IH 274

How many were produced? Any one nave any info on them? Am I shooting in the dark to find one? They seem to be interesting for the veg farmer. Anything better like this? Cub is out to fast and no three point.

The 274 replaced the 140 in the 70s. They were built by Komatsu. Try checking external_link Its probably on there.

Google "IH 274 pics" for many photos. I don't know how many were produced, but external_link has a lot of information on this model. As to whether anything is better; I believe that many tractors can be considered as good, if not better than, the 274. The Cub isn't better, not because it is too fast but because it is little and it takes forever to change implements. The Farmall A is okay, but it lacks hydraulics. The Super A is very good because it has twice the power of the Cub, and it has hydraulics. In my opinion the 140 is a much better tractor than the 274 (I would be interested to see how many people agree with me). Farmall 140s are offset like the 274, but the 140 is gas, as opposed to the 274's diesel engine. The 123 engine (in the 140) only turns 1400 RPMs, whereas the Japanese diesel engine turns 2600, so, logically, the 140 will be more reliable. The 140 also has hydraulics, as well as insane lugging power. Most (if not all) 140's came with a fast hitch, usually of the 1 point variety. This makes attaching cultivators, plows, discs, as well as hitching to wagons, a breeze. So, let it go on the record that I think that the 140 is far superior to the 274 (although this is a good tractor).

SF

another downside of the Cub is the non standard pto rotation, speed, (and size i think).

The need to find specially made and designed implements (proprietary) for the Cub and 140 would be a negative except there were so many made that most any attachment would be available. However you cannot goto the local farm store and buy new mounted implements since they all are 3 point or skid steer quick attach these days.
Every argument can be countered, so it's a wash. What features do you prefer would be the only deciding factor. Although i've heard the parts for the import offsets are very high priced compared to new bigger tractors and the old ones--even an air filter is dealer only, special order, and over 100$! (aftermarket companies have no crossover)

If you don't need the offset design, and want modern: a tractor like a 464, 474, or case ih 485 (among other models in that series) with the right tire, wheel, and axle combinations would be a much better choice overall--in my opinion.
Or if you choose classic, yet want modern features, a 504 or 544 row crop would fit the bill.

There are very few offset models of any color out there.

karl f

That is a very good point about the PTO on the Cub. There are many more problems with Cubs that bear thought, such as the so-called "quick attachable" hitch system. Using this method, It takes approximately 35 minutes to take off a plow and put cultivators on the Cub. This is opposed the Fast Hitch, where I can switch from plowing to cultivating in under 10 minutes.

And, while I do agree that the placement of the shaft is nonstandard, it doesn't pose that much of a problem. I tedder hay often with a 140, and the PTO shaft position is only a problem when making very sharp turns (because the tedder shaft can hit the fast hitch). You mentioned that implements are hard to find for a fast hitch. While that is true, it is actually very easy to bolt or weld a fast hitch bar (available at Agri-Supply) to the 3 point implement. While I do have "real" 140 plows and discs, I also own a rake and scrape blade that have been fabricated in the manner I mentioned.

In my opinion, the offset design does have flaws, but none are serious enough to hamper performance. In fact, I believe that offset tractors have enough good points to put them far ahead of standard tractors in usefulness and versatility.

SF

looking for a exhaust manifold for 274 diesel