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
:

340 rowcrop vs. 340 utility

Welcome Guest, Log in or Register
Author 
Al L. in Wisc.

11-02-2006 17:13:35




Report to Moderator

Seeking knowledge as to the differences between the 340 rowcrop and utility. Is it more than just the wide front? Thanks in advance for repies.




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

11-03-2006 03:45:32




Report to Moderator
 Re: 340 rowcrop vs. 340 utility in reply to Al L. in Wisc., 11-02-2006 17:13:35  
Al: You did ask the differences, and JJ and a lead covered the steering and front end well. There were options on hydraulics as well but I think the same applied to both Utility and Farmall.

On power train from crank pully to the tip of pto shaft the two tractors are identical except for rear axles and pto drive gear ratio. The axle housings will be the same. Most utilities developed 540 pto at a bit higher engine rpm. This also increased ground speeds to compensate for smaller tires.

As to that side hill bunk, old is correct, Farmall chassis is actually less than 2" higher than a Utility. I think max. wheel tread setting on a Utility is around 68" wheras the Farmall will quite easily go to 90" wheel tread. NO THANK YOU, but I'll take the Farmall for side hill work any day. When these tractors were new most Utility buyers were running wheel treads 56" to 64" for convenient use in confined areas. Farmall buyers were running 72" or wider wheel tread for row crop work. Let me assure you a Farmall at 72" wheel tread will be a mountain goat along side a Utility at 60" wheel tread. Tractors loaded with chloride are also much more stable on side hills.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
J.J. from Afton

11-02-2006 21:37:32




Report to Moderator
 Re: 340 rowcrop vs. 340 utility in reply to Al L. in Wisc., 11-02-2006 17:13:35  
The 340 rowcrops and 340 utilitys also have comlpetely different steering systems. The utility has a steering rod on each side of the engine, while the steering shaft of the rowcrop goes along the left side of the engine. Rowcrops have adjustable axles, utilitys dont. Also the utilitys could have the muffler go through the hood or under the axle, almost all rowcrops went through the hood.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
a_lead

11-02-2006 18:06:49




Report to Moderator
 Re: 340 rowcrop vs. 340 utility in reply to Al L. in Wisc., 11-02-2006 17:13:35  
I got the owners manual out: Pictures show the front bolster area is different. The hydraulic pump return tube goes directly into the hydraulic filter plate. The front lights are on the very front on the utility, next to the operators platform on the Farmall. Engine exhaust is downward and back on the ut not thru the top. Farmall had either cast iron or power adjust rear wheels, ut had 3 types: Disc wheels with demountable rims, one piece wheel & rim assmbly, or power adjust type. The front bolster weights are different. The book shows different wiring harness's for each. General dimensions list the ut as 3" shorter length, narrower min. width & max width, ut is 4" shorter to top of steering wheel, lower to ground on belly side. Turning radius 9' on the ut, 7'3" on the Farmall. Guess I got carried away on the long post. Sorry. Edward

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Brian Y.

11-02-2006 17:46:22




Report to Moderator
 Re: 340 rowcrop vs. 340 utility in reply to Al L. in Wisc., 11-02-2006 17:13:35  
Al, posted a few entries earlier is a photo I posted of a Farmall 340....(the rowcrop versions of IH"s tractors were the Farmall versions; the utility models were the International versions). As far as mechanical differences, I am not sure of any-transmissions,engine HP,etc. But the utility models had a shorter wheelbase because the front axle was swept back, and because(as in the case of the 340)they had a 28" rear wheel; thus the utility model sat lower-making it more stable on hillsides and in a loader.Hope this may have been a help.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
old

11-02-2006 17:39:58




Report to Moderator
 Re: 340 rowcrop vs. 340 utility in reply to Al L. in Wisc., 11-02-2006 17:13:35  
Don't quote me on this but I think the row crop one sits a lot higher then the utility one does. I know the row crop one sits up about as high as an H does.



[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