Oliver 1755

Maybe see a Doctor you may have Covid 

Engines (diesel) are famous for throwing connecting rods out thru the block.

Edited by DrAllis - 23 Sep 2020 at 6:36am

Buddies dad got tired of working on the transmissions in his Internationals and switched to Olivers. I chopped and disked with their 1850. The only thing I didn't care for was no holding power in low range on the hydra shift. They had gasers and found that they needed a good quality oil that was changed regularly or they would throw rods.

Edited by Gatz in NE - 23 Sep 2020 at 8:17pm

1755 is a very nice tractor to run.Easy to get on and off. Nice roomy platform. It seems like Oliver hit the sweet spot with the 310 in that model. But without the bottom end updates they will ventilate.They aren't as handy in tight spots as a similar AC or IH. They also don't have a common fluid in everything like Hytran or 831. Different fluid and filter for every system on the tractor.

Edited by exSW - 23 Sep 2020 at 9:16pm

GARY(OH/IN) wrote: Just what I've heard. Due to the Oliver engines going to pieces a good and easy change was to a Perkins diesel as from a MF combine. No verification of details, just came to mind.

A 1755 is a great tractor, closed center hydraulics, tilt/telescope hydrostatic steering 18 speeds, and natural aspirated 310 Waukesha isn't as known for throwing rods as the turbocharged 1855 without oil cooler. Many of those were updated to the oil cooled block from the 1955, and added oil capacity via a larger pan or bypass filter, or both. While slightly higher in hp at 80 pto hp on early ones, updated fuel spec made it 86 pto hp, I would say the closest AC is the 190D at 77.20 pto hp. 

Edited by injpumpEd - 24 Sep 2020 at 12:57pm

There were lots of olivers in my area.lot on dairy farms. Ask dad about it once and he said the dealer took good care of his customers. There was red ,orange and green all close by but those guys were loyal.

Lonn wrote: A 1755 is not in a matching horse power class to any AC at the time but anyhow the hydraulics kinda suck on all those Olivers compared to a 190 and the platform is not clutter free or as comfortable and roomy as a 190. Over all I think a 190 XT would out perform an 1855 or 1850 in most tasks but I have never did heavy work with any Oliver. The older mechanics at the AC shop I worked at never thought they were much competition at the plowing demos they used to have with the 190XT.  Baling may be the exception where those Olivers work out better but I've never have complained and for square baling I like the hand clutch of the Allis better.  I wouldn't mind having a good 1855 or 1955 with updates. I used to think they were among the ugliest tractors built at the time just ahead of the Massey 1100 and Case 1030. I prefer the looks of the 190 and the late model Molines best but the others have grown on me..... except that the Masseys are just a bridge too far in that category.

We had a trio of Olivers on our farm working alongside the ACs and they seemed to work well together. We had 2 770s and then a 1750. One of the 770s was actually more of a POS compared to the other 2. This was our FEL tractor and that was all that it did beside run the blower on the silo. The other 770 was the hired hand's tractor. That's all he ever used and he did all our planting, baling, and combining with that old 770. The 1750 was Grandpa's tractor when I was growing up until he passed away. A couple years after that once I was old enough, it became my tractor when I started doing field work with Dad. All those years, it worked tillage right alongside Dad with his XT, was our raking tractor all summer, and our road tractor hauling hay wagons all summer and then forage wagons in the fall for corn silage harvesting. Our 1750 had the NA 310 Waukesha diesel in it with the 3 spd Hydraul shift. Those 18 spds and 20 mph made her a far better road tractor than any AC we had. I loved running that Oliver and miss it still today. The only issue we ever had with ours was it's habit of eating a head gasket every other year no matter what we did to it. One neighbor had a couple Olivers too that went through the same thing. Another neighbor I worked for later on had a White 2-70 with the same powertrain and he never had an issue with his. The trans and rearend seemed darn near bullet proof-never touched either the 20 years while we had it-not even the clutch. Darn good tractor and it had no problem doing anything a 80hp tractor ought to be able to do.

The ones with 2 cycle Jimmys were the Super 99, 990 & 995 with a 3-71. When the 1900 came out it got the 4-53, which also carried over to the 1950. When they changed to the 1950T is when they went to the 310 Turbo Waukesha. 

Massey Ferguson 165 we used to have with the "Multi Power" , in Low it coasted, in High you had hold back. Strange arrangement to me, as you had to go faster down a hill one way or another. Seems like if anything, if you were going to have only one range hold, it would be the slower of the 2.

But that was the first tractor I ever drove, so I guess it still has a place in my heart. Also the only engine that has blown to smithereens between my feet!

Oliver's 2-speed (Hydra-Power) and 3-speed (Over-Under-Hydraul shift) had a sprag clutch in the lowest ratio just like old IH's and MMolines and also Massey- Multi-Power.

I suppose it would help with that. But in the end, the original Farmall TA was like this, so everybody else followed suit, except A-C. Even the Ford  Select-a-jerk freewheeled in half the gears selections. To add another clutch instead of the sprag (over-running type clutch) would cost more  !!