Tell me about Ford Tractors...

[tomrscott]

Okay, so I am curious. I see a tremendous amount of activity on ebay and various vintage tractor forums and similar places, related to Ford tractors.

When I was a kid I spent a couple summers on my uncle's farm in Audubon Iowa. He was a John Deere kind of guy, and I got to drive an old workhorse "B" and a 4010, so I've always had a fondness for green tractors. My dad was quite loyal to Ford cars, but he wasn't a farmer.

If you are a big fan of Ford tractors, what is it that you find interesting or appealing about them as opposed to IH, or Case, or Whites, or JD, or Farmall, or something else. I think vintage Ford tractor popularity may be second only to JD.

I really am quite curious to hear from some Ford tractor buffs. What makes them tick (or what makes you tick)?

Thanks! /forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

 

[RobertN]

I think this is what originally made them popular... They were inexpensive, had a little power, and had that flexibility of the 3-pt hitch.

Part of the popularity probably comes from the flexibility. The 2n/9n/8n series was a wide front, and would handle a loader better than a narrow front. The front would handle a loader too. It was a more utilitarian tractor.

My Farmall-A will out cultivate the N series and later Fords. But, it will not support a loader very well, and it lacks a hitch and hydraulics.

Now, they appear popular because they are simple, easy to work on, easy to get parts for, and support a lot of tools people like(loader ect).

From what I see too, they are not over priced. JD's are cool, I like green, but it sures seems they are expensive...

 

[tomrscott]

Interesting points...

Yeah I can sure see the cost factor helping to make them popular. You would think that JD paint had 24K gold instead of lead.

Another question, while we're on the subject, are the Ford's all, or mostly, gasoline powered, or did they also use diesels?

Thanks!

 

[Pooh_Bear]

These little ford N series tractors are the very model of simplicity.
Back right after WWII Henry Ford had the opertunity to buy the Volkswagon factory in Germany but turned it down. Old Volkswagons are about as simple and dependable as it gets. Ford tractors are the same way.
And you can still get parts for one. Big plus for me when buying.
As long as you don't abuse it too bad, you can keep it running forever.

Luv my little '49 8N tractor.

Pooh Bear

 

[RobertN]

I think what you mention is true of most '40's tractors though. My Farmall-A is simplicity itself. And, parts availability is still pretty good.

The trick, I think, is Ford had Furgeson's 3-pt before anyone else. And, it was built more as a multi-purpose tractor. My Farmall does a lot. But, it has no hydraulics, no hitch. It N series Ford was the most utlitarian.

It is interesting, I was reading where the Cubs were built with a 5 year expectancy. Now there are 50 year old examples still going strong! A lot of the older tractors are that way...

 

[Soundguy]

While parts aren't 'hard' to get for my cub, or my JD.. they are WAY WAY more available for the ford.. and usually cheaper too. Ford tractors shar alot of ford vehicle parts as well.

As others mentioned.. the 3pt hitch, both with the versatility of draft and position on most models.

There were lots of dealer option items.. and aftermarket items.. like add on transmissions of various makes.

Numbers helped. if you add up the N series.. you have about a million tractors.. that in and of itself lends to parts support. Also the fact that it was made to be rebuilt by the average farmer... etc.

I also like the art deco styleing the early sheet metal has.

Soundguy

 

[Soundguy]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( Another question, while we're on the subject, are the Ford's all, or mostly, gasoline powered, or did they also use diesels?
)</font>

Early N's were gas l head. Later NAA and up used the gas red tiger OHV 134 ci engine. there was also a 172 ci version using the same block. And yes.. later hundred series had diesel power options, as well as LP and 'all fuel" ( kero ) models even as far back as the N's )

Soundguy

 

[jinman]

I'm going to agree with everything Soundguy, Pooh Bear, and RobertN said (with one exception) and add a couple of my own points. I think RobertN's point about the loader is not a major reason for the early Ford's popularity. When you look at the number of tractors sold and the very few loaders, you can't make a case for the loader being a major selling point. It was just one of the additional attachments to add to a very long list which made these tractors good for farming on a small to medium scale.

When Harry Ferguson and Henry Ford had their famous hand-shake agreement, Ferguson's brilliant 3PH system with draft control was introduced along with Ford's ability to mass-produce these tractors as he did automobiles. Without both those elements, the Ford tractors would not have been as successful.

The tractors of those early days in the '30s had backflip and traction problems that the Ferguson system instantly cured. The idea of geometry that actually applied downpressure to the front wheels when you hit a buried obstacle was revolutionary. Add to that the automatic sensing and adjustment of the plow depth (draft control) and you have a winner that got the attention of struggling small farmers everywhere. (Position control was actually introduced at a later time.) Now, make that tractor so it has a short wheelbase and can turn on a dime. At the end of a row, you didn't have to waste time making a tedious turn-around move. You could lock a wheel and spin around and go back down the same furrow you just opened.

And let's look closer at what the 3PH ushered in. If there had been no implements available, it would have been useless, but Ford saw to it that over 30 implements, cultivators, harrows, one-ways, blades, etc. were available. All these could be easily attached in just a few minutes. Time is money, and this single little tractor not only was affordable, it was a revolution in productivity and utility.

Just go out and look at your current CUT. It has:
1. short wheelbase
2. 3PH virtually unchanged from the Ferguson design
3. a PTO like the early Fords
4. no belt pulley
They say imitation is the highest form of flattery, and if so, the early Fords are very flattered.

So why do we love the early Fords (and Fergusons also)? They were the genesis of our modern CUTs and the basis for the most successful method of implement attachments.

Now all this is not to say other tractors didn't have great points and there is reason to have loyalties to them, but the reasons we love Fords is that they are still doing today what they did years ago. They are still here because they are still right for the job: Simple, affordable, reliable, ingenious. How can you not love 'em? /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif

 

[djradz]

Jim, fantastic summary! You truly almost made me cry. You hit it right on the head. All the essential features of our tractors today, were present when Ford started these out. Yes, we've added power steering, live pto, position, etc. but if I had to give up features, it would stop right at those that the early Fords had. Those tractors truly were revolutionary. I'm longing for a 600 even more. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[tomrscott]

Jinman,

I am going to add my thanks for your thoughtful analysis of my original question. I've learned a lot from all of these posts. I actually went back and researched Ferguson a bit. Quite fascinating stuff. I am a big fan of American invention and innovation. This has been quite an educational thread.

So if you will permit me, a bit of follow-up question:
To what degree do those of you who are fans of the early Ford's (N series mainly I guess), consider the New Holland line to be the legitimate heir to that lineage and deserving of some degree of recognition for that heritage?

Or do you feel relatively un-attached to the New Holland line?

Another way to look at this, if you were asked to select a newly-manufactured tractor today, would you first look at New Holland, or somewhere else?

Depending on your answer to this question, what then do you see as the New Holland line's strengths and weaknesses.

Thanks much!

(I should hasten to add that I have absolutely no connection with NH, this is simply historical technology curiosity)