[AT] 8N Ford

Indiana Robinson robinson46176 at gmail.com
Wed Dec 23 09:54:01 PST 2009


On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 11:05 AM, Ron Cook <rlcook at longlines.com> wrote:
> My Granddad had a 9n.  Probably bought new.  For nostalgic reasons when
> I started fooling with old tractors I bought a very nice original 2n.  I
> very quickly discovered why my Granddad had a Sherman in his.  I also
> discovered why my Dad always claimed his Dad would have lived alot
> longer had he never tried to farm with the Ford.  That tractor is only
> good with its own implements and then needs some help with the gearing
> in these parts.  Mine did have running boards and was the easiest
> tractor I have ever owned to get on and off of.  I sold it.  Don't need
> another.  But had I been able to afford having that little 2n around, it
> would still be here.  Just something about them.
>
> Ron Cook
> Salix, IA
===================================


Not picking on you Ron :-)
There is a reason they called it the Ferguson "System"... It was a
system of tractor and implements.They were never intended to be
hitched to anything you had laying around for something else. Much of
the plan was to sell you implements as well as a tractor. Combined
with the proper implements they were a real workhorse. You also have
to be careful what you try to compare them to... I keep seeing
discussions pop up comparing a 1939 9N to something like a 1952
Farmall M. Hell yes the 9N will look a little pale but if you compare
apples to apples and take an honest look at what was available when
that little 9N was designed it looks pretty good. We need to remember
too that it was never intended to grain farm 500 acres of land. It was
designed, like many smallish lighter tractors, to replace a team of
horses on a farms generally smaller than a couple of hundred acres and
where grain crops were grown mostly for feeding on the farm. Most of
those farms had chickens, milk cows, beef cattle (usually from the
bull calves from the milk cows), often still had a horse or two and
usually a good sized batch of rather scruffy slop fed hogs. Farr more
chore jobs than field work on most of those farms through the
depression years.
I used that Farmall M reference because I ran across a discussion on a
forum board recently where the writer was doing just that, comparing a
9N to a Farmall M and belittling the 9N for its lack of capabilities.
My god look at the weight difference and the HP difference... That
would be like comparing the Farmall C to the M and calling the C junk
because it would not pull the same plow. There was a "huge" price
difference too. It would be much like comparing that M to my Deere
4020...
A fair comparison is more like comparing a 9N to a:
Farmall C or H
Allis C or WC
Oliver 60 or 70
John Deere M or B
A Case VAC or S
 or any other 2 plow 20 to 26 HP tractor. Any comparison needs to also
include the farmers purchase price and from those days even
availability.
Of course an awful lot depends on what you are used to. Son Scott
about goes bonkers using anything for mowing that does not have
independent PTO. I on the other hand grew up compensating for the
common PTO and seldom give it much thought. The things you have to do
are just automatic. :-)
Another funny thing that pops up is how some will slam the 9N for its
awkward left turning brake (they make a lever conversion to add to
that you know) but never mention those really awkward hand brakes some
other makers still used.
When Henry Ford and Harry Ferguson were designing that 9N IHC was
still cranking out 10-20's I would absolutely kill for a 10-20 but you
talk about an awkward brute and hand crank only to boot like a number
of others. The 9N left turning brake may have been a little awkward
but compare it to the 10-20 turning brakes. No, wait, it didn't have
any at all... :-)
Three speed trannies were also common during the late 1930s.
One last point is that in spite of a lot of talk running clear back to
when the N Fords were new, from mostly IH and Deere folks, who I
believe felt a little threatened, the American farmer voted with his
wallet and bought them in huge numbers for their small farms and go
take a look at what kind of hitch"system" is the standard today. Note
that I'm not saying it is the best, just that it is the standard.
Personally I liked the Fast Hitch on the IHC 300U which was sort of a
hybrid. It was a fast hitch but had a top-link for some tools (like
the plow).
A lot of the early non 3 point tractors were an absolute B!#ch to
mount or remove any attached implement. On one tractor farms spending
half a day changing from a set of cultivators with all sorts of bolt
on brackets to an empty tractor so you could "bolt" a mower on to cut
hay knowing full well that you needed to be cultivating while that hay
dried and then the cultivators had to come off again to rake and take
in the hay was a horrible option.
Also look at how most of the N series sell yet today...
I feel entitled to some of my opinions because unlike many who will
only collect one color or many who would only farm with one color I
love them all in one way or another and have hands on experience with
using them. Some for many many many years. I can find many faults with
about all of them.
Yesterday I was cussing our kitchen cabinets... Who ever decided that
sharp square corners were a good idea... Dang that hurt.
Off of soapbox.  :-)
-


-- 
Have you hugged your horses today?

Francis Robinson
aka "farmer"
Central Indiana USA
robinson46176 at gmail.com




More information about the AT mailing list