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
:

Fifty Year Ago Cost

Welcome Guest, Log in or Register
Author 
wolfy

02-25-2004 10:16:11




Report to Moderator

Would anyone know the F.O.B. Factory cost of a new 1954 Super M Farmall tractor with power steering, fenders, live hydraulics, and one set of remotes, 13-38 tires. It would be interesting to compare the required buying power in 2004 dollars.




[Log in to Reply]   [No Email]
Jim in NC

02-26-2004 06:23:54




Report to Moderator
 Re: Fifty Year Ago Cost in reply to wolfy, 02-25-2004 10:16:11  
a friend of mine just turned sixty and his mother gave him the framed hospital bill for his birth! It broke down as follows: seven days in hospital, $10.50; doctors delivery fee, $6.50; anasthesia, $2.00; pharmaceuticals, $1.25; "supplies"(no idea what that covered)$2.47; misc. exp. $4.21; for a grand total of $26.93!!! I hate to even think what the percentage increase would be today.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Steve from MO - do the ma

02-25-2004 14:34:41




Report to Moderator
 Re: Fifty Year Ago Cost in reply to wolfy, 02-25-2004 10:16:11  
That $2,500 SMTA would cost $17,300. Not bad, especially compared to today's 50 hp tractor.

That $6,000 1974 Buick would cost $21,647. It would still get 8 mpg to the new one's 27. It would not have air bags or child safety locks. It would need a tuneup every couple years to once at 100,000 miles for the new one.

That $30,000 1100 square foot house from 1974 would cost $106,976. Not good, a new better one the same size would cost about $90,000.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
DON

02-25-2004 15:08:48




Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: Fifty Year Ago Cost in reply to Steve from MO - do the ma, 02-25-2004 14:34:41  
Will buy most of your story but quality of houses I have looked out have been in tailspin. Things look good on surface but don't look in attic. And you sure don't to be around when foundation is under construction.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Steve from Mo

02-25-2004 16:28:53




Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: Re: Fifty Year Ago Cost in reply to DON, 02-25-2004 15:08:48  
Things must be different where you are. I definitely would not want to buy a house like you describe.

I am in an area where there is a countywide building code, licensing for contractors, and real inspections. My wife is in real estate and we see a lot of houses, inside and out.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Carm

02-26-2004 04:19:30




Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: Re: Re: Fifty Year Ago Cost in reply to Steve from Mo, 02-25-2004 16:28:53  
I live in a 50 year old house with real brick and plaster, etc. I have seen some houses thrown up in developments and they are of poor quality.



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

02-25-2004 12:36:42




Report to Moderator
 Re: Fifty Year Ago Cost in reply to wolfy, 02-25-2004 10:16:11  
Wolfy: Fifty years ago the Canadian and US dollars were very close in value. Now I cant quote you a SMTA but will add this 1951 Farmall H with 31 loader $1,750., 1955 Farmall 300 with TA and IPTO $3,150. and 1958 Farmall 130 with fast hitch $1,650. Those were new prices paid by my dad in the 1950s. I give you these as they pretty well back what others have said.



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

02-25-2004 11:22:28




Report to Moderator
 Re: Fifty Year Ago Cost in reply to wolfy, 02-25-2004 10:16:11  
i have a price sheet for super mta's dated april 7 1954. the base price for a gasoline model was $2676, swinging drawbar added $14, torque amplifier added $100, independent power take-off added $135. the engine driven hydraulic pump was standard equipment. the remote valve was $66.50, fenders were $19 a pair, 13x38 tires added $40.50 and if you wanted twelve inch rims add $16.50 more. international harvester didn't offer power steering as a factory installed option until the 400's came out.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
wolfy

02-25-2004 13:58:43




Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: Fifty Year Ago Cost in reply to randy hall, 02-25-2004 11:22:28  
Thanks, Randy. Good information. Our county fair is having it's 50th annual fair this year. I will display a 1954 Super M, restored, with a sign using your info; It's cost in 1954; what that would equate to in 2004 dollars & the approximate value of the Super M today totally restored. Thanks again, Wolfy.



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

02-25-2004 11:22:21




Report to Moderator
 Re: Fifty Year Ago Cost in reply to wolfy, 02-25-2004 10:16:11  
Under the List Prices section on this site it gives kind of an approximation value for a 1940 M Farmall as $1112 on rubber and $895 on steel. A 54 super M with all options would no doubt be more than that. I would venture to guess a few hundred more at most. If you know inflation rates, I'll let you do the math. Nobody thinks about inflation much. I have gave it a great deal of thought. Just think how much extra money the government has printed up over the years. They had to of. Otherwise there wouldn't be enough money to go around today. Everybody thinks they destroy $1 for every $1 re-issued. That's a bunch of bull. Do the math on inflation, and there is no way that would work. Who gets credit for all the extra money printed up? Has to be good old Uncle Sam. You just thought they was only getting to ya through taxes. Hard telling how many ways the Government is seeking revenue's that the general public don't even think about. I have had alot of people argue with me on this. Mainly people that have not thought about the reality of it.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Steve from Mo - worse tha

02-25-2004 11:55:18




Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: Fifty Year Ago Cost in reply to Bill Smith, 02-25-2004 11:22:21  
It's not the printing of money that causes inflation. At least not by itself. Money supply is measured indirectly through the federal reserve system, counting deposits. Sooooo , there's a lot more "money" out there, many times more, than there are paper bills out there.

The government sort of gets to say how much money it has without even bothering to print it. Great system, huh?



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

02-25-2004 12:28:21




Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: Re: Fifty Year Ago Cost in reply to Steve from Mo - worse tha, 02-25-2004 11:55:18  
Couple things. First, just wanted to say that, sounds like the super M sold for more than I guessed. Second, you are absolutely correct. Government only has a percentage of the money actually printed up/stamped out. Heard the percentage at one time, and it was supprizing how small of percentage it actually was. The rest is just numbers typed into a computer so to speak. We was drinking beer and talking about the future one time. I made the comment that an average new vehicle will cost around $200,000 in 30 years. They laughed at me. I was just going by history. Take an average cost of a vehicle 30 years ago. You about got to multiply by 7 to come up with today's prices. So take today's prices times 7 to come up with prices in 30 years. $200,000 sounds in the ballpark. The scarry thing is, what will happen to our money system in the future when you talk about astronomical figures like that. Probably looking at a hole new money system between now and then. Alot of country's have had there money systems ruined because of inflation. Hope it doesn't happen here, but I can see some problems already.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Steve from Mo

02-25-2004 12:48:41




Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: Re: Re: Fifty Year Ago Cost in reply to Bill Smith, 02-25-2004 12:28:21  
Considering that inflation is still way low right now, we can deal with it. It's a lot easier to deal with inflation than deflation. You can add a zero every 30-40 years.

Plus, the car/house/tractor/television/stereo you are buying now is probably three or four (or a hundred) times better than the one you would have bought with that same inflation-adjusted money 20-30 years ago.

Deflation would create havoc in the banking system because everything that is security for a loan would become less valuable in dollars over time. If the value of a house goes below a certain ratio to the loan, the lender has to either demand payment of the "excess" loan amount or foreclose.

Deflation almost always happens because lots people are not working and are not making money. So there wouldn't be many buyers for the foreclosed property.

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

02-25-2004 19:33:20




Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fifty Year Ago Cost in reply to Steve from Mo, 02-25-2004 12:48:41  
Couple of points on deflation. It happened after (stock market crash 29). Alot of people without money. Those that had it wound up sooner or later withdrawing it from bank. Banks didn't have it all (it was loaned out). Banks had to foreclose. Sometimes getting 10cents to the dollar. Some cases, the bank passed it on and people got 10cents to the dollar if they withdrew there money from bank. It happened again in a situation in the early 80's. Land got sky high and so did interests rates. Land prices went back down. Those that took out loans on high priced land basically went broke. They couldn't even sell the land to get out of it. As for inflation rates being low right now, just wait untill the next minimum wage hike. Chain effect on inflation. All employers will eventually award the raise to employees. Cost of products goes up. Cost of living goes up. And when cost of living goes up, even the jobless will see raises through welfare, disability, unemployment, and so on. It's all one big dang chain effect. To be honest with you, I can see the 30's maybe happening again, but if so I believe it would be different even if under the same circumstances. I kind of don't get what you mean by number of jobless having something to do with deflation. I mean I can see where it would maybe help deflation get worse, but can't really see where it would be a direct cause. The direct cause for it in the 30's was stock market crash followed by really bad years in economy and farming. The direct cause on the land in the early 80's was moreless interests rates.

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

02-26-2004 00:39:19




Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fifty Year Ago Cost in reply to Bill Smith, 02-25-2004 19:33:20  
Bill: He can't help himself, I knew when he told you cars, trucks, tractors, houses, etc. were 3 to 4 maybe even a hundred times better than the ones we were buying 30 years ago, the guy had to be an idiot. He has since confirmed that. Look at what he told me, he builds houses, he owns houses and his wife sells real estate. Clearly one of those couples that figure North Americans are going to be able to spend 150% of their income on housing.

They had one of those guru's on TV here yesterday morning, trying to convince people because of low interest they can afford to pay more for their house. I've never been able to figure that one as a good reason to pay more for a house. Especially a house with one of those new low water volume toilets. Did you ever have one of those Bill? We have one and also one of the old type. If the new housing industry keeps using those, that little old outhouse is soon going to look attractive, once again.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Kelly C

02-26-2004 20:29:16




Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fifty Year Ago Cost in reply to Hugh MacKay, 02-26-2004 00:39:19  
I do agree with you on this one. Low interest rates have not saved any one any money on land or houses.
All that happened was the price went up to eat your savings.
It still takes 2 people in the house working so one can pay for the house and one pays every thing else.
Now realators have gotten one heck of a pay increase over the last couple of years. They are the ones making out like bandits
Your still paying the same interest on the same house. In the amount of dollars total. Because you are paying double the price.
Example:
Purchased the house before this one for $68,000 at 9.5%
Rates hit 5.75% and we sold. The new owner payed $126,000 Our realator was real happy. Doubled her cash from the 1st time. I thought we did good to until I figured this new house that cost me $178,000 was purchased 5 years before for $85,000. :-(

Again the realator was real happy. She just got her 3rd new Caddy in 3 years.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Paul in Mich.

02-26-2004 07:10:31




Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fifty Year Ago Cost in reply to Hugh MacKay, 02-26-2004 00:39:19  
Hugh, I lived in So. Fla. from 1955 to 1967, and can attest to the fact that the houses built after 1967 were in no way as well built as the ones built before that. Hurricane Andrew had a way of settling that argument. It was the newer houses that took the biggest hit, and it wasn't because thats where the storm hit, it was because the older houses withstood the storm's fury while the newer ones became death traps. My question on toilets is how does anyone come to the conclusion that the newer 1.5 gal toilets save more water than the old 3.0 gal. ones when one has to flush the 1.5's 3 times each time it is used whereas the older 3.0's would handle everything in 1 flush 90% of the time. What morons.

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

02-25-2004 13:11:07




Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fifty Year Ago Cost in reply to Steve from Mo, 02-25-2004 12:48:41  
Steve: I was beginning to believe you had a wee bit of common sence until you made that statment about items like cars, trucks, tractors and houses being a hundred times better than 30 years ago. Now I am convinced you are an idiot. From WW#2 on toward the 1970 items you bought did improve. Since that time those same items have been made idiot proof and quality has gone down hill. A prime example Farmall SMTA, by 1970 it was a 656, today the replacment is a piece of junk.

I only hope I live long enough to see the likes of you handle deflation. Because you aint seen real deflation in your lifetime.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Leo

02-25-2004 19:20:29




Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fifty Year Ago Cost in reply to Hugh MacKay, 02-25-2004 13:11:07  
I don't see any need for resorting to name calling just to disagree with someone. Although I really enjoy this forum, some folks do get carried away occasionally. Let's keep it positive folks.



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

02-26-2004 01:00:27




Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fifty Year Ago Cost in reply to Leo, 02-25-2004 19:20:29  
Leo: Sorry if I offended you, however idiot seemed like a decent term for a guy that thinks cars, trucks, tractors and houses of today are up to a hundred times better than the ones of 30 years ago. I hope I still have the right to say what I think.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Kelly C

02-26-2004 20:00:08




Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fifty Year Ago Cos in reply to Hugh MacKay, 02-26-2004 01:00:27  
Well Hugh.
I have to disagree with you on the car thing.
Those 1970's cars Detroit was putting out were complete piles of crap.
1960's cars were good, but the 70's. Nope just junk.
Heck you were lucky if the door would close at the latch. Shoddy work all the way around.

As far as toasters and the like. A good one cost about $30 or $40 in the 50's. That was a lot of cabbage for a house hold appliance. When you concider you were making $2 a hr. Thats 15 hrs of work for a toaster. You can still buy a great toaster for $200+ now I have seen them. But no one wants to spend 15 hrs of labor on one. Thats why you get the cheap $9 ones at walmart.
Now dont try to pin me on the actual cost of a toaster in the 50's as I am sure you know for sure what they did cost and I just made a educated guess to use as an example.

The point is it was no small feat to get a toaster or a washing machine. Those things were expencive and cost a great deal of money to obtain. I saw a old add for a fridge. it costed more in the 50's than they do today in real dollars.

What would make me happy though. I would like a new car with out all the extra electronic stuff added. Bare bones, Cant get one.

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

02-26-2004 20:57:10




Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fifty Year Ago in reply to Kelly C, 02-26-2004 20:00:08  
Kelly: If you look at some of my other posts on this thread you will find I've really never been greatly impressed with what I've bought from the auto industry. I have owned 7 cars and 8 trucks in my life time, and for me the best of each cars and trucks came out of the 70s A 79 Olds 98 Regency with 403-4 bareel that would give me 26 miles to a Canadian gallon any day and 28 on a long drive. Now that is probably the only vehicle of that caliber I ever bought. The other was a 78 Chevy 3/4 ton pickup 350 with 4 speed, bit heavy on fuel, hauled 3000 lbs great, the nicest handling truck I ever owned and you could hit the brakes full force, it would stop in less distance than anything I've ever driven, and yes it would be parked straight in its traffic lane after stopping. Sure they are in the scrap heap now, so are most from the eighties. Of all the vehicles I've owned, those two both went 300,000+ miles and were never back to the dealer for anything.

This Buick I have now, most of the time the GM computer can't even tell you what is wrong. Almost 1 year ago, GM computer said, crank sensor. I put on crank sensor, mass air flow sensor, coil, ignition module and finally a side road mechanic with his little hand held computer on it eraced it 3 times, each time it came back and said cam sensor. Put a cam sensor on the car and it has worked perfect since. Cost $1,000. plus 6 months of car quitting any old time and anywhere 6 to 8 times per week.

Now we can look at disposable income. I will take the 50s, 60s and 70s any day over what we have seen since. Yes some things may have cost more but damn few. I was married when I was 22, my wife never worked outside the home, and on an annual operating basis I was a heck of a lot better off back then than today. I bought leather work boots in the 50s for $2.50 and a lot more comfortable then what I bought last year for $150. Gas was $0.30 per gallon. Money went somewhere back then, because we weren't paying for all these government and corperate bureaucrats, sitting on their fannies doing absolutely nothing.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Jim

02-25-2004 18:31:47




Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fifty Year Ago Cost in reply to Hugh MacKay, 02-25-2004 13:11:07  
I'm not sure what brought on this tasteless post. Your posts are usually well worth reading. You must be having a bad day.



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

02-26-2004 00:55:00




Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fifty Year Ago Cost in reply to Jim, 02-25-2004 18:31:47  
Jim: Sorry if it offended you, but idiot seemed like a decent description of a guy that figures cars, trucks, tractor and houses of today are up to a hundred times better than the ones of 30 years ago.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Steve from Mo - wait a mi

02-25-2004 13:28:12




Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fifty Year Ago Cost in reply to Hugh MacKay, 02-25-2004 13:11:07  
I hope I never see deflation because a third of the country will be out of work again.

Not everything has got better. Tractors, obviously, have not. But - here are some other things.

Would you want to drive a 74 Buick that got 8 mpg? Would you want to be in a rollover accident with one? Would you want to t-bone a semi in one? I would not.

Would you want a new family house with one bathroom and 1100 square feet? I built them.

Would you want an eight-track tape stereo console?

Would you want a 1974 computer that cost four times as much as one you can buy now? The new one can do things sitting on your desk that took a supercomputer to do 30 years ago.

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

02-25-2004 14:14:15




Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fifty Year Ago Cost in reply to Steve from Mo - wait a mi, 02-25-2004 13:28:12  
Steve: To start with all I listed were cars, trucks, tractors and houses. Never had a 74 Buick, however did have a new 74 Olds Delta 88, with 455 - 4 barrel, gave me 23 miles to the Canadian gallon, that would be around 18.5 miles per US gallon. I would take my chances in that old Olds over most of what I see on road today. My Olds didn't turn crossways like the new ones do when you strike wash board country roads.

My dad used to haul a ton of feed home from the feed store in his 59 Impalla, fill the trunk and put the rest on the fins. Today you need a 3/4 ton pickup to haul that safely. As for your crappy new houses with their plastics, foams, glues, etc., I wouldn't spend overnight in one of them. I have 2200 square feet and I guess probably it was built before you were building those 1100 square foot toilets.

Pickup trucks have steadily gone down hill until you basically can haul nothing with them. I have a friend a traveling mechanic. Up until 1989 he bought a new Chevy 3/4 ton pickup every 3 years for travel and moving his tools. He tells me he actually hauls less weight today than 15 years ago yet he had to go to a 1 ton. Today they have those anti lock brakes that work great for the first year or the first road salt, which ever comes first. My 1978 Chevy 3/4 would stop in less distance from 60 mph to standing than anything I've seen since, and the difference is 10 to 15 feet.

No my friend, it used to be you could spend a few more dollars for quality, today Corperate America just releives you of a few more dollars. My wife has an electric can opener given to us as a wedding present 39 years ago, it still works A-1. One look on the back and it is made by Philips in the good old USA, not in some far flung bannana republic.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Steve from Mo - mostly ag

02-25-2004 14:45:41




Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fifty Year Ago Cos in reply to Hugh MacKay, 02-25-2004 14:14:15  
I have most of the same experiences as you. I seem to have come out with a different perspective though.

I had some of those big cars in the 70's and 80's; most would not stop in a straight line and they are all rusted out now.

We used to haul feed in a car, too. Some folks around here still do.

The truck dealers have degraded the 3/4 ton pickup from what it would haul 20 years ago, but again, that stopping in a straight line thing is a lot better in a newer truck.

I own houses ranging in age from the 50's to one a year old. The old ones don't hold up without continuous upkeep/updates. I think people forget about what they have done to their house since it was new. They wouldn't like their original house now.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Apples to apples

02-25-2004 23:14:32




Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fifty Year Ago in reply to Steve from Mo - mostly ag, 02-25-2004 14:45:41  
Come back when the one year old houses are fifty year old houses and tell my greatgrandchildren how trouble free they are.



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

02-25-2004 17:40:20




Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fifty Year Ago in reply to Steve from Mo - mostly ag, 02-25-2004 14:45:41  
Steve: You made the statment, that you hoped you never see deflation again as 1/3 of the country will be out of work. Do you not also agree if we reach the point whereby 1/3 of the population is without income, that alone will create deflation. Remember My wife's can opener. She tells me she also has my mother's toaster. It is 64 years old and raised a family of 5 boys.

If Corperate America keeps farming jobs offshore at the rate it has in the past 20 years, it will not be long until 1/3 of North America are without income. You best get ready for deflation. Personally I can't wait. The last time it truly happened, my dad bought land for a dollar per acre. Yes in 1938 my dad bought land in a tax sale, formerly owned by the big boys on Wall St. for $1.00 per acre. I'm ready, are you?

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Paul in Mich

02-26-2004 06:59:31




Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fifty Year in reply to Hugh MacKay, 02-25-2004 17:40:20  
Hugh, We'd better grab all the $1.00 per acre land we can get. Maybe even go in debt for some of it, because past experience tells us it won't stay that price very long. Many people became land rich during the depression by buying up land if they had the money to do it. Farmers were actually one of the few groups that were able to expand during that time, (dust bowl farmers excluded), because unlike those city folks, whose stock went to zero, agricultural products had some worth, and they still had their jobs. my Grandfather and my Father nearly doubled their farming operation during the depression. They bought new equipment, and did a lot of custom work such as plowing and threshing. I don't think Martian land has deflated to $1.00 per acre yet, has it?

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

02-26-2004 14:40:54




Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fifty in reply to Paul in Mich, 02-26-2004 06:59:31  
Paul: Actually one of the items we had going for us on the east coast was softwood lumber. Most of our farms were from 1/2 to 2/3 forested. New England was to some degree, trying to spend it's way out of the depression, and while it didn't pay big money for lumber in those days, it did keep money moving. Lumbering was very fuel efficient in those days, as they hauled logs to the river bank with, you guessed HAY BURNERS. That in turn kept a lot of farming operations going suppling hay to the lumbering operations. My grandfather, and nephew who had earlier felt the call of go west young man, thus was starving in the dust bowl. They started a business of rounding up wild horses, shipping them east by rail for use in the lumber business. They used to break those horses on my home farm. It was pretty well over by the time I remember. I do remember some tales of quite hairy and unsafe practices endured by my dad and his friends. I assure you his boys led a much safer life on Farmalls.

The logs were moved down river in the spring by river drives. Sawed into lumber on the coast and shipped by water to places like Boston, New York and Philadelphia. This entire operation created a lot of work in the 30s, for some people. It was definately not for the faint of heart.

This is precisely why Newfoundlanders and Maritimers know how to prosper in hard times. They know how to run a bare bones operation. My dad was 18 when the hammer came down in 1929. He went through the 30s never unemployed. He was able to buy a new flat head V8 Ford coup in 1935 and paid cash for it. He always said my brothers and I never knew the true thrill of the road buying our first cars in the 50s. Sound familiar.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
twopop

02-25-2004 11:11:58




Report to Moderator
 Re: Fifty Year Ago Cost in reply to wolfy, 02-25-2004 10:16:11  
my book show the MLSRP for a 54 super m to be 2640 but does not show options a 54 diesel lists for 3550



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
wolfy

02-25-2004 13:53:25




Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: Fifty Year Ago Cost in reply to twopop, 02-25-2004 11:11:58  
Thanks, twopop. Good information.



[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