"History" lesson?
Printed From: Unofficial Allis
Category: Allis Chalmers
Forum Name: Farm Equipment
Forum Description: everything about Allis-Chalmers farm equipment
URL: https://www.allischalmers.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=109741
Printed Date: 03 Jul 2024 at 5:29am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: "History" lesson?
Posted By: Dave in il
Subject: "History" lesson?
Date Posted: 01 Aug 2015 at 7:20am
|
So I was at a restaurant and overheard a (30 something?) guy telling a kid about tractors and I really wasn't paying much attention until I heard him say, "And you used to see Allis Chalmers around but in the 60's they made a new tractor called a 190, the thing was junk and after that they couldn't give their stuff away. Ouch! Well I listened a closer then. Apparently Case folded after the DC which was weird with goofy rod down the side. Oliver never sold many tractors and Ford just made little tractors never any serious horsepower. The gist was that only one shining star existed in the world of tractors, can you guess? Ta Da... JOHN DEERE the number one and only perfect tractor in the world. I guess you gotta start young to make a true believer and NEVER let facts mess up a good story. LOL! ------------- AGCO My Allis Gleaner Company |
Replies:
Posted By: JET8070
Date Posted: 01 Aug 2015 at 7:47am
| Yeah, I'm pretty sure those Deere videos are full of subliminal messages. |
Posted By: WDman1951
Date Posted: 01 Aug 2015 at 8:32am
| Poor kid was doomed from the start glad my dad didn't have a bias and ruin me forever |
Posted By: Mike Plotner
Date Posted: 01 Aug 2015 at 8:58am
|
whew... I would of walked over and had a discussion with him. ask him how many 190's or DC's the guy has owned or operated. Case and Allis both made better tractors in the 40's than deere could make in the 50's. guy probably learned everything from those john deere propaganda videos they put out. both my brothers really like them, so I just have to leave the house and get work done with my Allis's ------------- 2001 Gleaner R42, 1978 7060, 1977 7000, 1966 190 XT, 1966 D-17 Series IV and 1952 WD and more keep my farm running! |
Posted By: Mike Plotner
Date Posted: 01 Aug 2015 at 9:00am
|
Shameless, get the rope, we got to find the guy who has been poisoning the minds of our youths! ------------- 2001 Gleaner R42, 1978 7060, 1977 7000, 1966 190 XT, 1966 D-17 Series IV and 1952 WD and more keep my farm running! |
Posted By: WDman1951
Date Posted: 01 Aug 2015 at 9:06am
| Jd people will be jd people lol case sucks that must have been why they were able to aquire a huge tractor mogul like ih right and allis had the harvester market corned for almost the entire life of the all crop |
Posted By: Mike Plotner
Date Posted: 01 Aug 2015 at 9:14am
|
yep, one thing about deere nuts, they sure are stubborn! although im slowly turn my cousin to Allis. he raked hay with a 200 this week and thought it was better than their 4020 powershift ------------- 2001 Gleaner R42, 1978 7060, 1977 7000, 1966 190 XT, 1966 D-17 Series IV and 1952 WD and more keep my farm running! |
Posted By: WDman1951
Date Posted: 01 Aug 2015 at 9:20am
| Nice win for us lol im glad my brothers only an ih fan they died same time we did so we dont get into arguments plus ih made alot of good stuff from ms and hs to the 1206 to my fav the 2 plus 2. His little f12 dont stand a chance against my wd any how |
Posted By: BrianC
Date Posted: 01 Aug 2015 at 10:11am
|
Time machine back to 1965. You need a new larger tractor. Let's say the Ford you have is too small, the old man running the Ford dealership passed and his son the lazy idiot is running the place into the ground. So you head on over to the JD and Allis dealers to see what they got. How do you compare the JD 4020 to the Allis Chalmers 190 or 190XT? Tractor data says the 190 and 190Xt were co-produced, I assume that is true. I see the JD weighing like 800 pounds more and a larger displacement engine. But yeah it was just 5 years ago they finally stopped making the antique 2 cylinders and got modern. What kind of track record does this new generation have? At Allis, they have the 190 and the 190xt the XT makes more power. You decide you would need the XT's extra power, if you want the Allis. How does a basic 4020 and 190XT compare in price in 1965? |
Posted By: Mike Plotner
Date Posted: 01 Aug 2015 at 10:28am
|
I got a actual Allis book to compare those from 1970 I believe, but its over at grandpas. from what I've heard from grandpa and his brother from when they sold Allis tractors, a 4020 was as over priced then as it is now. and in field demos, 4020's couldn't hold a candle to a XT just the same as how a 3010 gas wouldn't run with granpdas D-17 Series III gas or how a 3020 diesel wouldn't run with his cousins 180 diesel ------------- 2001 Gleaner R42, 1978 7060, 1977 7000, 1966 190 XT, 1966 D-17 Series IV and 1952 WD and more keep my farm running! |
Posted By: Dan73
Date Posted: 01 Aug 2015 at 11:27am
| So what was the story on the 190 anyway. My grandfather had one of those for two seasons. The first year the dealer rebuilt the motor because it didn't hold up to a single season of harvesting and the second year my grandfather rebuilt it and traded it in for a case. But the older d17 I still have and it is a work horse. A neighbor has a d19 that has never given any trouble. Was there some sort of issue with the 190 gas motor or something? All three of the tractors the d17 d19 and 190 I mentioned where all gas and the 190 is the only one which gave trouble. I thought at one point that it must have been a Lemmon but from time to time you hear people say the same thing about a 190. |
Posted By: Mike Plotner
Date Posted: 01 Aug 2015 at 2:27pm
|
most of the problems were from the rear ends. especially in the XT diesels. too much power for the rear end. was pretty much fixed by the time the Series III's and 200's came out. im assuming your talking about a 265 and not a 301? ive never heard anything bad about a 301 gas ------------- 2001 Gleaner R42, 1978 7060, 1977 7000, 1966 190 XT, 1966 D-17 Series IV and 1952 WD and more keep my farm running! |
Posted By: CrestonM
Date Posted: 01 Aug 2015 at 2:48pm
My dad is just a big walking, talking piece of JD bias!! He tried to raise me green, but I did my research and made the switch! (Really the thing that made me switch was seeing my great granddad's All-Crop, but Shhhh!) But now that I'm older, I know the facts.
|
WDman1951 wrote:Posted By: Dan73
Date Posted: 01 Aug 2015 at 2:50pm
| I really don't know what the motor was just that it was alot bigger then the d17 and the d17 ended up doing the work here. I always thought the motor mist have been a Lemon because I don't know of any other allis chalmers tractor serries that had motor problems. I just know he gor rid of the 190 and cursed that tractor for the rest of his life |
Posted By: Jwmac7060
Date Posted: 01 Aug 2015 at 6:16pm
| Glad I was raised on orange....never could afford the green anyhow...dad became a hired hand for the gentelman whos farm we now farm in 1975..the old guy was a JD man. He had a 4010 gas and a 4020 diesel...he wanted a new tractor and John Deere couldn't get him a new 4430 before Jan 1...Deere would have gladly let him pay for it and deliver the tractor later but the old guy wanted the new tractor in his barn before Jan 1.....he went to the local Allis dealer and they had a brand new 7030 on the lot...he paid cash for it and drove it home on Christmas eve...we still have that tractor today and was the first of many AC's for us....never seen a 4430 that would ever out do that ole 7030... That was our big horse for quite a few year |
Posted By: Dave in il
Date Posted: 01 Aug 2015 at 8:40pm
|
Mike, no place to start an argument, especially in front of his son, nephew or whatever. Besides you really can't reason with someone who thinks he already has all the right answers. But while we're on the subject of (revising) history did you ever notice John Deere's "New Generation" tractors officially started with the 4020. Deere guy never talk about the red headed step children that was the 10 series. For 3 years the 3010, 4010 and 5010 had plenty of teething problems. I've heard a story of a guy in our neighborhood who traded a 630 gas for a new 3010 gas he went to the field with the same plow he pulled with 630 and the next day he was back to the dealer wanting to trade back. LOL Since I was around 6 years old back then my first hand information is a bit limited, but I was told the 10 series had cooling and other issues and some transmission problems too. I know my college roommates family had a 5010 that had two cylinder heads break before they got rid of it. All I know for sure is I've heard over and over how the 4020 is the first modern farm tractor etc., but I've never heard the praises for a 4010. ------------- AGCO My Allis Gleaner Company |
Posted By: SHAMELESS
Date Posted: 01 Aug 2015 at 10:48pm
| kinda makes e smile when I think about what has gone on thru the years! while jd was sending people out to try to persuade people of different colors (not human colors) how good they were and so busy saying how they could do this and that better than anything else...AC/Oliver/IH/Case/and others were just out there doing it! getting something done! they didn't have to prove themselves, they already did by going to the fields everyday earning a living! so many around here grew up on the "other brands" of equipment...but then only to be shunned by others that grew up on green! horrible way to end a friendship! over the colors of their tractors! then there's Les! lol |
Posted By: Wdtractorman
Date Posted: 01 Aug 2015 at 11:28pm
| Grandpa was a ford man dad a john deere man even though he almost always had fords. I found Allis myself and glade to do so even though I like the blue and red ones two but don't hold it agents me lol. The jd people there selfs what drove me away from them to overpowering. My father n law is pure jd won't have anything that's not green but he got some silly ideas about a lot of stuff lol. Example he will bushhog his clover down before it blooms if he not ready to cut it for hay bc he said it it blooms it will die. |
Posted By: allis in the ozarks
Date Posted: 01 Aug 2015 at 11:41pm
|
my favorite argument from the deere heads is when the pull the old "well john deere is the only company that hasnt been bought out or sold" then ya ask em what that proves an they aint got no response ------------- allis: wd, 180, 190xt, 200, 210 "I had the right to remain silent, but I didn't have the ability" Ron White "Go ahead, make my day" Clint Eastwood |
Posted By: SHAMELESS
Date Posted: 02 Aug 2015 at 2:33am
| maybe because the other equipment companies don't hafta sell crackers to keep them going! saw a box of jd crackers on a grocery store shelf one day! maybe they should have? |
Posted By: Mike Plotner
Date Posted: 02 Aug 2015 at 7:04am
you never hear of the 4520 either. ours threw a rod though the block a few years back, jumps out of 7th and 8th gears, has a terrible cab and burns way to much (but all deeres do) at least when it got a intercooled 404 out of a 4620 you can get some power out of it ------------- 2001 Gleaner R42, 1978 7060, 1977 7000, 1966 190 XT, 1966 D-17 Series IV and 1952 WD and more keep my farm running! |
Posted By: Dan73
Date Posted: 02 Aug 2015 at 7:10am
| I sometimes wonder if the tractor companies where victims if there own success. I think about the period from the 30s to the 70s and the fact that they where always building better tractors. My grandfather traded alot of tractors over the years because the new one would do something he needed or it had live power or a 3 point hitch you name it that was a lifetime of changes. Now atleast around New England there really isn't alot of need for more then 100hp a good tractor from the 70s will make your big tractor and I honestly feel the older D serries make great haying tractors. So from a business perspective the tractor companies where growing like crazy selling new tractors through improvement based demand but once they got the tractors from the 70s there where not really big improvement to be made every few years. Yes my 5240 is nicer to ride in then the older IH 986 (i might have the number wrong there) we had when I was growing up but both of them would do the same field work. I always wondered if the demand for tractors dropped simply because there where enough good ones out there. I know there where more small farmers before and that there are less farmers now. I just wonder about the technology side because as I sit here typing this on my smart phone which is 4 years old I think there is a lesson to be learned by other companies. Once things get about soo good you really don't need them better. |
Posted By: Jwmac7060
Date Posted: 02 Aug 2015 at 7:18am
| Can any of you imagine how big equipment will be in another 30 years. I remember when an N6 was the biggest combine in the neighborhood and thought we had a monster tractor when we bought our first 7580 when I was a kid....now front wheel assist tractors are pushing 300hp and combines dwarf N6's...roads around here are already too small for most equipment I can't imagine what another 30 years will bring....and my dad remembers cultivating with a WD45 when he was a kid and that was the biggest tractor in the neighborhood when he was little..just what be has seen in his lifetime is unbelievable when you stop and think about it |
Posted By: Dan73
Date Posted: 02 Aug 2015 at 7:25am
| I ab see big equipment out west where you have flat fields. Here on the east coast the field are just too small. We had a 160 hp tractor with a big chopper and dump wagon and you had to be really careful not to get stuck in a corner you couldn't get out of. A 4 or 5 bottom plow is just really big when your total acreage is 100 to 200. And it is all hills and falling a river. |
Posted By: Josh Day
Date Posted: 02 Aug 2015 at 7:47am
|
I have a good friend who's all John Deere. And he admitted to me that when AC brought out the 17 series 4 that it was a great tractor lol. ------------- AC's 75' 7040, 64' D-17S4, 55'WD-45, 54' WD-45, 53' WD-45, 53' WD, 52' CA, 36' WC. IH 656. Deere's 38' A, and 47' A |
Posted By: SHAMELESS
Date Posted: 02 Aug 2015 at 8:39am
| 30 years from now, you'll have seen a lot of broke farmers giving in to corporate so called farmers! a lot of them now! Monsanto will probably buy the equipment and hire someone to service the equipment as they won't need drivers, all be done by puters hooked up to the satelites! |
Posted By: Dan73
Date Posted: 02 Aug 2015 at 8:58am
| The Chinese stock market lost 1/3 if it's value a little while back and the talking heads all called it a minor correction. Greece is just the first nation to realize it can't pay it's bills. Once once the global stock markets have a few more of these minor corrections and a few more countries realize that they can't hope to ever pay off the bad economic choices the world has made since WW II we will see what a real depression feels like. The big company farms will move to China or anywhere else they can produce food without worrying about the environment or the quality of the food poor people and city people will eat it. Smart People in the country will buy local food from small farmers and you will see alot of old iron running around smaller fields again. It will be the farming of the 50s and 60s with a focus on quality and organic techniques. The farms that survive will be ok while the rest of the economy will be a mess. Grampa always said the great depression didn't real effect them much having a small farm on the east coast. |
Posted By: BrianC
Date Posted: 02 Aug 2015 at 9:00am
|
30 years from now I will be fixing the magneto on my 1948 C, again! The last gen of the JD 2cyl diesels were very good on fuel economy. The 830 made more HP-hours per pound of diesel than the JD4020, Allis 190 also better than the Allis 6080. So the perception they were antiques may not be entirely accurate. |
Posted By: 45 turboa-
Date Posted: 02 Aug 2015 at 9:21am
|
I think I would of took that guy out to the wood shed and gave him an education.As for tractors built today I don't think they will have a long life with all their wireing and computers a friend or mine works for a Caseih dealer he said that its nothing to stick 30-40,000 in repairs in some of the newer tractors. Give me a 220 Allis it would do the same work just a basic tractor.Thats what we need today don't need all the extra junk. ------------- turbocharged |
Posted By: Alberta Phil
Date Posted: 02 Aug 2015 at 9:21am
| If you look around, you see a lot more 60 year old orange tractors still workin' in the fields and on the farms than green ones. The 60 year old greens are all shined up and sittin' in shows or collector's buildings. |
Posted By: Dan73
Date Posted: 02 Aug 2015 at 9:32am
| Ya I really am not looking forward to repairing my 5240 when I bought it i want 100hp 4 wd heat and AC in the cab so I could use it year around. I really wish there was something better to choose from but at the time around here there where just no other good choices for those options. And yes I needed the ac I have always had a problem with heat stroke I passed out twice as a kid and have been close a few other times. A cab with no ac just won't work for me. |
Posted By: Chas
Date Posted: 02 Aug 2015 at 9:48am
| Grew up with Allis tractors, then Dad had a couple Fords. I have had a couple Agcos but have switched to Deere now. Agco,ruined it for me, poor mgmt.,poor dealer support. |
Posted By: BrianC
Date Posted: 02 Aug 2015 at 11:12am
|
30 years ago, all the US tractor makers died off, except for John Deere and Caterpillar. Maybe MF lived on also, but that was a UK company? Question, if my JD 4020 started jumping out of 3rd gear, can I get new transmission parts from JD, or am I stuck going 3rd party or salvage? I don't know how well they support their old stuff. Do you get a lot of "no longer available" from JD? |
Posted By: Red Ranger
Date Posted: 02 Aug 2015 at 12:48pm
| In my county, 190s weren't the end, but definitely hurt AC bad. In the early '60s you could find a WD, 45, or D17 on nearly every farm, and some had all 3, AC was a very strong #2, right behind IH, by the mid '60s that was starting to change JD was coming on strong, and by the late '60s they had completely ran them over, and were gaining fast on IH, so I'd say yes 190s, and their reputation was a major factor. |
Posted By: SHAMELESS
Date Posted: 02 Aug 2015 at 2:44pm
| I love my 190xt...cept for the gittin on it part...my legs are gittin weaker with age...I almost need an elevator! whew! hoping to gits one of them extra steps that someone sells on this site! (someday)! |
Posted By: CrestonM
Date Posted: 02 Aug 2015 at 3:14pm
Because that's what they do best, right??  I've wondered several times why they just can't keep building the good ones like the 7000 and 8000 series, heck, even the 4W-305's. And sorry, but the JD's of the era were pretty good too it seems. My granddad has a 4430 that has been through hell (none of his equipment is serviced regularly and none of it has ever been barn-kept) but, aside from kicking a rod once (which was part of a recall) it's been trouble free! In fact, ALL the old ones pre-1990 or so are all good in some respects! This can't be said now days! A friend of mine's dad bought a new New Holland "Boomer" series tractor. It has 60 hours on it now and it has been in the shop several times, so they just kinda gave up on it and use their D17 series 1 for everything! And basically ever tractor made now days that's under 70 hp or so is powered by a Yanmar engine! (The only exception I know of is Kubota, who manufactures their own engines.)
|
Posted By: CrestonM
Date Posted: 02 Aug 2015 at 3:16pm
Last I knew, my local Deere dealer stocked parts for the 95 combine! Just happened to be in there once and asked the parts guy how far back they went. Somewhere in the 60's.
|
Posted By: timr
Date Posted: 02 Aug 2015 at 3:36pm
| As a kid I heard the same thing about the 190 and the D19 having issues that set allis back. I know better now and wouldn't be afraid to own wither. I also remember having a discussion in one of my Ag classes about Deere's lawn and garden division being the key factor to their sustainability in the 80's and had been their most profitable arm for some time. Ford was slow to build a 100 horse tractor, stuck with the jerkomatic(selecto-speed) for too long, and didn't come out with a 2 speed partial power shift until 70 but there are a ton of hundred and 2-5000 tractors out there so it's easy to get the perception they only built small tractors. |
Posted By: CTuckerNWIL
Date Posted: 02 Aug 2015 at 4:19pm
The rusty old equipment being used will be pulled by 4 legged horses cause NOTHING with electrical wiring will work.  ------------- http://www.ae-ta.com" rel="nofollow - http://www.ae-ta.com Lena 1935 WC12xxx, Willie 1951 CA6xx Dad bought new, 1954WD45 PS, 1960 D17 NF |
Posted By: Dan73
Date Posted: 02 Aug 2015 at 4:34pm
| No we will just all be putting the points back and taking out those electronic upgrade kits.... having been a controls engineer for years I can tell you that the talk about electronics and magnetic pulses is over rated poorly built circuit boards will overload everything else is just fine. I worked with lasers which had massive electromagnetic fields pulsing all The time and yes you could fry something like a digital meter inside the laser cabinet but the boards built for it where fine. |
Posted By: Mike Plotner
Date Posted: 02 Aug 2015 at 4:43pm
|
like grandpa said, you cant beat a old diesel or a magneto ------------- 2001 Gleaner R42, 1978 7060, 1977 7000, 1966 190 XT, 1966 D-17 Series IV and 1952 WD and more keep my farm running! |
Posted By: 45 turboa-
Date Posted: 02 Aug 2015 at 5:03pm
|
I don't believe the 190 or the XT hurt A-C all that much it all fell on management I mean poor management. A-C was spread way to thin with all their diversity.John Deere on the other hand only had tractors and farm equipment.I've talked to a lot of ex A-C employees they said if they would of took the pres. out back and educated him or worse they would still be building tractors.Allis had a bright future if they would of continued. ------------- turbocharged |
Posted By: BrianC
Date Posted: 02 Aug 2015 at 5:37pm
| History- What happened to White tractors? I think White made it through the mid '80's shutdowns. But what happened next. Are they now kaput? |
Posted By: Dan73
Date Posted: 02 Aug 2015 at 5:41pm
| White was bought by agco in the 90s |
Posted By: timr
Date Posted: 02 Aug 2015 at 9:09pm
After being contracted to build the 9000 series duetz allis tractors it was one of the first purchases agco made since they needed tractors to sell as well as getting the white planter line and the new idea line that white owned. I had read White had three different owners in the eighties and alot of financial problems. |
Posted By: victoryallis
Date Posted: 02 Aug 2015 at 9:21pm
Only reason they were able to acquire IH was the Tenneco money. Tenneco was very diversified buddy worked for a Tenneco subsidiary making cardboard boxes. ------------- 8030 and 8050MFWD, 7580, 3 6080's, 160, 7060, 175, heirloom D17, Deere 8760 |
Posted By: Lonn
Date Posted: 03 Aug 2015 at 5:28am
 ------------- -- --- .... .- -- -- .- -.. / .-- .- ... / .- / -- ..- .-. -.. . .-. .. -. --. / -.-. .... .. .-.. -.. / .-. .- .--. .. ... - Wink I am a Russian Bot |
Posted By: Lonn
Date Posted: 03 Aug 2015 at 5:51am
|
Back on to the 190 gas engines. The early gassers did have problems breaking the top of the pistons off. Later they changed the piston and the problem stopped. The XT diesels tore up rear ends because the rear end was first developed to run behind a straight 190 with 77 hp. Then the 190XT shows up and the early literature talks about pulling the same plow as the 190 but pulling it faster. Farmers were slow to learn high speed farming and instead put that power to the ground pulling a bigger plow then a straight 190 could pull. The farmers also discovered that a turbocharged engine could easily be turned up from 95 pto hp to 110 to 130 and even 150 hp. A 4020 had no turbo so couldn't be turned up like that. Lots or XTs came from the factory with 110 to 120 pto hp. The D19 was an OK tractor but had cylinder head problems carried over from the old Buda design and had IMO the poorest hydraulics you could find. It was also a 1950's look and handled like a 50's tractor. Don't get me wrong, I like my 19. It's comfortable and since mine is a gasser it has no engines problems but by the time the D19 showed up it was already obsolete, except for the turbocharging. That's my take. ------------- -- --- .... .- -- -- .- -.. / .-- .- ... / .- / -- ..- .-. -.. . .-. .. -. --. / -.-. .... .. .-.. -.. / .-. .- .--. .. ... - Wink I am a Russian Bot |
Posted By: Dan73
Date Posted: 03 Aug 2015 at 6:03am
| Thanks that makes alot of since I remember hearing stories of my grandfather slamming the motor back together in the driveway before the dealer came to pickup the tractor. Never really made since to me as a motor job is a big deal. I can see how he could have swapped a piston quick. I am sure he got it when they first came out. |
Posted By: DaSquatch
Date Posted: 03 Aug 2015 at 6:50am
|
Back in the late 80's I met a man at saw hammering school who had just bought a saw and cutter shop, after working for a number of years in tractor factories. He was probably about 50 years old then, so I guess was building tractors in the 1960's and 70's. International, and Case as I remember.
He was kind of bitter about having lost his job and would sit around in the evening waxing nostalgic about having been paid big dollars to bolt on a few tractor seats a day. Union work, so if bolting on seats was your job, that's all you did. He also had fun stories about the soccer tournaments they had with forklifts and 55 gallon drums in the warehouse, and other shenanigans that made good listening. He bristled up something fierce if you suggested to him that those sorts of things were why so much production had been switched to overseas.
Lots of American industry got caught napping when japan, china, and lots of other countries didn't have the capability to do quality work, at least in the volume the American market required. Now, with the proper investment, good stuff can be built anywhere. My employer bought a John Deere 5045E a couple years ago. So far I've found American, Japanese, Chinese, and Indian parts on it.
|
Posted By: SHAMELESS
Date Posted: 03 Aug 2015 at 7:34am
| it used to be that if we saw a tool or small machine that was made in china, we usually passed it up because of poor quality...now...we usually buy it because USA made stuff is poorer quality! sad isn't it? |
Posted By: Dan73
Date Posted: 03 Aug 2015 at 7:38am
| Having lived in Taiwan for a year and a half I will still pass on everything maid in china. They really don't care about quality. They might k ow how to do it right but they don't care to. |
Posted By: DaSquatch
Date Posted: 03 Aug 2015 at 8:41am
|
I have no personal experience with Mahindra tractors, but a guy I know who works at a multi-brand dealer, (and services almost everything, at least sometimes) swears that if he was spending his own money on a new tractor, he'd buy one. Claims they rarely see one in for repairs not caused by abuse.
He says it while wearing a very old, beat up, John Deere hat!
|
Posted By: Dan73
Date Posted: 03 Aug 2015 at 8:53am
|
I did actually look at a Mahendra tractor. It was pretty cheap money for the power. But what I realized was that everyone sitting on the dealer lot here had a 4 speed standard transmission with no power shift or no high low you could shift on the fly. The power shift or the high low combo on the D serries is a must have for both mowing and bailing if you ask me. So I didn't buy one. As to the abuse versus use comment from the dealer I am pretty sure most small farmers will end up using a tractor to the point that the dealer would call it abuse. See my thread Allis to the rescue I am sure my hard use of my D17 would be called abuse by the mechanic you talked to. Yet she has pulled big bailer and a hay 20 foot hay wagon most of her life. That is how we hayed when I was a kid. |
Posted By: DaSquatch
Date Posted: 03 Aug 2015 at 9:36am
|
Abuse around these parts is usually related to logging. Lots of guys using small/smallish tractors with winch arches instead of skidders. And lots of operators keep a tractor for years without huge troubles, but there are tons of opportunities in the woods to stress any tractor beyond what it was designed for, and some operators are ROUGH on equipment. And even your d17, if you never change the fluids, never clean the mud out of the radiator, and slip the clutch all day, will fail. I'd rather have the Allis, just like you, but there is still alot left to the "nut behind the wheel" when it comes to durability. |
Posted By: Dan73
Date Posted: 03 Aug 2015 at 9:48am
|
Now not checking or changing the fluids is neglect not abuse and in book worse. If you are going to beat on it you can at least try to take care of it. As to the loggers yes there are some here who try to go cheap or into tighter areas with small tractors and I agree that is abusive to the tractor there is a reason skidders are built big and heavy. You see old ford 800s with the 4 wd kit here and a broken rear end because they used them with the winch setup. A 3 point hitch is not meant to be used like that. I don't even like a 3 point counter weight but at the moment I need to use one. Or my favorite is the 3 point backhoes. How many of those break the rearend on a tractor and everyone just looks dumb going the rock didn't look that big or I have moved bigger rocks...... |
Posted By: DaSquatch
Date Posted: 03 Aug 2015 at 10:11am
|
In any case, I wasn't trying to sell anybody on any brand of tractor, just pointing out that (according to my friend) these Indian-made tractors stack up well against other new tractors. And my mental image of India is not of an industrial powerhouse, but rather half-naked guys beating scrap metal into plows to pull through the mud with an ox.
And that means to me that in the future any hole-in-muck country could develop into a leader in any industry. These days there is very little proprietary information, no real barriers to worldwide shipping, and no problems turning our money into any other currency. Pretty much only religious and political warfare is holding the world back from being one big marketplace. For better, or worse.
|
Posted By: TimNearFortWorth
Date Posted: 03 Aug 2015 at 11:06am
|
Economics of scale, keeping shareholders happy and management making decisions that sometimes should have only been made in Vegas. Manufacturers tried to offer something to everyone under their brand name back in the day and still do, from required small utility units to big HP out west. In 1970, my father had a decision to make as he needed a tractor that could do everything, including being driven into the dairy barn with a 180 bushel spreader at night to prevent freezing in Upstate NY. The 10 Series JD and 06 IH had been around and folks with good money had either a 4020 or a 56/66 series IH being delivered. Dad's brother with the A-C dealership wanted to bring him a 190XT but it would not fit in the dairy barn. He later said he looked at the 180 but settled on a British Leland for the money aspect, although he never did get accustomed to straddling that transmission. Seems the 180 was also going to be a tight fit in the barn and he felt the tranny/rear diff. were not heavy enough for our hilly area. The 4/65 Nuffield (a two year leftover unit) was picked up for 4800.00 and ran what became a 500 acre dairy when we rented the land next door. People used to joke about the old "nuttshaker" but she did everything and you could not swing a cat without hitting one in that area as they were inexpensive, snorty and heavy little stubby units that easily cranked 70-75 hp without a turbo; BMC diesel with Simms pumps. If I recall, Mahindra was making the small IH utilities back in the 50's so that name has actually been around a long time and IH did pretty well with that little India import for decades. I give my dad plenty of credit as at the end of the day he also raised eight kids on that dairy and believe me, he and my mother went without plenty. I realized how just easy his decision must have been back then as I have the original delivery invoice for my D19D SC that was purchased in 1964 by the neighbors that eventually bought our farm; 7,200.00. Funny how different brands dominated specific areas but I think the American farmer has always been pretty astute, when it came down to spending money for the tractor he needed, and what he could actually afford. |
Posted By: Dan73
Date Posted: 03 Aug 2015 at 11:15am
|
I agree with you that they well may hold up to any modern tractor and that any small nation can be home to a big company which ships global products. I think a big part of the fall of manufacturing in the 80s was globalization and that now there is little to no incentive for companies to invest in the us. All that said I think it is a sad comment on modern tractor that my grandfather traded out of tractors that where only a few years old to get something newer and better and now I am restoring tractors from the late 50s because the modern ones aren't as good an investment and won't do the job as well. To me that is the real injustice of our times. The fact that we are willing to say buy this modern thing it will only hold up a few years where the old ones lasted a lifetime but that is ok someone else builds a worse one. So mine is better. This is the Asia quality ranking by the taiwanese I worked for. As a comparison bassis. 1 Japan they want to make it right and will figure out how. 2 India if they are showed how to make it right they will do it because quality is important they just don't know how. 3. Taiwan they will listen to how to make it right but then do it their way to get the "same" thing 4 mainland China they just want to make something they can sell cheaper. From there down they said they are all what China is to the USA to china. This is what I heard time and time again from taiwanese business owners and they didn't put themselves very high on the list. I thought that was interesting. |
Posted By: Dan73
Date Posted: 03 Aug 2015 at 11:22am
| Oh and all of Asia is one very high end luxury car swerving around an ox cart to get down the road faster. Well in taiwan they replaced the ox with scooters pulling the same cart. I think they ate the ox. The point being if you think there is an income gap in the us go to Asia they have a much bigger one. |
Posted By: DaSquatch
Date Posted: 03 Aug 2015 at 11:47am
| I'm not a "tech" guy. I use a computer at work because I have to. I don't get cable tv, don't own a cell phone, and don't really trust things that i can't fix with a welder or hammer. When you stand in a supermarket with millions of dollars in inventory and can't buy anything because the computers have crashed........... Which points out where I think most modern machinery will fail to stand the test of time. Is it really that hard to move a lever from point a to b? Do we need a computer to tell the solonoid when to do it for us, and two microswitches to tell the computer that it happened? And should the whole thing coast to a stop if any one of those parts fails? I can't imagine trying to design and sell a new tractor today, because they won't do much that a 1960's tractor can't do (about when modern hydraulics came into being). They don't even seem to do it with less fuel. Couldn't they be more efficient if that was a priority? All they can do is try to make them more comfortable, more stylish, easier to run if you don't want to learn how to be a real operator. And bigger, always bigger. |
Posted By: Dan73
Date Posted: 03 Aug 2015 at 12:05pm
|
Well I was a tech guy designing and building industrial automation systems and I couldn't agree with you more. If you want to bottle soda at insanely fast speeds use a computer. When I want to bale hay I want to use my old d17 and know that there isn't anything extra to go wrong. Now if a company could design a 100% electric tractor and provide me with a solar system on the barn to power it i would gladly test it out and buy one. If you want to sell new to me find a way I don't have to depend on oil. I would gladly spend money if we could stop depending on oil and leave the middle east to their oil and sand. |
Posted By: SHAMELESS
Date Posted: 03 Aug 2015 at 12:38pm
| I agree with both of ya! Squatch...I too was held up in line at a store once because of the puter crash...the clerk was old enough that she could still count money and add everything up for the sale! and ya know what? the company fired her because they had no record of the sales, except the extra money in the drawer! PffffT! me thinks that over all...computers will be the down fall of our country! ya'll have already seen what has happened in the military and the white house with them! dust is the worst enemy of them, and what's in a field? most any farm equipment that have computers and safety switches I try to stay away from! they only costs the consumers more money, and that's why they are designed that way! the anufacturers had to do something, cuz they weren't making money fast enough, parts weren't wearing out fast enough! when I was working on my disk earlier this year, the mounts that held the scrapers were broke, I discovered they were cast iron, the old ones were steel and could be welded if needed, but the company had them changed so they would break more and they could sell more! when I told the parts man about it, he said: "yes...we sell a lot of these now"! this is why we need to keep the older stuff working as long as we can! the money I try to make is for ME! not some goat head behind a desk that wants to buy a new Porsha every year/month! |
Posted By: Dan73
Date Posted: 03 Aug 2015 at 1:03pm
| You are making money??? I knew I was doing something wrong. I just keep spending it and wondering how long before there is nothing left |
Posted By: DaSquatch
Date Posted: 03 Aug 2015 at 1:36pm
|
That must of been a real old-timey store you were in, Shameless. When it happened to me a while ago, nobody could have figured it out, cuz prices aren't marked on anything except the shelf. And, unless I had exact change, we'd have been screwed because nobodys drawer would open. And, nobody in line ahead of me planned to pay with cash, anyway, just plastic.
But if you need something fixed, and I can do, and you want to pay me with a chunk of hanging meat, we can make a deal. Gonna be hard to figure the tax on that transaction!
|
Posted By: SHAMELESS
Date Posted: 03 Aug 2015 at 4:27pm
| tax? |
Posted By: Dan73
Date Posted: 03 Aug 2015 at 4:38pm
| Tax = the burger that shameless ate when he cooked them before you left. You didn't know part of the beef for the job was included in the cookout..... or maybe there wasn't a tax after all. |
Posted By: Dan73
Date Posted: 03 Aug 2015 at 4:40pm
| Gosh wish you where here I have alot of nice beef and alot of broken tractors. .... |
Posted By: SHAMELESS
Date Posted: 03 Aug 2015 at 6:37pm
| Squatch...them stores scanned the items (told the puter what they needed to re-stock with) but they had to punch in the $$$ amounts too! |
Posted By: DaveKamp
Date Posted: 04 Aug 2015 at 1:51am
There is substantial truth to that concept in ANY form of manufacturing. When a production industry exists where sales to the consumer are dependant upon demand, and the fielded product satsifies that demand forever, means there's no consumer left- the product has not yet been 'consumed'. Imagine going to a McDonald's, and ordering a meal that lasts you forever... (well... with all the preservatives, it probably already does, but bear with me here)... If you bought your Value Meal, and you never got hungry again, you'd have no reason to buy another Value Meal- the one you have did the trick. That means you'd not only never go to McDonald's again... you'd never go to Red Lobster, or Hardee's, or Buffalo Wild Wings. So yes, back in the day when machines were (from a system-layer-complexity aspect) simpler, they were inherently more durable, because they had LESS THINGS TO GO WRONG. One can always note to guys who wave some other color... Allis-Chalmers was 'not a tractor company'. It was a large-foundry based manufacturing company who's primary market was in electrical power generation, transmission, and distribution. Making tractors was a 'side' industry that was successful because it utilized excellent industrial engineering, and reaped benefit of low production cost from economics of scale. Identifying Allis-Chalmers as a 'competetor' to JD, IH, Case, etc., would be like calling a champion olympic martial-arts instructor a 'competetor' to a locker-room full of grade-school badminton girls... while they may have been in the same 'room' of agri-business, the tractor business wasn't the company's 'big' fiscal target. While business may have hurt as a result of multiple factors, I'm confident that Allis didn't fold or 'get bought out', as much as they sold the DIVISION off... and while it may have been result of economic conditions, I think it'd be more accurate to say that the business environment which made Allis's foundry and industrial engineering such a formidable power, had changed such that having the diversified operation was no longer a substantial element of Economics of Scale. In short, the state-of-the-art in iron foundry technology had changed sufficiently to better produce quality iron in quantities that didn't require such large over-production pours. I would further venture a guess that the furnaces which Allis had kept in operation for over half-a-dozen decades were passing obsolescence just like Allentown and Pittsburgh... that the electric arc furnaces being built in Gary were proving much more economically efficient, hence rendering the Allis furnace to be economically incompetetive. I'll agree that modern machines don't seem to exhibit the lifespan of older iron workhorses, and there's likely a myriad of examples, but I'll point out the one that seems most obvious to ME... Walk through the junkyards, and look for failure modes, you'll find that every so often, there'll be an antique tractor that's been burned up. Rarely will it be in any given area- it'll be the whole thing- tires to tin... and usually deep dents in the fenders, bent steering wheel, crushed radiators. Look at the newer ones... front half burned, back half burned, cab burned... the rest still partially intact... but you'll see FIVE times' the quantity of newer ones melted-out, than older... Why the difference? Easy: The old tractors didn't catch on fire 'till after the barn was burning. The NEW tractors caught on fire in the field. Yes, it's a valid note that newer machines aren't necessarily more efficient. When you're carrying a hundred amps of electrical load, plus an AC compressor, sound system, windshield wipers, electric defrosting grids, and a computer or four, it's hard to claim drawbar horsepower-hours-per-gallon. Shedding the power-steering pump load frees up more engine torque for pulling steel through the earth. Nix the alternator or generator in lieu of a magneto, and now the only ancillary 'parasitic' load, is spinning a cooling fan and water pump, and running the hydraulic pump's draft control amidst modulation. A more efficient engine-burn as controlled by a PCM firing a host of injectors and pressurized by an electric pump doesn't have as big an advantage until a carbeurated/gravity flow magneto-lit engine is in need of a tuneup. AND... Every time you add one new component, you more possible things that can fail. ------------- Ten Amendments, Ten Commandments, and one Golden Rule solve most every problem. Citrus hand-cleaner with Pumice does the rest. |
Posted By: DaSquatch
Date Posted: 04 Aug 2015 at 4:57am
| It's funny that you mention an electric tractor, Dan. I've had thoughts on the same line. I've had to learn a little about hybrid and electric vehicles because of my involvement in the fire service. I also work at a resort as the golf course equipment manager, and can tell you that the major manufacturers of gc equipment are developing all-electric machines. So maybe the tech will make it up to farm tractors someday. The sticking point is batteries. The ability to put a machine in the hay field for all day, at full power, isn't there yet. I suppose you've read about the fuel cell tractor that AC experimented with back in the day? It's in the Smithsonian now, I believe. So, we're not the first to consider the possibilities. I did some reading a few years ago on steam power. Some "new" technology was being developed during the fuel crunch of the 70's. Could a bio-fueled (wood pellet, maybe) steam engine do what we need? The oil will run out, or be withheld from us, eventually, and we're still gonna have work to do. I bet somebody will figure it out. |
Posted By: Dan73
Date Posted: 04 Aug 2015 at 5:56am
|
Batteries are a very interesting problem with respect to tractors. The entire focus on battery power right now is power to weight ratio. Tractors have one major advance we want them heavy we all keep debating how best to add weight. We keep bolting anything we can find to the rear tires to make them apply the torque to the field. The the battery out of your laptop and guess how many you would want on your wheels in place of the weights you already bolted there or on the front where no. Loader tractors have a box. I designed servo motor based industrial equipment for years. There are motors used in big earth movers which are directly in the tire hubs. I can envision an electric tractor with 4 wheel motors a pto motor and an electric motor running a hydraulic pump. The one thing electric motors will do better then internal combustion is load matching. If the tractor is not pulling hard the electric motor on the wheels will use less power while the pto motor still runs at full speed. The hydraulic pump motor doesn't need to run at all if you don't need it. I wanted to put the hydraulic pump on my d17 on the belt pullie mount so I could shut it off when I didn't need it. I didn't only because I would have had to do alot more custom mounting and I couldn't find a listing of the actual engine to pullie speed. Anyway I look at my haying and think yes the tractor works hard but I never run it for 8 hours straight. If I could run the tractor hard for 2 or 3 hours and then bring it back to the barn for a charge or battery swap I could handle that. Assuming of course that the swap was easy. I fully agree a 100hp tractor running hard all day is alot of power and it would be a massive amount of batteries. But if I had one tractor for mowing one for tedding and raking and one for bailing then there wouldn't be nearly as much power needed per tractor even if you put up 1000 bales a day. I would be pretty happy if I could put up 500 a day but I need to get back to 1000 in reality. I realize what I am talking about is nothing compared to the power required by a combine or chopper. But I think there is a real market for small tractors that don't run long hours. I was reading the thread about putting a v8 into a B debating to myself if there was a practical way to test an electric tractor with that same type of conversation. But I think the tractor has to be designed electric from the start. There is alot of mass and power loss spinning gears and bearing that wouldn't be needed in an electric tractor if you simply put an electric motor on a normal tractor. I do wonder about taking an old B and putting electric motors right at the final drives or output from the transmission and then basically just build a drawbar tractor to pull a rake. I debate if with electric the tractor should just be a puller and should the implement contain motors and batteries to handle work the device needs. I have given this alot of thought but I haven't come up with something I can afford to test myself or something I think I could convince someone to invest in. I would like to start with a small electronic tractor to pull a rake. That seems like the simplest lowest power job on a farm. But since I am in the process of trying to sort out an old run down farm I just don't have the funds or time to experiment right now. I am busy all the time simply trying to get a grass feed beef setup going and paying it's bills. Maybe some day I will be able to experiment wit electric tractors. I have enough barn roofs to have a small solar power plant but I don't see a way to make it pay for itself unless I can store and use the power myself. Well I have gotten long winded. In summary I think small scale electric tractors or tractor implement systems could work. Here is an example of where high tech would help. If you could back up to a implement and just hook up a drawbar and have the tractor control it wires because it had its own motors and power source that would be pretty cool. Probably not realistic because as others have pointed out computers and dust are a bad mix. But I think an electric tractor could do my haying. I just don't know how to set it up yet. |
Posted By: DaveKamp
Date Posted: 04 Aug 2015 at 9:59am
It's not just power-to-weight ratio, it's 'power density' ratio, and survivable duty cycle under high discharge rate with the caveat of weight, safety, and ability to be reliably recharged fast. The ability to put a high energy density into a practical battery safely does not exist yet at a magnitude comparable to a gallon can of any common liquid fuel.
With a WD, WD-45, and D17, B, C, CA, or smaller D-series, you won't see any substantial improvement by mechanically disengaging the hydraulic pump, because it already disengages itself hydraulically- the unloading mechanism shuts off the pumping load once the unloading pressure is reached, and when it does, 98% of the pump's torque load is disengaged.
When we identify tractor power, we use very simple factors that describe the load- either drawbar, PTO, or belt horsepower, and then to describe any power-unit's efficiency, we identify how much fuel is used per horsepower-hour to get the indicated output. Nebraska tests work exactly this way, and in doing so, establish a level benchmark that identifies power output in all three categories, under a continuous-duty cycle, and they measure fuel consumption required to make the power unit develop that output. Let's take an example of A 100hp tractor... the Two-Hundred. In the Nebraska tests, it manages about 16.5 horsepower-hours per gallon, managed 93.6 at the PTO, and 79 at the drawbar. It has a 48 gallon tank. I ran my grandfather's round baler behind the two-hundred on many occasions, and while I remember putting fuel in it, I never recall looking at the gauge and seeing it move much after 5 hours in the field. (I use the 5-hour reference because his fields were sized un such a way that when he sent me to do one field, it'd never take me more than 5 to make the round bales, and the next field wouldn't be ready 'till the next day.) It's been three decades since I ran that combo, so I don't remember how hard it worked, but let's say it used HALF the tractor's capacity... looking at the Nebraska graph, that means it was only running about 12.5hp/hr gallon... if I ran 5 hours at 12.5 hp/hr/gal at a load of 50hp, that'd equate to 5*50 = 250hp/hrs, with a use of 20 gallons. That's probably a smidgen on the low side for horsepower, but probably about right for fuel. Now, let's convert that to a load expression more suited to electrical format. One horsepower equates to 745.56999 watts, or 0.74569kw. That means one HP/Hr - 0.7456 kw/hr If 20 gallons of fuel in the Two Hundred was worthy of working 250 horsepower hours, that equates to 186.425 Kilowatt-Hours. Let's run that calculation backwards around the barn and see if it sounds right... 250 horsepower hours equates to 186.425kw/h, which equates to 636108 BTU. One gallon of diesel fuel contains, on average, about 139000 BTU. That implies that the Two Hundred only managed to put 4.5 gallons of that liquid fuel energy to the load. Compare that to the 20 gallons (we speculate) was used, and that means the Two Hundred's efficiency of converting fuel to work is only 22.5%... which sounds really lousy, but if it was a cold day pushing snow, we'd find a good use for some of that wasted energy heating the cab, and on a hot, dusty day, some of it was keeping the AC running... but regardless, if it did it on 20 gallons, that 20 gallons of diesel fuel fit in a space that is 20*231/1728= 2.8 cubic feet in volume, and 20*7.1=142 pounds. Let's say we could do that same work with batteries: 186.5 kw/hrs... a common modern subway train operates in very similar duty cycle, uses a 400hp 3-phase electric motor on an axle, with a 7:1 gearbox reduction, driven by a variable-voltage/variable frequency PWM inverter off of a nominal 600vdc third-rail shoe. At 600vdc, that 400hp electric motor pulls 298kw/hr... that's 50ADC at 600v. Let's scale that down to something in the realm of the Two-Twenty... let's divide it by four, to equate to the 100hp RANGE... that equates to 12.5A @ 600v continuously. Here's where it gets difficult. The train is nuclear-powered... or coal, or natural gas, or hydroelectric... it's getting it's power from either a third rail, or a catenary wire... so it doesn't have a huge battery bank. Unless you're willing to have an extension cord following you around the field (great for running a sickle-mower...), you're gonna need a trailer-full of batteries to run that tractor for 6 hours. IF you ran it at a level that would be typical for say... a modern PV solar battery system (like Trojan or Saft), you'd drop it down to two banks of 48v for 96v, and carry 78A to an inverter to run that AC motor. To carry 78A for 6 hours is one thing... to recharge it at any rate faster than a 6 hour wait, is totally another, and to carry it around the field while using it, yet a third. It is the nature of a chemical-plate (wet, mat, AGM, or dry cell) battery to occupy space, be heavy, discharge slow, recharge slow, and eject explosive gases. To use chemical plate batteries in an application successfully, the discharge/recharge rate must NOT be exceeded, and it must be handled with care to prevent being physically distorted or damaged. While the 20% efficiency ability seems hideous, from a technological standpoint, it's difficult to defeat the energy-density value of a liquid motor fuel and it's conversion mechanism, against a battery-electric system. Look at it from a very practical and simple viewpoint: A guy can take a totally-discharged diesel tractor, and recharge it's 40 gallon battery in under 5 minutes, and be heading back into the field, and there's no hazard of explosion.
Guys do it... many have done it with the Allis G... and if you're using it for an hour every three days running four passes with a cultivator down a truck-garden plot, then plugging it into a solar array for the rest of the week to recharge the golf-cart batteries... it's a great setup. Spinning a square-baler's flywheel while dragging a hay-rack with a thunderstorm coming over the prairie is an entirely different story.
This is the problem with anything electrical, not just PV solar... and even moreso, anything ENERGY. Energy storage efficiency is the key. If you dismiss the electrical concept, and just look at it as being able to gather HEAT from the sunlight, you have a much better chance of safely storing energy. Let's say you wanted to heat and cool your house year-round... what you would need to do first, is insulate your house in such a way that the heat gain in summer, and heat loss in winter, were both minimized. THEN, you'd need to make your environmental management system remove heat from your house in the summer, and put it in some storage medium that will efficiently 'trap' it, so that you can release it in the winter. Mathematically, your storage medium would need to be able to accept all the cooling energy, and return it as heating energy, in a sine-phase 90 degrees' offset from your home demand. During the late spring, as the world around you was warming up, your storage medium would be approaching it's coldest point. In late fall, the storage medium would be reaching it's hottest. Here's one way you could do it: "Honey... I need to get in shape... I'm gonna build an enclosed olympic swimming pool". Install a heat-pump between pool and house. Size pool so that from 64 to 85F, the pool's energy volume EXCEEDS your house's total heating or cooling energy demand (whichever is higher). Heat pump will be more efficient the larger the pool is. Run your heat pump and circulatory pumps off solar... basically direct... so no battery storage is necessary. Put up a wind generator, so that when the wind blows, your heat pump can run too. on a still, dark night, your heat pump won't run, but if you did your insulation work and energy-loss math properly, it won't matter, 'cause the house can't warm or cool fast enough to be noticed 'till sun-up tomorrow.  ------------- Ten Amendments, Ten Commandments, and one Golden Rule solve most every problem. Citrus hand-cleaner with Pumice does the rest. |
Posted By: DaSquatch
Date Posted: 04 Aug 2015 at 10:51am
|
This is fun! I like talking to people who are smarter than I am. Which means, I'm a VERY friendly guy!
So......how about hydrogen as an energy storage device? Create it using the electricity from wind and/or solar and store it to use in fuel cells that will convert it back to electricity. There would be losses every step of the way, of course, but if the equipment was affordable you'd just build enough generation capacity to have what you need. It won't be affordable until everybody needs it.
One thing that becomes very apparent on the golf course is that you can't just bring a jug of electricity out to refuel something that has run out. I expect that in all agricultural applications we'll have to build in the capability to refuel/recharge in the field because travel times of heavy equipment burn up too many hours if you work very far from the barn. And even for the small operator on his own land, we know about weather dependent schedules. Miss a few days of work, then 30 hours straight!
Several local large farms, and our landfill, generate electricity from methane gas produced by manure and rotting garbage. I spoke to one of the farmers who does it and he told me that it would take up a huge chunk of it's own energy to compress it and use it as a mobile fuel. Also a problem is that you could never generate enough of it. Need more cows to generate more manure, so you need more tractors to feed them, so need more fuel, so you need more cows...........................
Part of the energy that we're being forced to make up is our own. We don't work anymore. No, I don't mean YOU, or me. But when I was a kid, I put in hay for all the local farmers, at one time or another. And there were a bunch of us doing it. 10 to 20 people on every farm, and only a few (mostly small) tractors. One for mowing and baling, one or two for tedding, raking, and hauling wagons, that could do it. Some farmers chopped a bit, but it wasn't so common. And a whole bunch of us loading, hauling, stacking, etc. Nearly every farm was run by an extended family who were on site, at least part time, year round. Having a full time hired man wasn't uncommon.
Now, two guys may have to put in hundreds of acres of feed, two or three cuttings per year. How? Big equipment, hands free feed configurations that can be moved with blowers and blades into silos and bunkers. And that all comes with a price. More fuel, more equipment costs, more soil compaction, etc.. And that farm is still feeding all those people, because they're still out there doing, well, I dunno what they're doing. Apparently it involves cell phones and can be done with one hand!
|
Posted By: Dan73
Date Posted: 04 Aug 2015 at 10:55am
|
Dave nice posting. Electric motors are more efficient then a diesel engine. It deals with the torque curve electric motors have most of their torque from almost zero rpm to full speed. So you don't have the loss of leaving the power band. I suspect on a tractor that isn't much of a gain because the diesel is geared to the torque curve for peak efficiency. You have some great suggestions on heating right now I use wood so I am pretty much free of oil there just the fuel to cut and split it up. I took part in the tour de sole solar and electric car race back in the mid 90s my college had an electric car that weighted close to the same as a production sub compact car it was pretty heavy for something customers built to be light. We had 10 deep cycle led acid batteries about the size of a 100hp tractor battery. We could charge the pack from dead in 8 hours and it would give us a range of 110 miles country driving on hilly roads in New England at a typical speed of 40. The calculation we did at the time showed that the car running on electronic power off the grid was running equal to a gas car getting 90 to 100mpg. I don't remember just how the conversation was done but the race organization had put alot of research into the conversion calc. The better cars in the race ranged from 75 to 100mpg. A hybrid can't get there because it has to carry two drive systems or a combination drive system which is not ideal for either power source. We saw this in the race we trailered a diesel generator which was very efficient and lost alot of performance. Now here is the real kicker. Westinghouse had a lithium aluminum battery that was used in electrice lawnmowers. It would have given us a range of 450 miles with the same 8 hour charging time. And the weight of the pack was lighter so the mpg conversion would have been better for an electric car. I really don't think weight is as much of an issue with a tractor. We tried to get a battery pack from Westinghouse at the time but with no explanation they simply closed the division making the battery. These batteries where used in lawn mowers for years in the early 90s. No idea what happened to them but they where real and did work. So I think if you where willing to let your tractor charge over night after running it for 5 hours it might not be as bad as you think. Now I agree that won't power directly off my barn but with grid attached solar if i have the demand for the solar off peak time I should be able to pull from the grid at night and push onto it during the day while I run the tractor. I lithium ion batteries can do pretty well for power density we all know the current lifespan issues with them some of that is over heating because cell phones don't manage power well they want them to be traded even two years. There are some new battery technology out there as well coming up the pipeline assuming that big business oil interests don't lock them up. |
Posted By: Dan73
Date Posted: 04 Aug 2015 at 11:16am
| To make hydrogen fuel you have to pass an element current through the water to split off the oxygen from the hydrogen. This take alot of power I am not sure there is a net energy gain I think you loose. There is a design for a new nuclear reactor from Cleveland college I think which produces hydrogen as a waste product it is a higher temp reaction and the report I read is it is safer because if the reactor runs dry it looses critical mass and shuts down not meltsdown. I don't remember the details just saw an article on it about 3 years ago. Cleaveland wanted to build one to replace their current nuclear power plant but the NRC would not review the designs as they are not permitting any new plants. Good or bad I don't know but interesting. We could process our spent fuel rods for nuclear and get new rods with very little waste it is done safely in France for all of Europe. But Congress passed a law in the late 70s or 80s banning the transport of spent fuel rods do to the risk of them falling into the hands of terroris. I personally feel if we can safely get new rods to the plant we can equally safely get the old rods to a processing plant. The issue is that Ragan agreed to buy the nuclear fuel from the Russian weapons as part of a treaty and we needed a market for it without building new reactors. There is a ton of fuel sitting at sites like vermont Yankee which is being shut down because it has exceeded it's design life. How safe nuclear is is debatable but having a power company with a pool of spent rods at a site that doesn't make them money any more is an accident waiting to happen. I personally think nuclear can be safe if it is designed and managed correctly. Well too much chatting and too little farming I need to get to work. |
Posted By: BrianC
Date Posted: 04 Aug 2015 at 12:29pm
|
All batteries have let me down since I was a small child. There are electric cars out there such as the Nissan Leaf. Problem is they only go 60 miles on a charge. To get that to 600 would take a battery breakthrough. Now we keep hearing about advances, like this university is onto a new anode with great potential, another lab with maybe a super nano-cathode, another with a fabulous looking electrolyte. There must be a million places researching batteries. But so far only minor advances, nothing new on the market. Allis had a fuel cell tractor long time ago. My bet would be on a fuel cell that runs with liquid ethanol. So you get the high energy density of a liquid fuel, and a common fuel to boot. The current fuel cells (just like batteries) cannot cut the mustard, so now waiting for a fuel cell breakthrough. There are gas stations selling E85, good ethanol contaminated by gasoline. Change that to E100, pave the way for the fuel cell. In the meantime make regular IC engines optimized for E100, high compression engines. As far as the history lesson, let me make sure I got it straight- Allis-Chalmers, Ford and Farmall had nice tractors and happy customers. But then in a crazy scheme to make them even better they introduced disasters, the reputation killing 190XT, or dud Torque Amplifier and Select-O-Speed transmissions. Just when things were looking gloomy for the suffering farmers, John Deere arrives to save the day with the 4020. International, Allis and Ford see how great this is and they roll over and die. Across the land there is now green everywhere, doing the work. |
Posted By: Mike Plotner
Date Posted: 04 Aug 2015 at 1:11pm
|
OOWWWCCCHHH Brain. that was a rough blow below the belt! sure the 190 had its growing pains, but it didn't kill the reputation. ive heard as many bad things about 4020 powershifts and 3010 and 3020 engines as I have heard about 190 rear ends! ------------- 2001 Gleaner R42, 1978 7060, 1977 7000, 1966 190 XT, 1966 D-17 Series IV and 1952 WD and more keep my farm running! |
Posted By: Lonn
Date Posted: 04 Aug 2015 at 1:50pm
|
Deere had great management strategies and especially a great marketing campaign. Who would have thought of scantily clad women accompanying the new line of equipment at their introduction at Dallas in 1960. Not really a moral way to gain sales but it worked. ------------- -- --- .... .- -- -- .- -.. / .-- .- ... / .- / -- ..- .-. -.. . .-. .. -. --. / -.-. .... .. .-.. -.. / .-. .- .--. .. ... - Wink I am a Russian Bot |
Posted By: Tbone95
Date Posted: 04 Aug 2015 at 2:03pm
John Deere invented that marketing technique? WOW! No wonder they're so rich and successful, used by every beer, car, tool, machine, etc., maker on the face of the earth now!!! |
Posted By: Jwmac7060
Date Posted: 04 Aug 2015 at 2:19pm
| I'd take a 190xt series 3 over a 4020 any day...A 7030 over a 4430 and a 7060 over a gutless 4630 twice on Sunday...30 series John Deeres were and are inferior to the 7000 series tractor in my opinion. I have operated them both and feel my opinion is an educated one. 40 series Deeres went to the bigger motor and Allis did nothing to combat that with the 8000 series...Cabs were nicer on the 8000's yes,but they were essentially 7000's with nicer cabs. I would have liked to have seen what would have happened if the 8095 was put into production,that would have been a game changer for AC at least I believe |
Posted By: cpg
Date Posted: 04 Aug 2015 at 2:29pm
| Having run all of them on a farm I will say that both Allis and Oliver were way ahead of John Deere and I definitely went to either before I started the JD. |
Posted By: Mike Plotner
Date Posted: 04 Aug 2015 at 3:32pm
|
Oliver tractors are pretty nice, my cousin has a 1655 and I've been around 1650's, 880's and a few others. oh and whites if you can count them as Oliver's. 2-180 white at work replaced a 4630 that grenade the rear end. ------------- 2001 Gleaner R42, 1978 7060, 1977 7000, 1966 190 XT, 1966 D-17 Series IV and 1952 WD and more keep my farm running! |
Posted By: SHAMELESS
Date Posted: 04 Aug 2015 at 3:45pm
| if a larger tractor could have a smaller motor (gas/diesel), and have the accessories run by the electric motors...steering, hyd pumps, a/c, PTO, tranny, ect. wouldn't that cut down a lot of fuel consumption? not everything is used all at once on any given day, thus it doesn't have to be running/dragging the engine down unesesarery. less moving parts when not being used. there is a company(s) (on a small scale now) that have and are selling the electric tractors (lawn/garden) I can't help but think this is just a start of them designing bigger tractors and testing on small scale. even BIG boats are out with electric motors that are selling! back when they were experimenting with this, everything was more expensive than now, but they are looking back and strongly trying to re-incorporate these ideas again! before, they were just ahead of their time and a lot of folks were not interested, thus shutting things down! but now they really want it to happen as fuel is more expensive than it was back then! I've been experimenting a little myself on a very small scale that I know isn't cost effective, but it could be on a larger scale overall! you can't expect anything to pay for itself the first day of operation! I think we are all still thinking "kwik and easy and cheap"! if done soon enough in a persons lifetime it will pay for itself and then some, and it will help with future generations! our next generation cannot afford for us to drop these ideas, as they have in the past! if AC had continued with that hydrogen tractor, i'm sure we would have seen a lot more of them in use today yet, and maybe more! get out there people...experiment on your own...who kknows...maybe... |
Posted By: BrianC
Date Posted: 04 Aug 2015 at 5:33pm
|
It's tough to hear, but I'm just repeating what is said in Waffle Houses out there in the US. And in pre-school when they ask the kids to draw a tractor, if it isn't done with green crayon, the kid gets sent to special re-education camp. And the parents get a visit by Men in Green. Yes! Allis-Chalmers should have hired Daisy Duke to promote their stuff. If she could turn Roscoe's guys she could persuade a farmer into buying an Allis tractor. |
Posted By: SHAMELESS
Date Posted: 04 Aug 2015 at 5:48pm
| AC had Loretta Lynn...it was her farm they tested equipment on, they also had Kay Kriss as a singer promoter |
Posted By: Mike Plotner
Date Posted: 04 Aug 2015 at 7:05pm
|
yep, grandpa and his brother made a few trips to Hurricane Mills to see the demos. even met Mooney once! when I was in pre school, we had to bring in something orange one day, so I brought a toy Allis tractor. of course I also wore a cowboy hat everyday and the pre school wasn't licensed... ------------- 2001 Gleaner R42, 1978 7060, 1977 7000, 1966 190 XT, 1966 D-17 Series IV and 1952 WD and more keep my farm running! |
Posted By: CrestonM
Date Posted: 04 Aug 2015 at 8:49pm
Got me thinking back to my younger years... I was a very unfortunate farmer when I was in pre-school. ALL the equipment I had in the living room was...green... Of course, that is in part due to the JD dealer about 20 miles away. I plowed with a JD 70 and a disk, planted with a 4430 and 10 row Max Emerge II planter, harvested with a 6600, hauled my grain to the bin in a green International truck, cleared snow with the 4430 and a homemade dozer blade. Spread manure with the JD H spreader, etc... I was just about ready to retire from the whole farming thing, as I was sick of all the Deere equipment "breaking down". FINALLY...one Christmas...the folks got me 2 new combines! An L2 and an L3!!! I was sure glad I got those and I never broke down again! (combine wise. I never did get any orange tractors...) Those were the days....
|
Posted By: Mike Plotner
Date Posted: 04 Aug 2015 at 8:59pm
|
well actually I only had a few Allis things. most everything was green. I knew allies was the best, but having a deere dealership to buy stuff from was appealing. most of the big toy farming I did was with a 220, a 7800 deere and a bunch of 2 cylinders and a R-75 gleaner with a 9600 for back up. with a 4 row 7000 and a 6 row 7300 planter ------------- 2001 Gleaner R42, 1978 7060, 1977 7000, 1966 190 XT, 1966 D-17 Series IV and 1952 WD and more keep my farm running! |
Posted By: DaveKamp
Date Posted: 04 Aug 2015 at 9:11pm
Actually, that's how most modern cars operate... except that it's not 'freeing' up anything, it's just 'delaying' the inevitable. Cooling fans aren't driven off the crankshaft anymore, they're electric... but that's not all: Used to be that your alternator's field current was modulated by an on-board, or closely-nearby voltage regulator... and anytime the engine was running, the regulator would modulate field excitation in order to control the alternator's output voltage, hence, current output (recharging the battery and carrying electrical loads). Nowdays, the vehicle's computer functions as the voltage regulator... when the computer senses low system voltage, it boosts field current, which raises system voltage... and they added a 'gotcha'... if you mash the throttle to the floor, the computer sees this (TPS voltage to high limit, MAP drops to low), and the first thing the computer does, is chop electric power to the reg field- this effectively shuts off the alternator, and thus, it's belt load vanishes. The OTHER thing it does, is disengage the air-conditioning clutch... nixes that load. By nixing these two loads, it makes more crankshaft HP available to spin the tires. Whilst doing that, anything ELSE you have running, has to rely on battery power only, so don't leave it down there for long periods of time. After you let up, it will resume it's regularly-scheduled programming... ------------- Ten Amendments, Ten Commandments, and one Golden Rule solve most every problem. Citrus hand-cleaner with Pumice does the rest. |
Posted By: DaveKamp
Date Posted: 04 Aug 2015 at 10:11pm
|
As for other fuels, it's not a matter about what 'could' work, or what 'will' work, it's what is 'practical' and also, what is economically sound. Economically not just being about wether money can buy it, but about the cost of being able to put logistical infrastructure in place to contain and handle other fuels, AND... to have the fuel-energy-density worthy of the opportunity cost. See, the concept of using 'hydrogen', would be no different than using 'helium', or Sodium, or Magnesium, or Phosphorous... you're talking about not a chemical compound, you're talking about an ELEMENT. Raw elements are not typically very 'stable' in a pure form... they tend to be rather reactive. Take white phosphorous, for example... take a handful... hold it for a few seconds... you'll not like the experience, nor will you live to write about it. The infrastructure necessary to hold and transport elemental forms is 'not' practical... the cost to try to contain it is WAY out of reach for simple consumer fuel. Now consider that hydrogen, while touted as a 'wonder fuel', will seek to become bonded with anything it can (+ oxygen = water... + many things = corrosion), but it's just one tiny molecule, so the resultant chemical energy output per-volume, is very low. Carbohydrate fuels... Ethanol, Methanol... they work well for many things- my Grandfather traded his gasoline rations for farm materials during WW2, and ran his Waterloo Boy as a stationary sawmill engine... on wood alcohol... and aside from low power output and rather caustic and hygroscopic nature of it, he survived, as did the WB. The CH fuels have lower energy density- it's due to the strength of the chemical bonds, and quantity per molecule that break... that determines how much thermal energy is available. Petroleum fuels are Hydrocarbon... the HC bonds are stronger, so when they split, they offer more heat energy on combustion... thus, more energy density per volume. Here's something very simple to contemplate: When you consider the amount of energy found in a gallon of diesel fuel, and the weight, complexity, and tolerances required to make it an 'effective', stable, maintainable and SAFE power source within the constraints of everything from manufacture to fuel supply infrastructure to maintenance and final disposal/recycling... then compare that to other energy-source concepts, you'll see why we still have it. It's like a hammer... 25,000+ years of human evolution, and a store now has 100+ styles of hammers, but they all operate on the same principle, and the user-interface hasn't been changed much, either... it is NOT without good reason. Dan- Electric motors aren't 'more efficient' than a diesel engine-- they're simply incomparable... to do so, is logical fallicy... like saying all cats have four legs, and all dogs have four legs, so all cats must be dogs. An electric motor's function is to convert electric energy into mechanical. A diesel engine's function is to convert a liquid fuel (chemical energy) into mechanical. In order to properly compare the two, one must start with the same prime energy source. An electric motor is totally inefficient at converting bacon grease into mechanical energy. A diesel engine is terribly inefficient at converting AC current into hay bales. ------------- Ten Amendments, Ten Commandments, and one Golden Rule solve most every problem. Citrus hand-cleaner with Pumice does the rest. |
Posted By: Dan73
Date Posted: 04 Aug 2015 at 10:56pm
|
Dave I can see you like your oil. But all motors use some forms of energy to perform work. In this most basic since they are all the same. If you use a stanley steamer or ford model T or the early electric car built by ford they all did the same work to get you to town. One used sold fuel to make thermal energy which was converted into mechanical motion one used chemical fuel which was converted into mechanical motion and one used stored electrical energy which was converted into mechanical motion. All of these processes are very quantifiable physical reaction we have gotten pretty good at calculating over the last 200 years. So yes you can compare the efficency of different power sources. Electric power companies do this when they decide what type of plat to build. It is not too hard to determine how much diesel fuel a power company needs to burn to produce a kilowatt hour of electricity. You can determine how many kilowatt hours of electricity the electric car burned to travel X miles. With these two values you have a conversation rate for how much diesel fuel the car would have burned to travel in miles per gallon. The tour de sole used a calc that included transmission loss and battery charger losses so it was pretty complex. I am sure we all know how to calc how many miles to the gallon of diesel fuel a vehicle with a diesel motor gets. So yes you can compare the input energy required to run any given engine or motor and the output work done by that motor with the input energy needed by a different motor and the work done by the second motor. Mechanical engineers have been doing this for a long time. Converting from one energy source to another is tricky because they all have different energy density values. But we have become very good at converting all forms of energy into electricity so comparing an electric motor to a different motor is actually easier and more accurate then trying to compare a gas motor to a diesel motor because gas and diesel fuels have different energy density and they have different market values. But if you know in mass production that a power plant can convert X gallons of gas to y kilowatts of electricity and that z gallons of diesel fuel is requires to make y kilowatts of electricity they you can compare the electric car to both the gas and diesel cars and see if the same gas was burned by the power plant how far the electric car would go versus the gas or diesel. It is a very fair comparison because both cars are in effect powered by the same fuel source with the same energy density. |
Posted By: SHAMELESS
Date Posted: 04 Aug 2015 at 10:58pm
| whew |
Posted By: Dan73
Date Posted: 04 Aug 2015 at 11:27pm
| Just think if only the kid in the restaurant knew the discussion his conversation has started........ |
Posted By: matador
Date Posted: 04 Aug 2015 at 11:41pm
|
I'm late to the party, but to me, John Deere seemed to phone a lot in. A post on the first page mentioned the 4520. I can elaborate on that: We owned one since before I was born. Until last year, it was our only tractor. It doesn't hold a candle to our White (Basically, a warmed over Oliver). The 404 in there burned fuel at exponential rates. Our White uses about half the fuel, and pulls the plow much more smoothly- and it's rated for 15HP less. The Deere Synchro-Range was actually a nice feature- forward to reverse without stopping. That said, ours tended to "lock" you into gears. We had to shut the tractor off in gear many times to get enough leverage to force it into neutral. I shutter at the thought of the PowerShift in a larger machine like that. Serviceability was non-existent. Doing anything to the 404- which was often, was a nightmare. The rest of the machine wasn't any better. In fact, dealing with two of their machines- the 4520 and a 6600 combine, I doubt I'll ever purchase anything major from John Deere. I certainly wouldn't pay the Deere premium so that I could have the privilege of operating a lesser machine. |
Posted By: Mike Plotner
Date Posted: 05 Aug 2015 at 6:51am
|
your 4520 have the original engine? ours doesn't. threw a rod though the block trying to pull a 22 foot field cultivator that the One-Ninety handles well enough ------------- 2001 Gleaner R42, 1978 7060, 1977 7000, 1966 190 XT, 1966 D-17 Series IV and 1952 WD and more keep my farm running! |
Posted By: Dan73
Date Posted: 05 Aug 2015 at 7:39am
|
Dave one other small point for you to consider if diesel fuel is soo much more powerful then hydrogen per volume then why does NASA use hydrogen and oxygen liquid fuel tanks to launch the space shuttle. Surely there are diesel supplies they could have used in Florida. The answer is that a tank of liquid hydrogen and oxygen have alot higher energy density because each atom in the fuel tank is an atom the engine can use for power. Judging by the smell of diesel exaust there are alot of spare atoms in diesel that the motor didn't use. The argument that the bonds in hydrocarbons is stronger then the bonds of elements is wrong they are bonds of elements and the strongest bonds are always found in the things with the biggest bang when you break the bonds. Diesel fuel does have an advantage that it is very stable at room temp the same can't be said for the gas we all pump into our cars everyday. Batteries are much more stable then gas. |
Posted By: Jwmac7060
Date Posted: 05 Aug 2015 at 8:19am
| Batteries are expensive to make and even more expensive to dispose of...I'm I'm not means an environmentalist whacko but the process of mining the nickel that goes into these type of industrial batteries is way more harming to the environment than drilling for oil ever had been....no need to try to reinvent the wheel here...there is plenty of oil in North America and fuel could be cheap if we deregualted the epa and actually built some be refineries...all of these alternative energies are not feasible on their own...that is why all of the need government subsidies to work....gas and diesel is our best bet at this time in history,everything else is expensive smoke and mirrors |
Posted By: matador
Date Posted: 05 Aug 2015 at 8:30am
|
Nope. That was long gone before we bought the tractor. Guess what killed it in the end.... engine problems, again! Also, on the 4520, the PTO was 1000 only (At least on ours). Having to run everything at 1100 RPM made that thing almost useless average jobs. |
Posted By: Lonn
Date Posted: 05 Aug 2015 at 8:45am
|
Deere had several duds back then The 5010, 5020 and 6030 come quickly to mind. ------------- -- --- .... .- -- -- .- -.. / .-- .- ... / .- / -- ..- .-. -.. . .-. .. -. --. / -.-. .... .. .-.. -.. / .-. .- .--. .. ... - Wink I am a Russian Bot |