Farmall H or C?

Well,I had been thinking that an H would be a nice addition as a second tractor for our hobby farm (45 acres and we have a Ford 5610, 4x4 with FEL). I grew up driving my grandfather"s A but the idea of a larger model with a quick hitch for some ploughing, mowing, etc seemed more useful. So as I"m looking I have run across a fellow selling a pretty decent Super C with 2 point quick hitch and a quick hitch, 2 bottom plough. There is also a 7" sicle mower for the C that may be available as well as a wide front end. He has owned it for some time, it sees regular use, and appears looked after.

Mowing would be my main excuse for the tractor and a small bush hog style mower would be best. I"m wondering if the SC can handle one or should I keep looking for an H? Also wondering how much harder on fuel the H would be than the C, although for my level of use that shouldn"t really be an issue. The gent with the SC says he bought it instead of an H due to fuel consumption.

I understand that everyone has a favorite but for my purposes is there a strong reason to select one over the other? Thanks.

I would get an H instead of a C. I own an H and a Super H and both are gas sippers, you can work from sunup to sundown on a tank.

There's nothing much handier than a super c with a fast hitch.

(quoted from post at 22:51:46 11/16/10) There's nothing much handier than a super c with a fast hitch.

Click to expand...

I'll second that. We farmed 100 acres with one as our only tractor for 2 years... 2x14" plow, 7' tandem disc and 7' sickle bar mower, all F-H mounted. Handiest small row crop tractor ever made.
As for a [u:17990246d9]rotary mower[/u:17990246d9], I would prefer a tractor with LPTO, but the SC should handle a 6' mower if you don't push it too hard. Just be sure you have an over-run clutch.

Other than being heavier which can help in holding back a load headed down hill, there is virtually nothing a straight H can do that a healthy Super C cannot do...and be handier esp. if it has a quick hitch. I say this after years of owning, using and pulling both models. There was enough more to a Super H than an H that we wouldn"t be having this conversation if you had said Super H. I have a friend that sold IH equipment, tractors and trucks in Cortland, NY in the "50"s and "60"s...he told me once that the only time they sold any regular Hs after the Super Cs were introduced was when they sold the ones they had in stock at a large discount.
I have been pulling my bone stock (not even an 1/8 in over bore kit) for years...the only time it has been beaten by a Division I legal H (including my own) was by an H with the ultra low 1st gear. My Super H on the other hand can beat it hands down.

I have a C, H, and M. I had the H first out of the three, and loved it for brush hogging. Then I got the M, and now the H doesn't even feel right out in the woods brush hogging after being used to the Ms power. I don't know what kind of terrain you need to mow, but I couldn't even imagine using the C for brush hogging. I use it for hayrides, pulling the trailers around to pick up brush and stuff like that. The H I have since mounted a belly mower on, and use that to keep the pastures and riding trails cut short, and the M is left for trail making, heavy brush hogging, and spreading manure.

Since you have the 5610 you have one for the heavy lifting/pulling, so I would tend to go with the Super C. I have a straight C, a Ford 8N, and a Ford 5000. Each has their good points, and I use them all. The C is by far the most maneuverable, and just plain fun to drive/use if it is within it's means. I like my C, but wish it were a Super C with fast hitch. I know it would not be hard to convert, but it is hard to find the fast hitch components and implements.

Thanks for your thoughts.

I"m not in a rush to buy and could easily continue to look for a nice Super H however they don"t seem all that common in these parts. Regular H models are fairly common. My main attraction to the Super C is that this is a nice example with fast hitch and a few correct implements. I could hope to find a SH in the same condition as mowing bushes is something that I would want it for. I could also but a Massey 135 diesel and be done with it but I like the old Farmalls, I just need it for more than towing a wagon, planting a garder or driving in a parade.

Great forum you have here. I will check out the SC and think on it some.

SC may pull "almost" as much as an H, but it does not have the weight or the gearing, ie 3 field speeds instead of 4 plus about 1000 lbs less weight -- weight can be added on both tractors. More agile, yes, but after 5000 hours on an H as a teenager, there really is no comparison if you really want to pull something. For cultivation, the C has the advantage, but not by much. C should handle a 5 ft bushog for medium sized weeds. All depends on how big the weeds are.

I will say that I do love the way my C drives, and it's size for going through our trails. It's easilly the most maneuverable of the three tractors I have, and fun to drive!

If you're looking for just a handy little tractor to have around the farm, I'd go with the SC. But, if you are going to have a brush hog attached to it, I think that you would be happier with a little more horse power. Like the other guys have said, the SH would be a better fit.

Bottom line is that you can't go wrong with either choice.

I had a H and also a 200 with fast hitch and the 200 is 5 times more handy and usefull! I wonder if any company built a [axel clutch] for the C to the 230?? Bud.

We had both on the farm as a kid. I don't know what was done to the SC but there was no h or super h in my area that could keep up with the SC. We pulled a C80 woods mower, baled hay with it. I can't beleive we did it but we pulled 16 ft wagons full of chopped corn and yes the SC pulled way better with those 4 gears then the H pulled with the 5. Much better tractor.

The fast hitch Super C is one great tractor and it has features that are hard to find on modern ones like down pressure on the hitch. I'm a lot like you in that I have a Ford 5610 for all the heavy 3 point type work I need to do like the disc mower and any soil tillage along with it's independant PTO and engine driven hydraulic remotes. My Super C gets in on everything and I have a nice variety of 2 point implements. They are not that hard to find and so much nicer to hook up then wrestling around with those 3 point ones and I certainly don't want to get involved with mounted implements for my H and M's. It seems in my search for 2 point implements Pennsylvania is a gold mine in that the farms there must be sized for the C and SC tractors. Don't know where you live but get yourself a truck and trailer and give Pennsylvania a good tour and you will find about everything you could use for you SC. By the way, I also have a H, M and a SMTA and the SC is used far more then all of them put together. My SC probably rakes more hay around this neighborhood then any other tractor because of the smaller fields and it's so agile and turns quick with the narrow front. Another thing, being a lighter tractor the steering is so much easier and less tiring then with the other larger letter series Farmalls. I certainly vote for the fast hitch Super C, Hal.

I went and looked at the SC. The fellow actually has two, plus two more 200 tractors. All have the fast hitch, with one of the 200 models having a home built 3 pt as well. A couple Massey 245s and a larger John Deere were also present for bigger jobs.

The one advertised for sale is a little rougher than the others but started right up and ran ok. Rear tires were heavily cracked, tin is fixable but has a few tears, etc. Coverted to 12 volt but not a great job. No fenders. Fast hitch two bottom plough in pretty decent shape and a repairable fast hitch sickle mower as well. Left brake didn"t seem to be working.

He is motivated to sell one and for a little more $$ would sell either the other SC or a 200. Both have the wide front axle that I prefer and better tires. The second SC has a better 12v conversion and one 200 is still 6v. This SC had a very small (too small) hole where the hand crank should insert. Did all SC models use a hand crank?

He seemed to be an honest, semi retired farmer (still makes hay to maintain the land and runs a few head of cattle). These tractors were not showpieces for him, but appeared to be well maintained working tractors.

I believe that he is just a little heavy on the price for this area however the fast hitch implements can be difficult to find in decent shape. My main concern involves mowing with the SC as my land is mostly overgrown old fields that may cause heartaches with a sickle mower.

Is there any preference between a good SC and a 200 or other options for mowing old hay fields with weeds? Thanks again.

Outdoors,

There is a nice looking Super H for $3500 in IL, in Photo Ads. Touch Photo Ads at the upper left on this page, type Farmall in the search box and hit go. Scroll down till you find the Super H.

Dean

A good H will have 34 hp. A good C will have 24 at best, if your lucky. A super C with firecraters will have 27, So I dont think a C will come close being 1000 lbs lighter.And alot less tire on the ground.

You mentioned that the SC had a wide front end. If so, it will drive rough. The wide fronts on the B, C, SC, 200 etc were mean to drive. You will be looking for a tricycle front if you do make the purchase. The wide fronts were absolutely necessary when working in soft ground especially planting with front mounted planters. Otherwise you would want to use the tricycle front.

A couple of things you might not be aware of on the fast hitch SC and 200's. There is an adapter hitch that fits in the fast hitch prongs which allows the use of 3 point implements. It was made by IH and I have one but have never used it so can't give any pro and con's on them. One item that is a little expensive on the SC then other same era Farmalls is a grill. So if you find a SC with a smashed up grill finding a replacement is going to be somewhat costly. The SC uses a grill that is taller by an inch and half so regular C grills won't work. The same grill might be used on a Super A but I'm not sure since I don't have one but they are somewhat scarce. Another thing the 36" size rear tires are more expensive then the larger 38" tires used on the H's and M's. I believe it is because that size has very limited applications and aren't made in the larger quantities the more common 38" are and by far fewer manufacturers. I did see that the electric start was an option on the regular C tractor but isn't as clearly stated in Guy Fay's Farmall Tractor Data book for the SC. I do recall a lot of Farmalls in the later 1940's were still hand cranked and I think by the 1950's the trend was toward electrical starting and the 200 probably was such. I would be surprised if it didn't have hand crank features anyway though. I sent you an email as well you should have received, HTH, Hal.

I have a C with a wide front. Other than being somewhat hard to steer at slow speeds it has no problems. Actually the narrow front handles soft ground better than either the wide front or single front, provided the rows are wide enough to allow it, unless you mean mud collecting between the wheels of the NF. We used single fronts for most vegetables because of narrow rows, wide front would work also. The B did not come with a wide front, that was the A, but some B's have been converted.

Spoken like a true "never ran a Super C but I will apply my knowledge (or lack there of) Guy"!

Spoken like a true "never ran a Super C but I will apply my knowledge (or lack there of) Guy"!

I've only driven a narrow front SC and C, but I can't imagine the wide front version would turn nearly as well as the narrow front.

I spoke to my uncle today and he told me of a Super M near home that he says is in decent shape at a fair price. Might have a look at that as well. It would certainly be better suited to mowing with a rotary mower however not as handy as a SC. No details as to what extras it may have except he thought that it had a wide front.

Half the fun is in the looking.