[AT] Ford 9N vs 2N vs 8N

[Indiana Robinson]

On 24 Oct 2005 at 12:08, rasmith4 at juno.com wrote:

> 
> 
> As I remember, there were several quick ways to tell the
> Ford 9N and the Ford 8N apart, such as:
> 
> 9N
> 3 speed Tranny
> Foot pegs
> Clutch and left brake pedal on the left
> Right brake pedal on the right
> 
> 8N
> 4 speed Tranny
> running boards
> Clutch on the left
> Both brake pedals on the right
> 
> Now, how can I differentiate the 2N from these other two?
> 
> Richard
> In Central NY



	You can't...   :-)   About all you can do is look up the 
serial numbers...
	The only differences I know of between a 9N and a 2N 
(later) is that the 2N's came out with the huge rivets in 
the center of the rear hub and that they stamped a "tiny" 
2N in the oval front medallion that says FORD. Any 
medallion replacement voids that and many of the 9N rear 
axles were replaced with the later 2N riveted axles which 
were less prone to breakage. Our 9N never had an axle 
replacement but so many of those poor things were 
enormously overloaded beyond what they were designed for 
that it seems a fair number did suffer breaks. Even many of 
the attachments made by other companies and sold by Ford 
were way too much to be hanging on such a small tractor.
	I have come to think like George Willer and consider all 
of them 9N's. There more variations among some of the war 
time production 9N's such as steel wheels and mag ignitions 
(no battery) than between the 9N and the 2N.
	They were a great tractor for their size and that 2x14" 
mounted plow used with the Ferguson system could plow rings 
around many of the heavier and slightly more powerful 
competitors most of which were limited to a mechanical lift 
pull type plow. This was brought home to me again a few 
years ago when I tried to have a plow day. We were just a 
few guys but still had fun. The field had a lot of small 
wet spots and one friend that was using a slightly souped 
up unstyled John Deere A could really turn the dirt pulling 
a 2x14" pull type Deere plow. He was shifted up and 
throttled back to keep the dirt in the furrow and doing a 
great job, BUT... That mechanical lift plow (which was what 
the competition was using when the 9N's came out) was a 
massive handicap. As easy as he was pulling that plow in 
solid ground if I had been using the old 9N we owned when I 
was a kid I could have out plowed him that day easy.
	Now I was using a pull type plow that day too but it was 
hydraulic lift and at least I could "jog it up" when the 
tires on the plow began to sink in a little extra. He could 
not. I do not recall anybody in our area having a hydraulic 
lift plow before about 1949 or 1950 except the mounted 
plows on Fords, Fergusons and ACs. I'm sure some were 
available before that but some "new fangled" notions took 
off kind of slow here.   :-)
	List member Scott Pike was here that day and his WD AC had 
a mounted plow and did very well too in those wet spots but 
that unit was not on the market back when the 9N's came 
out. Ford was definitely out in front. It is a shame that 
they were still too close-minded to go into production on a 
second model a little larger and with about 40 HP. 
Companies like M&W made a lot of money selling kits to jack 
up the HP on many of those because farmers wanted them but 
could not buy larger ones.

-- 
"farmer"
Hewick Midwest

The master in the art of living makes little distinction 
between his 
work and his play, his labor and his leisure, his mind and 
his body, 
his information and his recreation, his love and his 
religion. He 
hardly knows which is which. He simply pursues his vision 
of 
excellence at whatever he does, leaving others to decide 
whether he 
is working or playing. To him he's always doing both. 
 ~ James A. Michener, attributed

Francis Robinson
Central Indiana USA
robinson at svs.net