[AT] Continuing "What to do"

[Henry Miller]

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.