[AT] Engine Overhaul

[Mike Sloane]

I think you read too quickly. I did say that the Ford N was "good for 
plowing a couple of furrows". (meaning using a two bottom plow, not 
making only two furrows). And that is what it was expressly designed 
for. It was not designed to use with a post hole digger, mounted 
cultivators, fertilizer spreader, hay tedder, or that kind of thing. And 
if you want to use any of that kind of implement, there are better 
machines to do the job.

And by the way, If Cecil Monson were around, he would agree with your 
comments - his dad had a similar pair of tractors, and, while the Ford 
would plow circles around the McCormick-Deering, he came to hate both of 
them after spending endless days operating them. :-)

Mike

Indiana Robinson wrote:
> On 30 Apr 2006 at 13:37, Mike Sloane wrote:

> 
> 	I agree up to this point...
> 
> 
> 
>>The problem is that these old Ford N tractors are interesting and run 
>>nicely, but they really aren't all that great for doing much more than 
>>cutting grass, plowing a couple of furrows, and pulling a wagon. With 
>>their limited arrangement of the PTO and hitch, anything else can be 
>>better done by a newer tractor, or a model with live hydraulics. So any 
>>time and money you spend on the N is really a "labor of love", not an 
>>investment in a production machine.
> 
> 
> 
> 	At this point I disagree but with a smile   :-)
> My father bought his 9-N new in 1942 and started farming about 75 acres 
> with it as his only tractor. His second tractor was a McCormick 10-20 
> which he rebuilt. Not exactly a power crazed monster either.   :-)   With 
> the two of them and a hired high school boy from a nearby foster home he 
> was farming almost two hundred acres. For about 5 years he was also 
> working a 12-7 shift 30 miles away testing aircraft engines for Allison 
> Engineering (now part of Rolls Royce). The plowing ability of an N Ford  
> should not be under estimated when they are properly set up.
> 	I agree that something with a newer configuration would serve better and 
> I also feel that most of the N's are over priced today but we were always 
> able to work around their limitations. We just did what we needed to do. 
> We were not so hung up on instant gratification as today. 
> 	If my Farmall F-30 (considered a big production machine in its day) were 
> all rebuilt and hitched to a 3-14" plow and placed in a field with a good 
> rebuilt Ford N with a mounted 2-14" the N would plow rings around that F-
> 30. It would also do a nice smooth job in our soils running in second gear 
> plowing about 8" deep. The F-30 on the other would crawl along mostly 
> standing the dirt up on edge and leaving a far rougher job. The Ford 9-N 
> is listed at 3.23 MPH at 1400 RPM but maximum engine speed is normally 
> about 2,000 RPM with a speed of around 5 MPH. It is a 57.0 to 1 ratio (I'm 
> too tired to do the math tonight)   :-)   That F-30 won't run that fast in 
> road gear...   :-)   According to Guy Faye's book second gear on the F-30 
> is 2 3/4 MPH. The F-30 and 9-N were contemporaries as both were being 
> produced in 1939.
> 	One factor that might be influencing your thinking is that here on the 
> prairie we have actual soil in our fields instead of mostly rocks like you 
> poor folks in the north east...   ;-)    ;-)

-- 
Mike Sloane
Allamuchy NJ
<mikesloane at verizon.net>
Website: <www.geocities.com/mikesloane>
Images: <www.fotki.com/mikesloane>

Permanent good can never be the outcome of untruth and violence. 
-Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948)


-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.5.1/327 - Release Date: 4/28/2006