[AT] Continuing "What to do"

Wed Jan 13 04:44:55 PST 2016

That is what I read also.  However, the result is a less reliable engine 
that uses more fuel.   How can you pollute less if the engine you are 
operating has all this crap on it but uses twice the mount of fuel?  But 
the result has created a lot of work for mechanics and more expense for 
owners....   Again the dealership/factory wins....  We do all this 
expensive crap in the name of pollution, and one volcano blows up and 
everything man does is for nothing...

I have decided to keep a gas truck for the everyday use and when I have 
to pull something I have the old 95 model 1 tons and the 98 Chev 8500 w/ 
the 3126 and Allison.   The DOT has me restricted to 150 miles from home 
now, so my days of the cross country machinery hauling is over....

Cecil in OKla

On 1/13/2016 1:25 AM, Dean VP wrote:
> Cecil,
>
> I'm not quite sure that is really true. I was told Ford And International couldn't meet the new
> emission standards with the 7.3L.  Never know what to really believe.
>
>
> 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
> Cecil R Bearden
> Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2016 9:16 PM
> To: Antique tractor email discussion group
> Subject: Re: [AT] Continuing "What to do"
>
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> AT mailing list
> http://www.antique-tractor.com/mailman/listinfo/at
>
> _______________________________________________
> AT mailing list
> http://www.antique-tractor.com/mailman/listinfo/at