[AT] Ford 8 N

[Francis Robinson]

	You know, the N Fords catch an awfully lot of unfair flack over their limitations... They came out first in 
1939. How many other brands of tractors of that time even had a lift? If they did it was usually every bit as 
pathetic (by modern standards) as the N Fords. How many of its vintage had live PTO of any kind? My 1953 
Super M has a great hydraulic system but the earlier regular M (made up till the Super M) just had that tiny 
little belly pump that stopped when you put your foot on the clutch. Neither had live PTO. The Super MTA 
brought the live PTO later. My 1948 John Deere didn't come with live hydraulic or live PTO. Neither did any of 
its predecessors. The John Deere number series finally did. The tiny MC and then 40 crawlers had live PTO 
but it was by pulling both steering levers back to release the steering clutches.
	I'm not familiar enough with Oliver to say but I suspect it was one of the earlier live PTO tractors??? 
Ford had a live hydraulic system in 1953 NAA (Jubilee) and a live PTO available as an option for it as well. 
They are rare but were available (we had one). Allis made a live PTO available with the WD and CA but that 
was many years after the design of the N Fords. That was done mostly to operate the Roto-balers.
	I don't know when Case first had them; maybe Gene Dotson will fill that in.
	It is just important to compare apples to apples. Be sure to compare the N Fords to other tractors in its 
age group and in its HP class. 
	I remember asking my father when I was about 7 why he didn't plow with the heavier looking 
McCormick 10-20 instead of the 9N Ford-Ferguson (we always called it the "Ford Ferguson"). His response 
was that the 10-20 would pull the pull type 2 bottom plow OK but very slowly compared to the 9N and the 
mounted plow. He said that the 9N would absolutely plow rings around the 10-20 and use a whole lot less fuel 
per acre. I don't remember how fast the 10-20 was at plow speed but it was slow, very slow. The 9N would 
plow our Midwest soils in second gear, which as I recall was just under 5 MPH at full throttle. Another big hang 
up was that the 10-20 didn't have any hydraulics and in those days our soils here had a lot of wet spots. With 
a rope trip plow it was full depth or nothing. A rope trip plow is like dragging an anchor through wet spots even 
if you were lucky enough to get it lifted in time. With the 9N if you hit a wet spot sometimes all that was 
required was lifting the lever just a tiny bit to get through but if needed you could lift it all the way and just drive 
across all on only the tractor tires. Due to the higher speed the Ford did a lot smoother job of turning the 
ground over and breaking the soil apart. The slower tractors were prone to ridging and in some soils just 
standing it up on edge. If the ends were smooth you could shift up and zip across a wide headland at 10 
MPH. The 10-20 only saw 10 MPH when riding on a truck...   :-)   I'm not knocking the 10-20, I would about kill 
to have one on the farm again but its limitations were the same as many other tractors of that time and HP. 
There is a reason that they sold so many of those N Fords and they were the same reasons that so many 
were kept on the farms when a lot of other tractors ended up in the scrap. They were just plain useful.  Are 
they woefully underpowered and light in the front to hang a mounted 5' bush-hog on the back end of? 
Certainly... But remember they were not designed for that job. Most of its contemporaries couldn't even have 
a mounted bush-hog attached to them (no universal lift system).
	I sure wish I had an 8N or NAA (or TO-30 Ferguson) again since they are so easy to climb off and on 
and handy for odd jobs but their demand has priced them out of my range around here.






"farmer"


Francis Robinson
Central Indiana USA
robinson at svs.net