[Farmall] lets talk Farmalls

[Larry Rudolph]

Sorry, I am an "H" man myself...........

>>> artsd at aol.com 3/31/05 10:11:41 AM >>>
    Thanks to all ( Greg, Larry, Jim, Mike, Stan) who have contributed
to 
this discussion. I now know that I am not as well prepared to pick out

a utility tractor as I had thought. Much of my decision to pursue a 
Farmall 240 or I240U was based on what I had read, not on what I had 
seen or heard from others. So, before I drive three hours one way this

Saturday to an auction at Redwood Falls, MN, I had best call and see if

I can get some additional information on the I240U tractors they have 
announced for sale.

    My real needs for a tractor are minimal as I live on about 3 acres

here in southeast SD while the real farmland is in southeast NE where 
my brothers live and farm. So, I basically want a smaller tractor that

has LPTO, 3-pt hitch and live hydraulics that is not too large. Given 
that one of my primary uses is for mowing, it appears I could get by 
without the LPTO (which I do now with the 1951 Super C). Another 
primary concern is a smaller tractor that I can readily haul to an 
occasional tractor show.

    In the long run, price, condition, and availability will all play a

part in the decision. Thanks for giving me a lot more to think about 
and increasing my understanding of the available options

      Regards,
                           Art


On Mar 30, 2005, at 10:12 PM, Greg Hass wrote:
> Just a little follow-up to Larry Hardesty's letter...
>
> Basically everything he has said is correct, however I will add just
a 
> little more.  For years, my brother, my dad and I shared machinery. 

> During that time we owned a Super C, a Farmall 340, and two 
> International 350s (International version of the Farmall) among 
> others.  Your assumption was correct.  A 240 is an upgrade of a Super

> C.  The father of a guy I went to school with owned a 240.  
> Unfortunately, at least in our area, 240s were given a bad rap as
both 
> the dealer and literature promoted them as a 2-3 bottom plow tractor.
 
> As anyone who has owned a Super C knows, they are strictly a 2-plow 
> and then only for 12" bottoms, which is what my dad pulled with his 
> Super C.  Adequately powered, there is no way it would have handled 3

> bottoms.  So obviously a 240 (which was basically the same thing) was

> overstated when it was called a 2-3 bottom plow tractor.  Although we

> found the hydraulics on both to be of adequate speed, they did have 
> less pressure because a couple of implements we tried to move with 
> them would not lift with the 240 and we were forced to put a newer 
> tractor with higher pressure hydraulics on in order to lift those 
> implements.
>
> And, yes, there is quite a difference between a Super C and a 340.  

> As far as an all-around utility tractor of a little heavier duty, an

> International 300 is basically an older model of a 340.  I personally

> like the looks of a 340 better.  A 350 makes an excellent utility 
> tractor, as we have owned 2.  It is about 5HP stronger than a 340, 
> about equal to a Farmall M.  However, the 350 has a much more heavily

> built engine than a 340.  A 460 is approximately equal to a Super M. 

> However, they have 6-cylinder engines, making them considerably
longer 
> than the other models we have been talking about and thus more
clumsy. 
>  This makes them less desirable as an all-around utility tractor. 
All 
> of our tractors saw heavy duty farming work, not hobby use.  
> Unfortunately, none of our tractors had power steering and I can
speak 
> from experience that it is a highly desirable feature to have!
>
> Greg Hass
>
> _______________________________________________
> Farmall mailing list
> http://www.antique-tractor.com/mailman/listinfo/farmall 
_______________________________________________
Farmall mailing list
http://www.antique-tractor.com/mailman/listinfo/farmall