[AT] Continuing "What to do"

Wed Jan 13 08:11:08 PST 2016

Henry:

The 7.3 engine did not have EGR, and on a diesel, EGR is not a quickie
retrofit, it is designed-in from the ground up.  No way it could meet
emissions without EGR.

SO

On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 7:31 AM, Henry Miller <hank at millerfarm.com> wrote:

> Though I wonder if they could have met emissions, but the engineers had
> never been on an all new ground up design and used emissions as an excuse
> to try it.
>
> I know I've been guilty of wanting to start over, on hindsight the same
> effort would have resulted in a update to the old, and all along the way we
> would have a working product.
>
> On January 12, 2016 2:54:23 PM CST, charlie hill <
> charliehill at embarqmail.com> 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
>
> --
> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
> _______________________________________________
> AT mailing list
> http://www.antique-tractor.com/mailman/listinfo/at
>