened up for a head gasket, torque amplifiers and pto clutches are something else though.

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

scotc

01-29-2004 20:19:13

Report to Moderator

Re: Re: Re: 1066,Good or not? in reply to If it was, 01-29-2004 20:14:09

the only reason our one 1066 hasnt taken a complete rearend is its light enough it never really hooks all the power up with the ground

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

w gatewood

01-29-2004 18:23:21

Report to Moderator

Re: 1066,Good or not? in reply to Farmallkid, 01-29-2004 17:49:09

no they are simular in there shifting as a 1086 and i have owned two 1066 tractors and still own one i like them but some people hate them

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

Russ Schultz

01-29-2004 19:02:15

Report to Moderator

Re: Re: 1066,Good or not? in reply to w gatewood, 01-29-2004 18:23:21

Hello,
I ownded a 966 which is much the same as the 1066. My dad owns a 1066. These are both excellent tractors. They run forever and worked very nice in the field. those people who said they are junk probably never looked after them very good.

Thanks,
Russ

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

Allan

01-30-2004 07:11:58

Report to Moderator

Re: Re: Re: 1066,Good or not? in reply to Russ Schultz, 01-29-2004 19:02:15

Russ,

Yep, you have your facts straight.

The 966 is naturaly aspirated and the 10 is blown.

There is about 25 to 27 horses difference when set up properly. 966=98hp and the 10 should come in at 125hp.

Great tractors!

Allan

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

jim in ny

01-30-2004 05:26:41

Report to Moderator

Re: Re: Re: 1066,Good or not? in reply to Russ Schultz, 01-29-2004 19:02:15

we've had one since 75, 9200 hrs just put a reman motor in it a year ago. motor cost 4ooo. what a horse! it will run circles around our 7110 magnum. only complaint is the noisey trans. HUH,WHATS THAT?

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

Matt K.

01-30-2004 06:49:05

Report to Moderator

Re: Re: Re: Re: 1066,Good or not? in reply to jim in ny, 01-30-2004 05:26:41

We have had very good luck with our 1066,last
time it was checked it put out around 150 hp.
Our neighbor has a 7045 Allis that he pulls a
9 shank soil saver with,dad used it a couple
years back,neighbor didn't think dad could pull
it,so he came down to ride along.He didn't say
to much after they made a round and came back.
kind of fun to watch that old girl heading across
the field,black smoke just rolling out the stack.
I have heard complaints about the loud trans. &
rear-end,I think it's because they have the straight cut gears in them.

[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