[AT] TMCOTKU tractor count is down by one.

[Mike Sloane]

You have to remember that Ford's strategy of the time was low price and 
functionality. The 9N was intended to make owning a tractor not only 
affordable but to be functionally superior to its competition in the 
area of plowing. So you had an inexpensive machine that could plow two 
rows using less power and was better than bigger and more expensive 
tractors (and horses/mules) using "pull behind" plows. You can argue 
about a lot of things relative to functionality/comfort of the 9N, but 
you have to agree that it accomplished those two objectives. Things like 
footboards, live PTO, live hydraulics, and a host of other nice features 
would have added to the cost. The only "frill" was electric starter 
interlock, and there were a bunch of options like electric starting and 
lights.

I own a 2N that I restored mostly for the fun of it. It is a nice enough 
machine, but the three speed transmission, poor location of the left 
brake pedal, and lack of a hitch that you can move without engaging both 
the clutch AND PTO limits its usefulness. My Ford 860, in addition 
having a much more powerful engine and two stage clutch, makes up for 
most of the 2N's deficiencies. (My 2N happens to have both a Sherman 
auxiliary transmission and a Howard two speed rear, giving the tractor 
12 speeds forward and 4 speeds in reverse, but that doesn't help the 
problem with the hitch hydraulics and non-live PTO.) 
<http://public.fotki.com/mikesloane/1946_ford_2n/>

I recall one time when Cecil and Lucille Monson came for a visit. My 
Ford was sitting off to the side and Lucille hopped on and stated that 
it would be the kind of tractor that she wouldn't mine operating. And 
even Cecil (who developed a dislike for Fords after having to spend days 
on them as a youth) had to agree that it was one of the easiest tractors 
to get on and off of.

Mike

Herbert Metz wrote:
> Saturday at Calhoun, GA tractor show, while discussing various tractors, I
> mentioned that the ownerof the first Ford in our area sure took a ribbing
> about "now he did not have to walk the nearly two blocks to the mailbox
> each day" or "now he did not have to walk out in the pasture to get the
> milk cows". Three or four years later nearly every farmer around had a Ford.
> Herb
> 
>> [Original Message]
>> From: Indiana Robinson <robinson46176 at gmail.com>
>> To: Antique tractor email discussion group <at at lists.antique-tractor.com>
>> Date: 10/18/2009 10:59:52 PM
>> Subject: Re: [AT] TMCOTKU tractor count is down by one.
>>
>> I always was a little confused as to why the 9N didn't come standard
>> with step/running boards. My father put an after market set on his in
>> the mid 1940s or so. I have a book showing accessories for them and
>> they did have a "platform" kit available to sell. I don't know if they
>> ever had steps in later years as standard. I do know that I see after
>> market steps on most of them at shows. The TO-20's came with nice
>> steps as did the 8N and later. Everybody has their favorites as far as
>> tractors and some they don't really like. Some opinions may track back
>> to a bad experience or even to the fact that someone they didn't like
>> that owned a certain brand. I can't really say that there any brands I
>> don't like but there are several things about some of them I don't
>> like.
>> As far as mounting and dismounting in my mind the little John Deere L
>> and LA's are absolutely awful. My Allis C is poor without a step as is
>> my Farmall CUB. The 9N without a step is bad.
>> WHAT WERE THEY THINKING???