[AT] 8N Ford

[Ron Cook]

Too old to be "picked on".  To be picked on you have to be able to pay 
attention.  Now what were we talking about?

I wouldn't compare that 9n to anything but a comparable tractor.  Of 
which there probably aren't any.  My Granddad never referred to his 9n 
as anything but the Ford-Ferguson.  He had all the necessary 
implements.  Not all were Dearborn.  Some were Ferguson.  And they 
worked just fine.  You just have to like sitting straddle that rough 
little thing all day long, day in and day out, never getting to change 
positions much.  Granddad also had a Farmall Regular, Case VAC,  and a 
John Deere B.  He died before he got his "red belly" NAA Ford that he 
really wanted to work all those implements that he had.  Henry Ford had 
that marketing thing figured out and Harry Ferguson had the implement 
mounting figured out.

Personally, I think the little Fergies are a better product.  Just not 
as easy to find parts for. Marketing again.

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.  :-)
> -
>
>
>