[AT] For the steamer guys(now JD 65)

[Ralph Goff]

Jon Fridgen wrote:
> Hey Guys,
> I'm relatively new to list and enjoy the posts... Just wanted to add
> something about the old JD combines:
> 
> Ralph is right - the early 55's had a Hercules QXD6 six-cylinder engine.
> Over the years, Deere increased the power and the later models used a 303
> cubic inch JD engine (available in gas or diesel) that had about 75 hp. I'm
> not sure how much horsepower the Hercules had, though...
> 
> I remember my Grandpa had a JD45 when I was a kid that had a Hercules 
> JX4-C3
> engine. The combine is long gone, but we've still got the engine sitting in
> the shed. The early model 45s and 55s (maybe even the early 95s) all had a
> flat belt driving the separator. I still remember all the four-letter words
> that filled the air when a thistle patch or a damp spot was encountered
> while harvesting swathed oats.
> 
> I couldn't help but chuckle about Ralph's comment regarding horsepower not
> being the weakest link. We had a neighbor that had a JD 65 and in the early
> 80's actually used a JD 4240 tractor to power it. It didn't seem to matter
> though - the combine still plugged.

Hi Jon
Good to hear from a new guy with some farming stories. Yes, I bent a 
crowbar trying to turn over that plugged cylinder on the 460 Case more 
than once. But that spray can of belt dressing was like a shot of 
adrenalin to the machine. You could actually make the tractor work a 
little when those belts took a grip in heavy swaths. Trouble was it only 
lasted for a few hours and then I'd need to re-spray the belts. It was 
worth it though. I eventually ran the same combine with a 930 Case 
(85hp) which worked well but eventually broke the main drive gearbox 
picking up heavy swaths of fall rye. It was an expensive fix to get the 
machine running again. The last year I had that combine I used the 2090 
Case on it. I don't think overall capacity changed much , if any, but 
operator comfort improved by about 100%. :-)

Ralph in Sask.