460/560 Rear Axle recall question: WHY ???

I know this has probably been asked on here more than once,but why DID they have rear axle/gear trouble with these tractors????

I heard it was "because they used a rear end like an M",but that doesnt make sense to me??? Does that 6 cylinder in that 560 REALLY generate that much more torq than the older M/Super M 4 cylinders???? (I know the HP is different,but I dont think THAT was a big issue???)

(BTW,I have had,"hypoid","Sincro Mesh","Extereme Pressure GL-1 climbing gear lube","Torq Amplifier","Planeterys","Viscosity","Bearings","Races","Clearances","Tolerances"AND "Run out"on the friggin brain lately !!I will wake up from a nightmare in the middle of the night thinking about it probably! lol)

Sometimes I think I need to put down the Keyboard AND the Capt Morgan's and just go to bed! LMAO

My opinion only, don't claim to know all the answers. Rear problems didn't start with the 560 circumstances happened to make it a bigger problem then. Bigger equipment used, more ground being worked by a tractor. Combined with a deeper R&P and standard first gear ratio than previous tractors, more torque was going through the differential bull gears and axles. Differential and bull pinion gear and shaft problems were happening also. When the 560 came out a good percent of previous tractors were still running near original power levels. Yes a lot had been souped some, but not near 100% like a 560. Good percent were used with smaller rear tire sizes also, at least part of there life.
Also fast hitches with traction control were becoming more common. When plowing or carring it or other impliments more load was placed on the axles and tires along with the drive train.

My understanding:

The main problem was the bearings used in the final drives.

Originally they were the same ball bearings as used in the M, and simply weren't strong enough.

The 560 had nearly twice the HP as the original M, but the rear end was not updated for the extra HP. Same deal for the 460/H relationship.

IH updated all the tractors with roller bearings, and any new ones came with the roller bearings from the factory. After that everything was fine.

This begs the question: If someone were to find an original 460 or 560 that hadn't been updated, should it be updated? Such a tractor would be a RARE original, with low hours.

(quoted from post at 06:58:50 12/21/11) My understanding:

The main problem was the bearings used in the final drives.

Originally they were the same ball bearings as used in the M, and simply weren't strong enough.

The 560 had nearly twice the HP as the original M, but the rear end was not updated for the extra HP. Same deal for the 460/H relationship.

IH updated all the tractors with roller bearings, and any new ones came with the roller bearings from the factory. After that everything was fine.

This begs the question: If someone were to find an original 460 or 560 that hadn't been updated, should it be updated? Such a tractor would be a RARE original, with low hours.

Click to expand...

Quite a few 460s and 560s DID get updated, but never got the stamp on the serial plate, so unless you did an inspection of the trans/rear end, you'd never know.

The following is my opinion.

IH took basically a 20-year old design of an M rear end that wasn't exactly overdesigned for a 3-14 plow tractor, changed a few things, and decided it would be all right to use with the new 560.

460 was the same idea as a H rear end. Same story, double the hp and load on the rear end all day long and you're asking for trouble.

560 diesels especially were often turned up. Some got a M&W turbo added for a few more horsepower. Some people even pulled 6 bottoms with these tractors. It was a disaster waiting to happen when IH knew issues existed when the 400-450 tractors were in the field.

Some people say pulling the gear lube out of the rear ends played a part in all of this, too.

IH tried to make a few small alterations. Some helped, some didn't. Eventually they changed a boatload of parts to make these work. Most have been updated, some haven't.

460's without the larger diameter axles didn't have heavy enough axles when using a mounted picker. The smaller axles couldn't take the stress and many times snapped in two.

How a 560 with a fast hitch ever pulled a 5 or 6-bottom plow without ripping the hitch apart, I'll never know.

The sad thing is that right after these nightmare tractors came the 806, one of the best tractors they ever made. By then, many had turned to other colors of paint on their machinery to power their farms and some never came back.

AG

Strangely enough, the (vastly improved) 460's rear end continued on in the 656, 666, and 686 tractors, with engines that were even more powerful than a stock 560.

These are also regarded as some of the best tractors IH ever made.

I hauled out from IH warehouse these update wood crates of parts for the shop mechanics to install. It was a heavy sob, bull gears, brake shafts, housings & bearings, axle bearings, as a side note same axle was common for M/SM/400/560. The parts book still lists these original & the replacement by serial of tractor. The serial plate was marked by a mechanic with a triangle when done. IH claimed that bearing technology had improved a lot since these tractors were built.

Perhaps the engineers relied too much on their slide-rules rather than extensive field testing. They may have assumed that with 50% more cylinders and no increase in displacement, the individual power impulses would have nearly the same amplitude in a higher output engine. On top of that, the higher power of the new engines came with a higher RPM which would have no effect on the slow speed bearings.

Some things can't be predicted. It's easier now-a-days with computer modeling. This is why we have 10 day weather forecasts as opposed to 2-3 day forecast in the '50s.

(quoted from post at 15:57:24 12/21/11) Strangely enough, the (vastly improved) 460's rear end continued on in the 656, 666, and 686 tractors, with engines that were even more powerful than a stock 560.

These are also regarded as some of the best tractors IH ever made.

Click to expand...

Very true.

Further improvements were made as series of tractors progressed.

When the 560 came out, it was IH's big row crop powerhouse. IH and farmers tried to ask more from a tractor that wasn't up to the challange. There are many parts other than the rear end that were basically robbed off of earlier tractors and put on the early 460 and 560's, and other issues with these tractors that were changed/improved/remedied by the time the 656 hit dealers.

I'm sure alot of people bought 656, 666, and 686 tractors as their "big" tractor or only tractor. Many also bought them for haying, loader duty, manure work, cultivating, spraying, planting, and other work other than heavy tillage. When new, most 560's had a plow behind them at least one season a year. I don't think that can be said for the same percentage of 656, 666, and 686 tractors. I'd also be willing to guess that around half of the 686's sold have never done a full season of plowing at all.

Case IH could make a 75 hp. tractor today with a "stock" early 560 rear end and not suffer the massive failures they did with the 560. Very few people buy new 75 horse tractors today for heavy tillage work.

My grandpa bought a new 560 diesel in early 1959, the only tractor he ever bought new. He didn't pull the snot out of it either, he had a 3-16 plow. Several head gaskets and 3 rear ends later, he became a Case man until he retired. In the 4 years he had the 560, it never made it through a spring or fall season without a major breakdown. A Farmall C was his "little" tractor, and probably did more work in those 4 years than the 560 did.

AG

Those tractors have improved bearimgs, shafts and gears over some of the best 460 parts.

I was reading last night in a book I got for Christmas that budget problems led to the shortening up of the testing phase for the 60 series tractors, and after the problems started to appear which were predicted by the engineers the CEO fired the head project engineer. I think the CEO should have been fired for stopping the testing and putting the tractors on the market. If only I could go back in time and punch some of those top IH guys in the face, maybe I could still be going to the IH dealer for parts!

the 656 666 686 is not a 460 rear end. The 656 666 686 is much different. better brakes with better adjusment. Just take one apart and look inside!!!!

As a kid, I seem to recall IH guys complaining even with the Ms and Super Ms about the rear end not being strong enough, so why all the talk about them being too weak just for the 560? It was a problem before then.
I do know a guy from our church that bought a new 560D in(probably) 1959, turned the pump up and pulled a 5x16" Fast_Hitch plow. I left for the AF shortly after and don't know what troubles he may have had.

The 460/560 problems started earlier than stated here. During the Super M, MTA and 400 testing it was noted that higher bull pinion and inner axle bearing failure rates were being encountered. Nothing was done about it because the failure rates weren't that high. The sad part is that knowing this field testing was not done for the 560 when fitted with the more powerful 6 cylinder engine. John McCaffery even admitted this in 1958 that the 460/560 series had not been field tested before their introduction. McCaffery had spent all the R&D money on his bulldozers and none was available for field testing. That combined with weak senior project engineering management allowed this developing disaster to happen. When the senior engineer was fired he was replaced with a much more agressive individual whose idea was to do it right the first time. Harry bercher became president and his motto "build her stout" was adopted for the 706/806. The 706/806 was originally due to be released in late 1961 but the Hydra Matic transmission wouldn't shift properly. It was abandoned and a straight spur gear and TA unit was substituted. This delayed the introduction to late 1962. Then Harry Bercher insisted on an additional full year of testing to make sure the tractor would be reliable under all conditions. This delayed the introduction until mid 1963 and ensured that the tractor would be very reliable..

As was stated, the bearing in the early rear ends were ball bearings.

They switched to roller bearing because of the side loading that was destroying the ball bearings. Insufficent lubrication was also a huge problem. The "updated" gear sets had more/different oil holes and grooving. The poor lubrication, coupled with more engine power, increased side loads from increased draft, generated more heat, and poof! there goes your teeth and bearings.

At least that is what I heard.

Not all changes came in that original box of bull gears, differential, tapered roller bearings on diff etc. After they still had bearing problems a new bearing package was introduced. I put in several to the same tractors I originally had put the update pkg in. The axles never did and still do not have tapered roller bearings. Flat roller bower bearing on inner and improved (with extra clearance for flexing axle) ball bearing on outer axle. The 656 has tapered roller pretty much all the way through and inner support on bull pinion shafts. Their bull gears are smaller in dia but much wider tooth profile. The latest lube tubes were not in the 560 original pkg either. That was an after thought. We had to drill holes in differential, bull pinion support housing when that tube was added.

(quoted from post at 09:29:33 12/21/11) the 656 666 686 is not a 460 rear end. The 656 666 686 is much different. better brakes with better adjusment. Just take one apart and look inside!!!!

Click to expand...

Oh, so the brakes are different therefore the entire rear end is different???

That makes sense.

(quoted from post at 21:00:35 12/21/11) Then would it be fair to say if I would really "hop up" my Super M engine,add MORE rear end weight for traction, and start pulling a 4x14 plow for long durations at a time,I probably have the same issues with my rear end the same as the original 560 rear ends did?????

Click to expand...

How did this show up before your message? This double-view option is great.

AG

(quoted from post at 21:00:35 12/21/11) Then would it be fair to say if I would really "hop up" my Super M engine,add MORE rear end weight for traction, and start pulling a 4x14 plow for long durations at a time,I probably have the same issues with my rear end the same as the original 560 rear ends did?????

Click to expand...

You won't be doing any favors to almost 60 year old parts .

AG

Then would it be fair to say if I would really "hop up" my Super M engine,add MORE rear end weight for traction, and start pulling a 4x14 plow for long durations at a time,I probably have the same issues with my rear end the same as the original 560 rear ends did?????

If you think that the 460/560's were bad try the 660, a 95 HP standard tractor. It's 282 engine turned 2400 rpm instead of 1800 and drove into the same old design rear end. 100% of these were rebuilt with new crankshafts (4 bearing cranks instead of 7 as is standard today), many new engine parts and a complete transmission/rear end redo at a dealer lose of $2,000 per tractor over IH allowed warranty. And they still would not stay in the field. Then John Deere came out with the 4010, admittedly with many problems, but was still better than the 660. The IH 806/1206's were far and away better than anything on the market then but you can only burn a man once. Unfortunately, IH did not change that design for another 25 years and the rest is history as they say.

I don't know the service/warantee history of the 660 but I do know that they were rated at 80 hp. Moreover, the axle shafts were not load bearing. Everything from the bull gears out was full-floating and the housings were massive. I'd be surprised if they were included in the recall. BWDIK.

It seems to me that the D-282 was never considered a dog despite the fact that many of its parts are shared with the gasoline version. The only negative comments I have seen on this site pertain to its hard starting nature.

My 660 serial is 6898 S-Y-CC with no triangle. CC stands for heavy tillage and it probably saw some of that. Also has an Elwood front axle which might also add loading to all the components from the mainshaft back to the tires. Wheel was removed for tire service.

<a href="http://s140.photobucket.com/albums/r16/Wardner/?action=view¤t=660planetary010.jpg" target="_blank"> </a>

(quoted from post at 23:02:21 12/21/11) It seems to me that the D-282 was never considered a dog despite the fact that many of its parts are shared with the gasoline version. The only negative comments I have seen on this site pertain to its hard starting nature.

Click to expand...

I'd say that the early D-282's where the sleeves drop in and have to be shimmed leave more than a little to be desired. Later, they decided to do some decent machine work and the sleeves press fit.

Most people would rather use the buck and a half can of either than fix glow plugs. Alot of these engines are more tired than their owners realize, too. If the glow plugs function properly and the batteries are decent, and the engine is in good shape, these don't start all that hard at all. My dad's 560 diesel will start below zero, but it's not good for the engine. 1500 watt heater helps in winter.

D-282's are very economicial on fuel for the power you can get out of one.

AG

All that would depend on the ground type, how deep and wheel slipage. SM from the differential back is mostly the same as a 450 farmall. Some ground here a 3 bottom is all a 450 wants at 8 inches.
560 parts after the serial break or early updated differential, differential carriers, bull and pinion gears and bearings will work in a SM. If you want it to look stock on the outside have the OD of the bull pinion retainers turned down to SM OD size. If you use one keyway axles from a 560 different wheels is needed. After a serial # break 560 came with the parts and no triangle was put on them. Some other improvements were added toward end of production. Also there was a serial break that the rear housings were changed. Main shaft rear bearing and retainer was change and wall of housing strengthened for retainer that mounted with 4 bolts instead of 3. Same as the 660 was using.

(quoted from post at 09:20:25 12/21/11) I was reading last night in a book I got for Christmas that budget problems led to the shortening up of the testing phase for the 60 series tractors, and after the problems started to appear which were predicted by the engineers the CEO fired the head project engineer. I think the CEO should have been fired for stopping the testing and putting the tractors on the market. If only I could go back in time and punch some of those top IH guys in the face, maybe I could still be going to the IH dealer for parts!

Click to expand...

Very true !! IH was having serious financial &amp; management problems close to the end of the 50's to begin with, they could build as many tractors a year as the entire market could sell, they had become too efficient at building tractors &amp; dealers had inventory they just couldn't sell.
The sales management pushed engineering on the new series to beat what they knew Deere was coming out with, they wanted to be the first with a six cylinder tractor, to try and maintain what sales they did have. They attempted to improve IH's bottom line with predicted sales of this new series tractor.
Previously on any new models, extensive field testing and attachment developement was completed prior to any release, and was then signed off by all senior branches of management.
They yielded to the pressure placed on them by the sales staff &amp; it cost them Deerly. (sorry)
By the time the 06 series came out they had lost their share of the market
the 06's brought some of it back, but by then the competition had taken their hold.
This is just my personal opinion. I am by no means an expert, but this is how I understood it. I am sure there are more experienced people who worked there during that time that can share what they know also.

They certainly pump alot of fluid thru the lube tubes. I was watching mine with a "see-snake" camera once.