Farmall 706 Grump
New User
Were the Super HTA's an original factaory manufactured tractor? How many were made?
- Thread starter Farmall 706 Grump
- Start date
Our Phone System is Down!
Please use the Contact us Form
We are working to resolve the issue ASAP! Thanks for your patience!
State of Jefferson
Member
No such animal.
Someone just put H/SH tin on a 300/350.
Neat item, but NOT factory.
Ben
Someone just put H/SH tin on a 300/350.
Neat item, but NOT factory.
Ben
luv2wrench
Member
my buddies mate a 300/350 rear end to an H front all the time. Has H tin. make people ask why alot and makes a good discussion over a pivo.
53 super H
Member
That is the picture of a H brake system
![0305007768-l.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket](https://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r16/Wardner/0305007768-l.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket)
There were one or two Hs that were pieced together by IH for use at the IH experimental farm. Before they got close to production the 300 was on the horizon and the technology was put into the 300. Any H's that were put together with a TA by IH were destroyed. No SHTA's were produced except by collectors piecing together the back end of a 300 with the front half of an H.
There were one or two Hs that were pieced together by IH for use at the IH experimental farm. Before they got close to production the 300 was on the horizon and the technology was put into the 300. Any H's that were put together with a TA by IH were destroyed. No SHTA's were produced except by collectors piecing together the back end of a 300 with the front half of an H.
I have to half disagree with that statement. Just because it doesn't have disc brakes doesn't make it a plain jane H. You have no idea what gears it was running or how many cubes it was running. It was experimental so all bets are off. IH did a lot of work hidding their research. They wouldn't put SH decals on it if they weren't into production yet.
Owen Aaland
Well-known Member
The sign taped to it on the first picture says Farmall H, but I guess they could call it whatever they wanted to.
Janicholson
Well-known Member
The band brakes speak to the issue as well! It was
probably a factory test "mule" and that it was based
on an H made no difference. Jim
probably a factory test "mule" and that it was based
on an H made no difference. Jim
Remember if an engineering group was testing something on a mule or prototype they'd assemble a machine to test the parts they were working on. If they started messing around with T.A.s before they did brakes they would use an older tractor with their new T.A. pieces parts on it. Even if they were working on brakes at the same time they might build their T.A. mule with the older style brakes. Idea is if you are testing a T.A. why expose your test to the possibility of messing around with experimental brakes when your supposed to be messing around with a T.A.? Oh yeah the factory didn't have "correct" police, especially in prototyping, the mistakes they made on prototype/mules tractor were resolved and incorporated into production, except of course the 560- they opted to let the farmers do the testing on that one- not one of their better ideas. An Ag engineering professor of mine in college lead us through a prototype testing program he did on a rice harvester. By looking at pictures of the machine he could date or place them in sequence. As he ran the machine they found problems and engineered solutions to the problems. Friends of mine that make dog sleds are the same way, they look at one of their sleds and can date it by different parts or assembly methods .
Janicholson
Well-known Member
4-11-1952 and 532 hours of testing. on the tag drives the issue into pre SH territory. Very interesting that the Stage II was produced W/O TA. Jim
Jim Becker
Well-known Member
Even though the first production TA was used on the M series, they probably chose to do their early testing in an H just for the convenience of having the longer mid section in the tractor. They could have used an M for a test mule but it would have been additional work.
mike1972chev
Well-known Member
Hey to all!
Do you reckon the reason they DID NOT build the H TA was beacause they were trying to "up" the sales of the M??? Building an M TA would help to make the M MORE appealing?? According to sales records,I know the H was a HUGE seller,out selling the M series.
Just thinking out loud??? I have NOT a clue????
Do you reckon the reason they DID NOT build the H TA was beacause they were trying to "up" the sales of the M??? Building an M TA would help to make the M MORE appealing?? According to sales records,I know the H was a HUGE seller,out selling the M series.
Just thinking out loud??? I have NOT a clue????
Doubt it. Farms were growing larger and demands for row crop tractors bigger than the Super MTA were already there by 1954.
The Super H didn't sell all that well compared to the H on a units-per-year basis. I suspect this is due to two reasons. First, the original H was so good, many smaller farmers kept them and continued to use them as their main power. Second, many farms that would've bought another H-sized tractor were instead upgrading to the Super M or SMTA.
In the book Farmall The Golden Age: 1924-1954, on the picture on the inside front cover, an IH employee is chopping haylage at Hinsdale with an M. If you look at the license plate on the truck he"s loading,it says 1950. If you look closely at the M, it looks like it has a TA lever. So they must have been working on the TA early on.
The Dukester
Well-known Member
Nah, if you look 3-4 pages inside there's a bigger, better picture of the same tractor and there's no TA lever. There was no room for the TA until they figured out how to get the live hydraulic pump mounted on the distributor drive on the engine....and then they had to re-design and stretch the clutch housing to get it in.
I have never read anything on how and when exactly they developed the TA though...it would make for interesting reading I would think.
I have never read anything on how and when exactly they developed the TA though...it would make for interesting reading I would think.
The TA lever may not have looked like the lever in the final design... same goes for the housing, although it would have had to have some kind of enclosure. When we started out with hydrostatic transmissions, they were sometimes just in a rectangular welded up housing with just the internals being similar.
Similar threads
We sell tractor parts! We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today.
Copyright © 1997-2024 Yesterday's Tractor Co.
All Rights Reserved. Reproduction of any part of this website, including design and content, without written permission is strictly prohibited. Trade Marks and Trade Names contained and used in this Website are those of others, and are used in this Website in a descriptive sense to refer to the products of others. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER: Tradenames and Trademarks referred to within Yesterday's Tractor Co. products and within the Yesterday's Tractor Co. websites are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Yesterday's Tractor Co., our products, or our website nor are we sponsored by them. John Deere and its logos are the registered trademarks of the John Deere Corporation. Agco, Agco Allis, White, Massey Ferguson and their logos are the registered trademarks of AGCO Corporation. Case, Case-IH, Farmall, International Harvester, New Holland and their logos are registered trademarks of CNH Global N.V.
Yesterday's Tractors - Antique Tractor Headquarters
Website Accessibility Policy