Farmall M H upgrades

In 1947 John deere upgraded its line of tractors to the late styled. I was wondering why IHC didn't upgrade their tractors to keep up with Deere?

They did come out with the Cub and the C around that time.
Zach

that should be reading "deere has hard time keeping up to ihc" it was not till the 4010 came out in 1960 that had ihc scrambling.

What were those upgrades that JD had that were missing, I would agree with the others that IH was ahead of JD until the new generation in the 60s.

Most IH guys will tell you that Deere was just trying to catch up to IH in 1947.

A "late styled" B meant a slightly larger engine displacement, electric start and lights as standard equipment, pressed steel frame instead of cast, and a padded seat.

The H and M were already far outperforming their rated/tested HP ratings. Electric start and lights were optional but nearly all tractors came with them. JD's frame "upgrade" was just a cost-cutting measure. The Monroe style seat was already standard equipment on the Farmalls.

IH did come out with a new line of small tractors in late 1947 with live hydraulics (Cub, Super A, and C). Deere didn't have anything like them as far as I'm aware, and never really did.

(quoted from post at 16:57:47 12/11/12) In 1947 John deere upgraded its line of tractors to the late styled. I was wondering why IHC didn't upgrade their tractors to keep up with Deere?

Click to expand...

Yep, as others have said, Deere was just catching up with IH's 1939 updates of the H/M :roll: .

Some thought was given to changes of the tractors in the 47, 48 area. Decision was made not to okay that. Probably figured at the time that they had popular tractors with a good reputation so why change. Some models sold more tractors a year after 47 than before.
Least thats what I have heard more than once.
Hindsite makes me think they should have changed some models by 1953 or so.

also ihc was 15 yrs ahead of deere with the first diesel engine.

Others would tell you that was the beginning of the end for IHC, they were #1 in tractors, came out with a line of smaller tractors (guess they figured farms wouldn't get bigger) to replace mules or become the #2 or #3 tractor on farms. They also jumped into refrigeration, dairy equipment and were developing a really big bulldozer that was a flop. They were still selling every H or M they could make and had no incentive to move forward. Some claim fear of an antitrust suite caused them to not take full advantage of the blooming tractor market. Deere's up grade was more to catch up to IH and other manufacturers that were coming on strong namely Aliis Chalmers and Oliver. One innovation IH had that worked well in the 50's was fasthitch, I have heard some claims other manufacturers wanted to license it from IH, but they refused, had they licensed it they could of certainly used the revenue and it might of re-established them as a leader in their field. In my opinion they started to play catch-up after Deere came out with the first numbered tractors (40,50,60,70 and 80) with widely available power steering and live power. Their response was the 100 series tractors, not a bad tractor, but more of an improvement of the old tractor certainly not new ground. They figured on jumping back out front with the 460/560 but as we know that didn't work so well for them, before they could fully recover from the 560 fiasco Deere comes out with the new generation tractors and grabs 1st place. IH's response is the 706 & 806, not a bad tractor but a little late to the game, Deere comes out with the new & improved new generation (-20 series) and IHC was back trying to catch up. Others simply blame Fowler McCormick Jr, saying he really didn't have the right stuff to lead the company, it was overly conservative and a rigid in house promotion system stifled innovation.

(quoted from post at 14:57:47 12/11/12) In 1947 John deere upgraded its line of tractors to the late styled. I was wondering why IHC didn't upgrade their tractors to keep up with Deere?

Click to expand...

Having run several different brands of tractors over the years, with Dad's, neighbors, uncles, etc., I can tell you the JD hydraulics starting in '47 beat IH even thru at least the 460/560 series. The two cylinder JDs we had were much more efficient on gas than the IHs for the same work... Nebr. tests do not always agree, but I know what ours used... example, our 2 JD 60s both used about the same gas/hour as our Super C when working them hard and did 50% more work. JD had the M/MT that were comparable in size to the C and 40/420/430 compared to the SC/200/230/240, but the JDs were not nearly as handy to use... they were downright clumsy. I liked running the 300 thru 560 tractors except for the hydraulics as they had good power and I really liked having the TA, which JD did not have for some time.
Basically, it kind of depended what features you needed and what meant the most to you for how you used them. They both had things I liked and didn't like about them after you ran enough different models. As for the tractor I enjoyed the most that I put a lot of time on I have to say was a JD 4640. Wasn't one fault I found with that tractor. A friend bought it new in about '78/79 and although he has been through several other JD/Case/NH tractors since he got it, he still has that 4640 with many thousands of hours on it.

dont agree on that gas part.
the john deere d, mccormick w-6 and massey 44 were all in the same horse power category. my dad and uncle farmed with these. the john deere could not do the same work as the other two and burned more fuel. it was just a slow pop pop tractor. the john deere was geared slower and did not keep up to the w-6.
you are comparing a j d 60 to a c, well no wonder it does twice the work.the 60 is more comparable to the super m. or in the standard version the 60 is equal to the super w-6

(quoted from post at 20:06:02 12/11/12) you are comparing a j d 60 to a c, well no wonder it does twice the work.the 60 is more comparable to the super m. or in the standard version the 60 is equal to the super w-6

Click to expand...

You miss the point... the 60 is 1/2 again as big and uses the same amount of gas[u:6084cc7e80] per hour[/u:6084cc7e80]. We pulled a 3x14' pull type plow with the 60s and a 2x14 F-H mounted with the Super C and they burned approx. the same amount of fuel per hour (not per acre), between 2 and 2 1/2 gph. Pulled a 10' tandem disk with the 60s and a 7' tandem Fast Hitch mounted with the SC and again they used approx. the same gas[u:6084cc7e80] per hour[/u:6084cc7e80]. Are you telling me the SM will use less than a Super C??? I don't think so. The nebr. tests show the 60 using more gas than that, but we had 2 of them and neither ever used over 2 1/2 gph no matter whether you were plowing, disking, picking corn with a 2 row mounted picker, whatever. Dad always said, and I don't know because I was too young at the time, that the 60s used less than a 1940 A he had before he got the first 60. Also, the Super C used about 1/2 again (50% more per hour) the gas of the C he had before the SC.

Now I'm comparing the ones Dad owned and maybe the 60 was an extremely efficient model... don't know about the others, even though I have run some of the other 2 bangers, up to an 820. I do know I ran a 450 Farmall quite a bit and it was a real gas hog, but I thought pulled better than it should have for it's size. Same ranch had a 350D and it didn't use much fuel at all, but we never pulled it hard either like the 450G.

I don't agree on the fuel-for us to keep all three tractor in the field for a day it took about 30 gallons, 10 for the Super M (plowing 3-14's) 5 for the Farmall H discing (8' disc) and 15 for the JD A plowing with 2-16's. In hay I could bale all after noon with the super M on 10 gallons, the Deere would run out. Wasn't just us, loaned our H to our neighbor when his JD B was down, he noticed it used 2-3 gallons a day less than his B.

(quoted from post at 23:31:45 12/11/12) I don't agree on the fuel-for us to keep all three tractor in the field for a day it took about 30 gallons, 10 for the Super M (plowing 3-14's) 5 for the Farmall H discing (8' disc) and 15 for the JD A plowing with 2-16's. In hay I could bale all after noon with the super M on 10 gallons, the Deere would run out. Wasn't just us, loaned our H to our neighbor when his JD B was down, he noticed it used 2-3 gallons a day less than his B.

Click to expand...

I'm having a little problem with the SM only using 10 gallons a day because our Super C used more than that. We had land rented a few miles from home... Mom brought a 5 gallon can of gas with her when she brought my lunch because the SC would not make it home at 5 in the afternoon if she didn't. Working at home, I'd fill it up when I came to the house for lunch. If I recall right, the SC had about an 11 or 12 gallon tank. Cultivating corn or beans (not hard work for a SC), I could add the 5 gallons already at noon. This was not an old worn out tractor at the time, this was in the late '50s and it was a '54 Super C that Dad bought about March of '56 as a new "carry-over". The first JD 60 he bought new in '53 and the second he bought used in '58.

Must not have been a very big field.......

Why didn't IH change the looks of their tractor to try and fool farmers into thinking their 1930s design was updated...

Because IH had already upgraded in 1939.

Allan

I don't know what you are calling a day. In the 50's for a 10 hour day, I filled the H tank morning and noon. If I forgot to fill it at noon, it ran out of gas about 3-4 PM or maybe 7.5 hours, that was with 17.5 gallons or about 2.3 gal/hr at full load which is in the ball park of every other post I have read.

uote="sflem849"](reply to post at 15:39:53 12/12/12) [/quote] i am always amused at some of the fuel useage claims on these old tractors. deere's gas tractors never were economical to operate. i enen have a neighbor that thinks a 'g' is a cheap running tractor. but when they brought out their diesel engine deere had stolen enough of caterpillar's design to get it right the first time. very cheap to run and pretty well trouble free, if they of just kept the flywheels from falling off.

(quoted from post at 10:38:19 12/12/12) I don't know what you are calling a day. In the 50's for a 10 hour day, I filled the H tank morning and noon. If I forgot to fill it at noon, it ran out of gas about 3-4 PM or maybe 7.5 hours, that was with 17.5 gallons or about 2.3 gal/hr at full load which is in the ball park of every other post I have read.

Click to expand...

That sounds more logical. That's probably about the same gas that Super C used plowing or disking, and it was probably [u:03d27acbc0]close[/u:03d27acbc0] to the same HP as an H... at least it would pull a 2x14 plow like an H.
I don't recall what size tank the JD 60 had on it, but I don't remember ever adding gas during the day. I had a bigger tank than the SC, but it also never used it all in a day, whereas the SC probably used 14-15 gallons in an 8 hour day of cultivating, which was not heavy pulling, and most of the time it was not even at full throttle. With chores, we seldom put in more than an 8 or 9 hour day in the field.

Yea, My brother has a JD A. That thing drinks fuel like it going out of style.

In my opinion they started to play catch-up after Deere came out with the first numbered tractors (40,50,60,70 and 80) with widely available power steering and live power. Their response was the 100 series tractors, not a bad tractor, but more of an improvement of the old tractor certainly not new ground.

Click to expand...

I find it laughable that anyone would consider the first JD numbered series "new ground." They were just as much "stuff bolted on an old JD A/B/G/M" as the 100 series IH's were "stuff bolted on an old Farmall A/C/H/M."

Underneath they were all still the same old 1930's designs.

History has proven that the tractor manufacturer that innovated the LEAST (i.e Deere) was destined to be the most successful. They hung on to that old 2-cylinder platform and made a quantum leap in 1960 when the next generation of farmers, who were more open to innovation and change, took over.