| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
WF owner 
Orange Level
Joined: 12 May 2013
Location: Bombay NY
Points: 4664
|
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote  Reply
 Posted: 19 Nov 2023 at 4:53pm |
|
When you guys are talking plowing, no one has even mentioned AC's Traction Booster. When the traction booster is set right, it amazes me how much difference it makes plowing.
|
 |
|
Sponsored Links
|
|
|
Macon Rounds
Orange Level
Joined: 18 Feb 2010
Location: Pittsburgh Pa
Points: 2143
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 19 Nov 2023 at 5:56pm |
|
Yea
I was gonna start a new thread on that .
That subject will be a consuming thread all of its own.
|
|
The Allis "D" Series Tractors, Gravely Walk behind Tractors, Cowboy Action Shooting !!!!!!! And Checkmate
|
|
DrAllis
Orange Level Access
Joined: 12 Sep 2009
Points: 20485
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 19 Nov 2023 at 5:59pm |
|
I mentioned Traction Booster. For it to be it's best, the front of the tractor needs to stay down and in TOUGH plowing a couple hundred pounds makes a big difference. Dad never had any extra front or rear weights (just rear fluid) and we still got along fine, but I know it could have been better with a little more on the nose.
|
|
jvin248
Silver Level
Joined: 17 Jan 2022
Location: Detroit
Points: 312
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 19 Nov 2023 at 8:49pm |
.
Both IH and AC were trying hard to skirt around Ferguson patents for the three point hitch and top link draft system. Both were compromises.
Which one won out? Ferguson. It's on everything modern. Sure there is a quick attach from skid steers put on them.
While we had a WD it was mostly relegated to sickle bar mowing and the chopper and round baler that was used until the novelty wore off.
The Ferguson we had did everything. We had Oliver and IH six cylinder for heavier work. Refurbished, the Ferguson is my current workhorse. My WD is for fun. My Seventeen year old doesn't like driving the WD.
I think all the tractors were fairly crude until the 1960s. After that all the equipment became a bankers game of financing equipment, land, and inputs driving out most small family farms.
.
|
|
CrestonM
Orange Level
Joined: 08 Sep 2014
Location: Oklahoma
Points: 8391
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 19 Nov 2023 at 11:23pm |
|
My big gripe against any of the W series is the afterthought of an operator's "platform". I don't like sitting off to one side with my right knee getting whacked by the hand clutch and my left leg needing to be 6" longer than the right leg to reach the clutch. If they would've placed the operator in the middle with an actual platform like a Farmall, I think they would have a much better tractor. This is the only reason I don't own a WD45. Aside from that, I think they are outstanding machines.
|
|
PaulB
Orange Level
Joined: 12 Sep 2009
Location: Rocky Ridge Md
Points: 4727
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 20 Nov 2023 at 7:23am |
 dfwallis wrote:
I did some minor work to a Farmall H and an M while working on my CA this spring and fall. I kept getting the feeling that I was working on something antiquated and poorly engineered, kind of model T-ish and after-thought-ish with the H and the M. Not that the CA is all roses (clear structural weaknesses), but it does seem like a little more thought went into it. Thoughts? |
It seems as this post is comparing apples to bongo drums, With the 2 different tractors being designed in totally different eras. In the late 30s the Allis Chalmers WC & UC tractors are more of a comparison to the first (1939) of Farmall's H & M Tractors. Even so, Allis Chalmers had the idea of "high-Speed" farming whereas Farmall was just a modernized version (for the time) of brute force to get the job done. This basic design was carried into the 350/450 tractors with running improvements. Even the design of the 460/560 in 1958 was only a somewhat minor design change for Farmall. The Allis WD came out in 1948 and the CA was introduced in 1950, these 2 tractors had many firsts that had never been seen on a farm tractor. At this point in time most all of the implements used were primarily drag or trailer type, with the main exception of row crop cultivators. Anyone that has used both the H&M cultivators along with the WC cultivators would agree you could install/remove the Allis Chalmers units easier that the Farmall ones.
|
|
If it was fun to pull in LOW gear, I could have a John Deere.
Real pullers don't have speed limits.
If you can't make it GO... make it SHINY
|
|
IBWD MIke
Orange Level
Joined: 08 Apr 2012
Location: Newton Ia.
Points: 3727
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 20 Nov 2023 at 7:30am |
CrestonM wrote:
My big gripe against any of the W series is the afterthought of an operator's "platform". I don't like sitting off to one side with my right knee getting whacked by the hand clutch and my left leg needing to be 6" longer than the right leg to reach the clutch. If they would've placed the operator in the middle with an actual platform like a Farmall, I think they would have a much better tractor. This is the only reason I don't own a WD45. Aside from that, I think they are outstanding machines. |
Creston, a flip-over seat bracket goes a long way toward solving some of your W problem.
The traction booster flat out works! Maybe a year from now I'll have an experienced opinion of the early IH draft control system. Maybe the later style, think 56 series too. I did plow a couple acres of sod with my 756 once. I was having so much trouble that day I can't remember how draft control worked. That Oliver plow hooked on the 185 worked great.
I will say this, I go to a lot of plow days and the Red tractors/plows that go, they work.
|
|
dfwallis
Orange Level
Joined: 09 Mar 2023
Location: DFW
Points: 627
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 20 Nov 2023 at 11:35am |
jvin248 wrote:
.
Both IH and AC were trying hard to skirt around Ferguson patents for the three point hitch and top link draft system. Both were compromises.
Which one won out? Ferguson. It's on everything modern. Sure there is a quick attach from skid steers put on them.
While we had a WD it was mostly relegated to sickle bar mowing and the chopper and round baler that was used until the novelty wore off.
The Ferguson we had did everything. We had Oliver and IH six cylinder for heavier work. Refurbished, the Ferguson is my current workhorse. My WD is for fun. My Seventeen year old doesn't like driving the WD.
I think all the tractors were fairly crude until the 1960s. After that all the equipment became a bankers game of financing equipment, land, and inputs driving out most small family farms.
.
|
Just because the Ferguson design won out doesnt mean it's a great system. I prefer the snap coupler design, but I'm sure we could design something better than either.
|
|
dfwallis
Orange Level
Joined: 09 Mar 2023
Location: DFW
Points: 627
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 20 Nov 2023 at 11:54am |
Some seem to be misinterpreting. I'm well aware that the CA was slightly newer than the H and M (although they overlapped some). But my criticisms extend to the follow-on Farmalls that some say are more comparable. I was not comparing feature by feature. I'm talking about things like the sleekness of the castings (evident in older ACs to some extent as well), how well they flow into each separate section (Farmalls seem more like tinker toys and blocks the way they join), the routing of cabling and controls, the design and positioning of the controls, the simplicity and ease of use. I see little improvement in the IH "super" series tractors in these areas. I do see improvements (catching up) in a decade or so later (60s) versions.
Also, with regard to wheel diameter. You'll note that I did say "partially" compensate with tire width and weight (and tire pressure and other things). Of course, you can also make these adjustments to the larger diameter tire. But you can increase the competitiveness of a smaller diameter tire relative to a specific larger diameter tire with width and weight, and significantly so. I'll also note that the increase in tire size/diameter also reduces the effective horsepower/torque available at the ground without gearing changes. Even the increase in wheel weight can have an impact to reduce horsepower/torque. As little as 1 inch in diameter increase can have a significant reduction impact. So...there are a lot of factors to consider.
I also don't think you necessarily want to build maximum bulk into the tractor frame. You want a lighter tractor for some operations (e.g. cultivating) and a heavier tractor for other operations. The ability to add and remove external weights is the best solution to right sizing a tractor to task.
Edit: I do think the routing of the CA (B/C) steering arm is substandard/antiquated. I've never liked that arrangement. I would probably have also designed the CA to more easily add a reinforcement frame similar to the IB frame (but less kludgy).
Edited by dfwallis - 20 Nov 2023 at 12:50pm
|
|
DanielW
Bronze Level
Joined: 19 Sep 2022
Location: Ontario
Points: 165
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 20 Nov 2023 at 1:54pm |
I always thought AC had the best engineering of their time (right up through to the 7000/8000 series), but fell down a little when it came to build durability. I love My Allis's, and would rather drive on a WD than an M (or especially my W6, where you sit as if you're about to give birth). But I have to begrudgingly acknowledge that if any of my Allis's were treated like my IH or Fords, they'd have cracked their front axles, be jumping gears, and generally beat to heck.
Don't judge me for saying that: I still love my Allis's more than other makes (though the Fordson Major and Ford 5000 might be up there with the Allis's). But knowing what I do now, if I were buying a new tractor in 1955 it would depend on the type of use I was putting it to. If I were using it primarily haying or doing other lighter field work on flat land, I would go with the Allis without hesitation: Far more pleasurable to drive and well thought out. But for beating about in the bush running log winches/wagons and smashing over the stony fields up in the Canadian shield at our Northern farm, I'd have to begrudgingly take the IH.
|
|
