[AT] JD G in Snow -reduced picture size

Cecil R Bearden crbearden at copper.net
Wed Dec 16 18:33:51 PST 2015


Dean:
A very good discussion of the old tractors.  I grew up in the middle of 
those years and I would pour over the progressive farmer and Farm 
Journal every time it arrived to know everything I could about HP and 
features of the tractors.  My favorites were J.I.Case and Allis Chalmers 
in the 100 to 150 hp range.  That was a lot of HP in 1965-1970.  I 
always enjoy your perspective on the old tractors.   I also am glad to 
hear I am not the only one who thinks Deere has forgotten where they 
came from.  But they are still here.
Thanks
Cecil in OKla



On 12/16/2015 7:39 PM, Dean VP wrote:
> Herb,
>
> No, it's not my tractor. I just thought it was a very interesting photo. The John Deere G is(was) an
> odd tractor in the sense that towards the end of their run they had hardly any more HP than the JD A.
> The JD A was a little less HP than the Farmall M and the G at one time competed HP wise with the M.
> Farmall increased the HP of the M where JD didn't increase the HP of the G all that much.  The primary
> reason the G had so little power vs what might be expected was because it was always a "All Fuel"
> tractor from beginning to end. JD never converted the G engine to be a Gas engine like they did on the
> A and B and it got to the point that the A had as much HP as the G.  But there was one thing the G had
> and that was pure Lugging Power and Torque that even the Farmall M couldn't compete with.  It wasn't
> until after the G was replaced by the Gas burning 70 that JD started selling Gas conversions for the G
> engines that increased its HP significantly. If you want see some startling HP improvements that were
> sold by aftermarket companies for the JD G just look at the Power Block enhancements. I'll try to
> remember to attach a picture of that graph. See attached
>
> Why that wasn't done while it was still in production is to this day the subject of much argument and
> discussion for those who cater to the JD line. One argument is that JD didn't have enough engineering
> resources to update their lowest quantity selling tractor as the other tractors in the JD Line up
> took priority. Another argument is that the G was known for being really thirsty and JD did not want
> to get the reputation that their tractors were not economical which was one of their main selling
> points.  I could list several more. But here is my theory. The John Deere G developed a reputation for
> being built "Hell for Stout"  and was almost bullet proof. And would outlast any M and would do the
> real heavy work that the "M" would fail at. My theory is JD made that their selling point for the G
> and didn't want to mess with it. Today those who only look at the HP ratings of the late A versus the
> Late G question why the G was even in the product lineup. At the moment I don't remember the HP of the
> late A and the late G but let's say for conversation purposes it was in the 35 to 40 HP range.
>
> The G's that are still around and being used for pullers have been modified to be over 100 HP with
> today's components without changing anything in the drive train. And are reliable at that HP rating.
> Everything in the G, transmission, differential, axles, engine were nowhere close to their full
> capability at 35 to 40 HP. Reliable as one could get and would pound away day after day under heavy
> load and just plain would not quit. JD had a tendency to be very conservative on how far they pushed
> the envelope of their designs.  Some times to their detriment. This whole philosophy paid off in
> spades in the mid 50's and early 60's when the HP wars started.  JD did increase their HP in their
> tractor during this period but also beefed up the rest of the tractor to handle the added stress.
> Farmall continued to increase the HP in the M and the later number series tractor into the 460 and 560
> series without adequate improvements to their drive trains. The drive train failures on the 460/560
> was the beginning of the decline in Farmall's  sales and reputation.
>
> Then when JD announced the New Generation Tractors in the fall of 1960, 1961 model year tractors, all
> the tractor manufacturers took another hit that caused them continued decline and put them into a
> weakened financial position.  Then when the farm crisis in the 80's hit, Farmall just couldn't hang
> on, on their own and merged with Case to become Case/IH and many of the other tractor manufacturers
> also went through mergers or just flat went out of business. I/H Farmall made very good tractors until
> management made some critical mistakes then eventually ruined them as to who they really were. John
> Deere is the only remaining tractor Manufacturer  that is still in business without having had to go
> through some kind of merger to survive.  There is a book written about how management messed up
> IH/Farmall. Right now I don't remember the name of the book or the author.
>
> In the mid 50's Farmall was selling about twice as many tractors as JD. Ford actually being the # 2
> manufacturer when counting units only.  Farmall was bad mouthing the two cylinder design that is was
> an obsolete design. Most people don't know that when Farmall started having drive train failures JD
> actually picked up market share while the two cylinder tractors were still in production. Partly
> because Farmall was screwing up while  JD's designs increased their capability and continued to be
> very reliable and met the farmer's needs. So Farmall was losing market share to an obsolete design.
> When the JD New Generation tractors were announced in the fall of 1960 they were so far advanced over
> anything else on the market the rest of the tractor manufacturers were playing catch up after that and
> didn't survive as they were known in the earlier years.
>
> Now I credit JD for making some good decisions to get where they are.  But the John Deere of today is
> nothing like the JD of the 50's and 60's. JD does not serve the family farm anymore and their prices
> have completely gotten out of line and reliability has gone down. They have caused many family
> dealerships to close or merge because all they want to deal with is large multi city dealerships with
> huge purchase orders.  JD does not know who the little guy is anymore. Then to add insult to injury a
> few years ago they created some low cost lawn tractors and garden tractors to be sold by the big box
> stores such as Lowes and Home Depot under the name of Sabre, etc. and now even under the JD Name.
> I'll give you my opinion of these products. They are absolute junk using the John Deere name to
> attract customers.  IMHO they are even worse than some of the similar equipment being sold in that
> price range. It is disgusting how they are taking advantage of the good John Deere name and selling
> junk to ill-informed home owners.
>
>   My view is that don't buy a JD Garden tractor unless you are willing to pay $5,000 to $10,000 for it.
> Then you start getting something that is built half way decent. I have 5 to 6 acres to mow here so
> Garden Tractors are an important tool here. It took me one false start to realize I had to pay the
> Pauper of I wanted something reliable. But there was no damn way I was going to spend that kind of
> money for a damned garden tractor to get something good. Then I made a very good decision that has
> worked out very well for me and my mowing requirements.  I said I will by a top of the line JD Garden
> Tractor except I will buy them used after the depreciation has knocked it down over 50% or more and
> hunt for one with low hours.  That has really worked well for me. I'm still running a JD 425 that is
> now over 20 years old but in the 90's sold for almost $10,000. I paid $4,000 for it and it has been as
> reliable as any new GT I have ever owned. It is kind of like the JD G that started this conversation.
> It has a very heavy deck, has a really good drive train, power steering and differential lock. I need
> all those features on my acreage. Yes, I've had to make some repairs occasionally but not very many
> considering how many 100's of hours I put on it every year.  The old adage of: "You get what you pay
> for" is very appropriate.  I would not own one of the Lowes or Home Depot versions of JD Garden
> Tractors even if it was given to me.
>
> I'm sorry for taken up so much bandwidth. But there are a lot of misconceptions about the JD of old
> versus what they really are today. The Bean Counters have taken over.
>
> Dean VP
> Snohomish, WA
>
> If we can employ guards with guns to protect money, we can and should employ guards with guns to
> protect people. Bernard Goldberg.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: at-bounces at lists.antique-tractor.com [mailto:at-bounces at lists.antique-tractor.com] On Behalf Of
> Herb Metz
> Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 10:33 AM
> To: Antique tractor email discussion group
> Subject: Re: [AT] JD G in Snow
>
> Dean, A Great photo; I have to ask if it is your photo?
> However, for old timers like myself it does not do a "G" JD justice because
> in their day and in the Midwest they were a bit bigger than the M Farmall.
> A neighbor's G would pull a three bottom lister up a big hill without
> appreciably slowing (three bottom listers were a bigger load than a 3-16
> plow).  In this photo the G does not look that big.
> Herb
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dean VP
> Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 3:04 AM
> To: 'Antique tractor email discussion group'
> Subject: [AT] JD G in Snow
>
> Another tractor in the snow.
>
> Dean VP
> Snohomish, WA
>
> If we can employ guards with guns to protect money, we can and should employ
> guards with guns to
> protect people. Bernard Goldberg.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AT mailing list
> http://www.antique-tractor.com/mailman/listinfo/at
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2016.0.7294 / Virus Database: 4483/11191 - Release Date: 12/16/15
>
> _______________________________________________
> AT mailing list
> http://www.antique-tractor.com/mailman/listinfo/at
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AT mailing list
> http://www.antique-tractor.com/mailman/listinfo/at




More information about the AT mailing list