misconceptions in dispute between george and I

Unlike most of you, I never believed IH did many things right. In fact I think they did a damn poor job of listening to their customers. You must understand, I've yet to see what I considered to be the perfect tractor, it hasn't been built as of 2008. I've also never seen a tractor that didn't have at least one feature I liked. Had IH done things right, my dad and I wouldn't have had to listen, (1946 to 1954) to the Cockshutt dealer two miles away, chirping up that he could sell us IPTO, all be it a clumsy tractor alongside a Farmall. I could have accepted fast hitch had I a rigid drawbar for trailing implements. 656, 666 and 686 could have had a non freewheeling TA, every manufacturer had that by the mid 60s.

Back to George and the SA, SC, H, etc. dispute. I've never said a SA would work alongside a SC and keep up, and I've never suggested a SC would work alongside a H and keep up. In 1951, less then $200. seperated a SA and SC and less than $200. seperated a SC and an H on purchase price. Most of the complaints I've heard about SC were the torque tube and engine were not rugged enough for the added wheel base over and above the SA. Most agreed the SC should have had more power. Having said that how much would it have added to the price of a Super C to beef up the torque tube, added frame rails same as H and M and finally changed the crank and rods to give C-135 engine. Most of my neighbors buying new 200 and 230 added a 1/2" plate 6" wide from clutch housing to front bolster. Some continued it to rear end to beef up the torque tube. My point is for probably the same dollars, IH could have made the C, SC, 200 and 230 a much better tractor for all around use.

What I do appologize to George for is not making myself clear enough on this stand. I know George would have liked a C-135 in his SC, 200 or 230. I'm almost betting he wouldn't frown on frame rails or a heavier torque tube either. Speaking of new tractors, I did ask George how he'd like to cultivate tobacco with a 2008 model, not being able to see the ground within 10' of tractor. I'm interseted to see his responce on that. I know some you will say tobacco is on it's way out. (maybe) I'm hearing new uses for tobacco. At any rate potato growers are still cultivating and will be into the future. Potatoes don't stay underground, one must keep burying them.

I've run them all the way from a Farmall Cub to a 350 hp articulated. I can tell you the electronic gadgetry of the last 30 years has taken us backwards. I can take you to a dozen farms that have been without that $100,000. plus tractor for an entire cropping season because of some failure, yes, most of them less than 3 years old. I farmed for good many years with pre 1980 tractors, and never had a tractor down during the busy season.

I rest my case, THE PERFECT TRACTOR HAS YET TO BE BUILT.

My 656 went 10,000 hours before rebuild, and the only repairs in the 10,000 hours was a rebuild of gear shift linkage, one bent valve push rod and one hydraulic pump. There was no damn need of that pump, I shouldn't have listened to an oil guy that told me his oil was Hytran equivilant. 3 pumps within 1 month, 300, 560 and 656. Other than that it was tires, filters, oil, grease, antifreeze and fuel. I've exchanged info with many 656, 666 and 686 owners, my tractor was not unusual. Unless someone was careless the diesels were all that good. Most of the 56 series tractors were just that good, just a more perfect Farmall M.

Speaking of a more perfect Farmall M, about 5 years ago, and this story is in the YT archives. I was dump trucking about 10 miles from here, up and down the same road in planting time. Two old guys were planting corn, Farmall 300 on a 4 row corn planter and the other guy doing tillage and broadcast fertilizer with a Super M. I stopped and watched him one day, pulling one of those 8 ton, tandem axle fertilizer spreaders that most folks use 100hp plus on. He was hiking along in 4th gear, smoking his pipe, basically unconcerned the old Super M would have any difficulty on the hill in the field, he had no need to be concerned, the SM climbed the hill never missed a beat and I could still see fertilizer above the sides, so he did still have weight on.

5 miles down the same road was and new dead articulated Deere, 46' cultivator with wings down, and parked diagnol to shape of field. During the day about 6 Deere service trucks came and went. Another big Deere came in and tilled around it, then a 16 row corn planter planted around it. It sat there for two days, before it was gone. Next morning there was a guy with a 3020, 3 point field cultivator, 3 point fertilizer spreader and 4 row planter, planting the close to 2 acres the dead Deere had occupied. Can you even imagine making the payments on that big beast, having it set there the two best days of planting season. If that had been me, you'd have heard me yelling at mother Deere all the way to KY. That is my point, we never had that happen 30-40 years ago, un heard of back then. In the past 5 years I've heard more stories about farmers being without their main horse power for days at a time in the busy season, all makes too. All I can think of, there must be one hoard of wimps farming today.

They are both fine machines and hold up very well within their limits. The SC happens to fit my needs much better as I do raise tobacco, and use a 2 row transplanter to set it with. This in itself makes the SC much better for me and many tobacco farmers as we can cultivate 2 rows at once instead of one with the SA/100/130/140. Many of which are still being used to cultivate tobacco here in KY.

Duals would not work for ground work such as disking as the C-123 would NOT have the power to pull a disk wide enough to harrow out the tire tracks. Nor would the C-135. It however does work very well for mowing which is the onkly time I use the dual setup.

Like I told Hugh I have seen folks who could tear up an anvil with a rubber mallet. I also see where using any tractor on frozen ground is hard on them if not used with a little common sense and extreme care.

There is NO confict about this subject, just simply two old farts as Hugh says voicing their opinions on two fine old tractors of yesteryear.

By the way tobacco is here to stay. It makes to much money for the gov't to get rid of. Keep in mind I am not advocating the use of it as it can NOT be good for you.

Come on up, and I will build a fire, and drag the Dutch oven out for a batch of biscuits. They are better fixed this way. I do a lot of old outdoor cowboy cooking when weather permits.

After the war was over most returned to the farmland, keeping the forest as back up for cash flow. A lot of folks down that way bought a Ford tractor, kept one horse and could use either for family transportation. I can remember in the late 40s we had a car, going to the village, very common to pass several Ford tractors in 2 miles, with a wooden platform on the hitch, and muma perched behind papa, several sacks of feed and groceries. You would encounter as many horse and buggy combos. With the 50s prosperiety came to our area, most of those folks bought a car or pickup. The horse was on his way out, and most folks wanted a better tractor than the 8N. I'll bet our IH dealers took hundreds of 9N, 2N and 8N on trade for C, SC, etc. Since the horse was gone they took those C and SC to the woodlot in winter. Bear in mind our constant freezing temps often put 5' of frost in the ground where it was travelled. Not much cushion for a tractor around the stumps and frozen ground. W4, H and 300 stood up well, but C and SC busted a lot of spindles, torque tubes and engine blocks. I took my 130 to the bush one winter, hauled 158 cords, busted both front axle spindle housings and one final drive. You can understand how fragile a C or SC would be with a longer wheel base.

For that reason, we always thought the C-SC should have had a heavier torque tube, frame rails same as H and M and it should have had more engine.