What's The Deal With 1468?

Now, I'm not a farmer, but my family had a small farm equipment repair shop, and they used to sell the Farmall line. When the 1468 came out I thought it was a pretty cool concept, what with the V8 and all.

So from the comments I read, folks that "used" to own one rate them powerwise somewhere between a Cub and a Super C. Why the disrespect? What was so bad about them, that they're talked about wors than an AIDS epidemic? [Q: What's the difference between a 1468 and the H1N1 virus? A: you can get rid of both, but folks never seem to get over having had a 1468.]

Was that tractor REALLY as bad as what I read?

we still have a 1468, grandpa bought it new..he was always big on saving fuel instead of power. when it came out he was impressed but was more impressed on how conservative it was on fuel for other jobs so he kept it. still use it sometimes to run a auger. yes they definitly got a bad rap for fieldwork and injection pump probs. kinda loud for my taste. i'm sure others that ran 'em all the time in the day would know more

I have never been even close to a V8 powered IH tractor. Thus the stand I take is neutral, since I have no experience with them. But, from what I have read, they did not have the pulling power of the similar 6 cylinder powered models. IH hoped to attract the "younger" farmers with these. I do think they make good collector tractors, if you can afford one. I doubt if they were as bad as you have read -- some people like them.

Horse power wise they were rated the same as the six cylinder engine. The do not have as much torque rise as the RPMs drop below rated speed so you may have to shift if the load increases too much whereas the six cylinder will pull down and recover. Another difference is that so many of these IH tractors have the fuel turned up for more power and the six cylinder will out preform the eight cylinder when fueled above factory settings. Even with twin turbos they are no match for the six. When used with factory settings under light or varying loads the eight cylinder will usually do a little better on fuel economy than the six cylinder.

Many people did not like the way the fuel injection pump starts to cut back fuel to four cylinders when used at less than 80 percent load so they had the pumps reworked to always run on all eight. This also resulted in less fuel economy under light loads. At 20 percent or less load the engine is designed to run on four cylinders only. One of the main reasons for this was to keep enough load on those four cylinders so that they would stay at a high enough temperature to achieve full combustion.

I farmed with a 1568 for a few years, and we still have it tucked away in the barn gathering dust. My experience with it was more from an operator's view.

It is loud. When I had to farm on it all day I wore ear muffs and had cotton in my ears. The ear muffs gave me a headache. We would only get about a year out of the mufflers before they would burn out, so we ended up putting straight pipes on it. The naturally aspirated engine would make the manifolds and bottom six inches of the mufflers glow a dull red on a dark night and the mufflers just wouldn't last.

We did not have this tractor turned up and it didn't have the horse power we were getting from the 14 or 15 with a six. We did have more weight on the 1568, and I always thought it was balanced well and it pulled a 27 foot disk well.

In my opinion the V8 68 series didn't offer much. I don't think the lower-end of that engine was designed to hold up to the kind of horsepower we were turning out of the six-cylinders and we did change the crank and rod bearings once, and they needed it.

Now that I am older I have good memories of farming with the fire-breathing bellering V8 and I enjoyed having something a little different on the farm. If I think about it I can still hear it as it turns around on the end of the forty and drops the disk in the ground.

Thanks for bringing back the memories,
Paul

No experience with the IH V-8s, but do with a M-F 1155 with a Perkins V-8. I thought it ran and pulled okay, but can't say about economy because I wasn't buying the fuel. My friend that bought it new, traded after two seasons due to other problems with it, but not because of the power or drive train. He went to a 4640 JD and still owns and uses it to this day. Maybe if he'd owned it longer, it might have been more headaches.

Heres my take on things an it might sound crazy 1st I've never driver the V8 tractor 2nd I think that the V8 since the rods have to go in a V shape out instead of strait up like the 6 cylinder takes away some hp's I also think thats the reason 4&6 cylinder have an edge on V8s I've got an F-250 with a V8 International diesel I'd rather have a 6 cylinder diesel in it

People tend to over-exaggerate.

Reality is that the V8 engine simply did not perform as well as the straight-six. The "idle on 4 cylinders" feature added complication that made the engine less reliable. Lack of a turbo made the exhaust gas temperatures too high when you worked the tractor, so it ate mufflers.

Overall it was more complicated, more expensive, less powerful, less efficient, and less reliable.

Nowadays the V8s are major collector's items.

I have to say, a farm down the road has a 1468 with m&w turbos and 4 wheel drive, and a big rig injector pump on it, the guy that owns it is a genious mechanic and made millions flying around the world to fix things that no one else could, That baby has power! he claims over 800hp, i kind of believe it becuase it just plays with the plow he uses( i dont know how many bottoms but its big) I suspect it has a diffrent tranny on it for the 4wd becuase i think he said it goes down the road at 30+ mph

he does have a 4166 also that has something done to it, something about the motor i forget what it has in it... that thing is a monster to!

My thought, even back in the '70s', was that putting twin "hair dryers" on that V-8 might certainly perk up the perfromance, if the drivetrain could handle it...besides looking cooler than a Sno-Cone in an igloo on a glacier.

As far as i know, the only thing he has done to the drivetrain is a clutch and t/a, but that could be becuase he employs tons of people who drive that tractor

To V or straight isn't the issue. Makes no difference in power per cylinder. Nearly all V cranks have fewer main journals (and I'm pretty sure the 68s are like this) and the increased crank flex eats the crank bearings faster.

Comments from my father(worked for Harvester Company from 1958 to 1980, Memphis Territory)

1.Could not attach side tanks without them sticking out too far.
2.Manifold temps under load would heat the plastic side tanks(when the farmer went with the side tanks).
3.You had to "wind it up" before you dropped the disk, etc. into the ground.
4.Would not lug like the 1466, 1066.

Other than that it did ok, slick marketing & packaging.

As a teenager I loved the one we had on our farm, looker cooler than anything else in the field.

A V engine has to rev a lot more than an inline to make power. I had a heck of a time with my friend's 6-o hauling equipment for him, the truck just wouldn't go. Til I got ticked off and revved it up over 2000 RPM. Wow what a difference!

(quoted from post at 18:43:59 10/29/09) To V or straight isn't the issue. Makes no difference in power per cylinder. Nearly all V cranks have fewer main journals (and I'm pretty sure the 68s are like this) and the increased crank flex eats the crank bearings faster.

Click to expand...

You can add to this the fact that the DV550s had a crankshaft that was not regrindable. Standard size only bearings. The block does not use sleeves either so the whole engine is much more expensive to overhaul.