[AT] Continuing "What to do"

Cecil R Bearden crbearden at copper.net
Tue Jan 12 20:15:54 PST 2016


That was the reason they quit the 7.3L They were so good they couldn't 
sell replacements.  I have two 95 models.  One with 215000, and the 
other with 85000 miles...

Cecil in OKla



On 1/12/2016 6:20 PM, Dean VP wrote:
> The Ford 6.0 was a complete disaster Diesel engine for Ford. The 6.4L wasn't much better, The current
> 6.7L seems to have developed a decent reputation.  The earlier (before 6.0L and 6,4L) 7.3L diesel
> engine had a bullet proof reputation. Maybe the 6.7L will achieve the same honor. I am really
> surprised that there hasn't been a class action suit over the 6.0L disaster.  I have a friend in
> Lompoc, CA who went through three (3) Ford 6.0L Diesel trucks  and finally gave up and bought a
> Chevrolet.  I've got over 170,000 miles on my 7.3L and it is going strong. Just about broken in.
>
> Dean VP
> Apache Junction, AZ
>
> It's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: at-bounces at lists.antique-tractor.com [mailto:at-bounces at lists.antique-tractor.com] On Behalf Of
> Mike M
> Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2016 2:39 PM
> To: Antique tractor email discussion group
> Subject: Re: [AT] Continuing "What to do"
>
> It's a problem for a lot of new diesel owners as well, some are running
> into nightmares with the new tier IV emissions.  They made them so
> clean, they broke them.  Our farrier had and old 1990's Dodge pickup
> with the Cummins diesel. He puts on about 50,000 per year, so fuel
> mileage makes a big difference in his bottom line.  He was able to get
> around 17-19 mpg pulling a trailer full of equipment. He finally got rid
> of it after the Dodge fell apart around the Cummins, with about 475,000
> miles. He then cycled through a couple more trucks, then ended up with a
> Ford Powerstroke 6.0. He dropped money on that truck like their was no
> tomorrow, first one thing then another, literally thousands of dollars.
> On top of that he only was able to get 9-10 mpg fully loaded. It would
> have been cheaper for him to buy a gasser, and avoid all the problems.
>
> On 1/12/2016 3:54 PM, charlie hill wrote:
>> Dennis, that is what happened to the Deutz air cooled diesel and the 7.3
>> Navistar diesel.
>> Neither could meet EPA regs.  Same thing killed the Detroit two stroke
>> diesels.  Even engines
>> for motor yachts built abroad now have to meet EPA regs before they can be
>> brought to and registered
>> in the US.
>>
>> Charlie
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Dennis Johnson
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2016 2:38 PM
>> To: Antique tractor email discussion group
>> Subject: Re: [AT] Continuing "What to do"
>>
>> Cecil,
>>
>> I used to get the Minsk several times a year. Always wanted to tour the
>> Belarus factory but never got the chance to do it. Drove by it dozens of
>> times.
>> My gut feel is when the EPA added emissions requirements for tractors and
>> industrial engines, the Belarus management resisted complying and ended up
>> giving the US business to Mahindra and others. In Russia and Belarus the
>> factories used to tell consumers what they needed to buy, and asking
>> consumers what they wanted was unheard of. I think they may have looked at
>> the EPA requirements like a customer request and filled it in the little
>> round basket next to the desk.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Dennis
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>>> On Jan 12, 2016, at 10:11 AM, Cecil R Bearden <crbearden at copper.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dennis:
>>> I have an 8345 Belarus 4 x 4 w/cab that I use for feeding and most any
>>> utility tractor need.  I do not have ballast in the rear wheels, but I
>>> always put a round bale on the rear bale prong whenever I need the extra
>>> weight or handling bales.  I put 2 bales on the front end with the 4
>>> prong front fork.  When I need the extra traction, I engage the 4wd.
>>> Most of the time I only need 2wd even in the mud around the feeders.
>>> The front tires are 9.00 x 20 tractor tread.
>>>
>>> However, my TS110 New Holland is 2wd and has a front loader.  Both
>>> Koyker loaders.  If I put a bale on the rear prong and try to move hay
>>> in a muddy area, with only one bale on the front, the TS110 is stuck.
>>> The larger front tires give you a great advantage in mud.   The TS110
>>> also has  oversize tires on the front.   Those small front wheels are
>>> what sticks a tractor in the mud.  I have a friend with one of those
>>> NewHolland 4wd tractors that has the front and rear tires the same.  He
>>> hardly ever uses the 4wd to work through mud.
>>>
>>> I cannot say enough good about the 2 Belarus tractors I have.  If I did
>>> not have them I would surely be in deep muck trying to handle hay in
>>> this mud...
>>>
>>> Cecil in OKla
>>>
>>>> On 1/11/2016 8:52 PM, Dennis Johnson wrote:
>>>> Spencer
>>>>
>>>> Today I got a reminder why older 2x4 tractors with FEL are not always the
>>>> best. I needed to go to Oklahoma for several things. One was to put the
>>>> hydraulic system back together on my loader after having fittings and new
>>>> hoses welded to the tubes that were welded to a distribution block. Got
>>>> that installed, and now loader works fine.
>>>>
>>>> I thought that I would try and use the loader a little bit. First task
>>>> was getting it stuck when trying to push over a dead tree. Used loader to
>>>> pick up front tires and put some tree limbs under the front tire, and was
>>>> able to back out. Second task worked fine, lifting and moving limbs from
>>>> neighbors tree that fell on my drive (see above) - worked well. Third
>>>> task was to try and move a tree I took down few months ago - result was
>>>> get stuck again. Loader picked up front end, put something under both
>>>> wheels, and was able top back out again. Parked tractor for a drier day
>>>> and went on to other tasks.
>>>>
>>>> The turning radius on the IH2504 is similar to the Massy Ferguson 35
>>>> series. It turns and maneuvers well on solid ground. The loader sticks
>>>> out a little, guessing 3 foot from front of front tires to the front of
>>>> the loader. The real issue is there is just a lot of weight on the front
>>>> tires. I could add some ballast the the rear a few feet behind the rear
>>>> tires, but that would limit using the 32 point, and the manual does not
>>>> recommend adding ballast on the 3 point assembly.
>>>>
>>>> To get more usability on soft wet ground I need a 4 x 4 of some kind.
>>>> Getting a 4 x 4 with front loader would cost 2 to 4 times what I paid for
>>>> this IH2504. With my budget constraints, that cost of machine is not in
>>>> the picture now, so I need to accept not using the tractor/loader when
>>>> soil is wet and soft. Neighbor top the South has a Chinese 4 x 4 tractor
>>>> with FEL. It works well, but he has had several maintenance issues -
>>>> hydraulics and front axle bearing problems. Other neighbor has a small 4
>>>> x 4 Kubota, which works great. Both of these are significantly smaller
>>>> than my tractor, but are great for small utility chores.
>>>>
>>>> Point is that if you need something usable in rough conditions, you need
>>>> a 4 x 4 which requires more $$$. If you can wait for dry/solid ground,
>>>> you can get something with a lot less $$$.
>>>>
>>>> Something that might work for moving manure, etc would be a dirt scope on
>>>> the back of your 3 point. You might need to make a special one with a
>>>> wider bucket, but that would be a possibility of you do not need to lift
>>>> it very high. I am sure it would not be a nice as a FEL, but cost is
>>>> significantly less.
>>>>
>>>> I also have a loader for my 1938 F20 - it is a cable system that used 2
>>>> cylinders to move cables to lift it. Both the F20 and the loader need a
>>>> lot of TLC to get them running and usable. Not sure I would recommend
>>>> that unless you just like to play with old iron.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Dennis
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 9, 2016, at 1:40 PM, ATIS <yostsw at atis.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry for the two part message, but that send button is entirely too
>>>>> close to the text box :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyways the quandary I am in is do I sell my Ford 861 and get a more
>>>>> modern tractor with a  FEL in upper 30s or low 40s HP (my minimum
>>>>> requirement)?  Or keep the 861D and go with a smaller tractor just for
>>>>> its front loader?   The price differential between a little 22 hp
>>>>> tractor with a FEL and 40 hp tractor, all other things being equal in
>>>>> terms of wear, years, etc is not that great. I really feel like it would
>>>>> be foolish to own two tractors when the little one cost 10K or more  But
>>>>> then again the extra money for that larger single replacement tractor is
>>>>> extra money. And it doesn't grow on trees.
>>>>>
>>>>> Has anyone else been in this circumstance? What did you do to resolve
>>>>> it?. Would you do it the same way again?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks in advance
>>>>>
>>>>> Spencer Yost
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> AT mailing list
>>>>> http://www.antique-tractor.com/mailman/listinfo/at
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> AT mailing list
>>>> http://www.antique-tractor.com/mailman/listinfo/at
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> AT mailing list
>>> http://www.antique-tractor.com/mailman/listinfo/at
>> _______________________________________________
>> AT mailing list
>> http://www.antique-tractor.com/mailman/listinfo/at
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> AT mailing list
>> http://www.antique-tractor.com/mailman/listinfo/at
>>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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