Best hay baler for an 8N

[rankrank1]

How close would the New Holland 65 and 273 be in hp requirements? ...

I can not quantify hp difference with numbers, but the NH 65 will take less hp as it has a 12" x 16" plunger where the NH 273 will be the bigger with the standard 14" x 18" plunger size plus a few more strokes per minute so it definitely will require more hp. Balers need to be somewhere around 540 PTO rpm so keep that in mind when using the Sherman or Hupp auxilary trannys since the frequently alter PTO speed too.

Here is my list of low hp balers in approximate increasing order of hp requirements:
a) old vintage baler with its own engine will be the least.
b) Microstar or other mini PTO driven baler especially designed for really small tractors even smaller and less hp than your 8N (drawback is pricey $15k or more new and not common to find used ones).
c) NH 65 compact baler (12" x 16" bale chamber, my personal pick because relatively cheap and parts interchange with other bigger/older NH models).
d) Ford 520 (12" x 16" chamber size like the NH 65 but hard to find parts for).
e) NH 66 (lots of wood inside, but kinda neat and designed for low hp tractors. 14" x 18" chamber size).
f) NH 67, or NH 68, JD 14T, JD 24T (I prefer New Holland over JD balers, but JD manual recommends JD 40 or equivalent as a tractor Power unit. A JD 40 tractor has less hp than your 8N. These will be 14" x 18" bale chambers).
g) Any new Holland baler number 69 to 273 (skip the NH 77 monster though. These will all be 14" x 18" bale chambers).

Numerous hours of reading available with some searching on this subject. You will find both success and horror stories. Best advice I can give is it is sorta like pulling a travel trailer with a full size truck that only has V6 engine. The V6 engine can pull a travel trailer (or baler) if it is sized appropiately to the power available. Mountains or hills and you need to go smaller on the trailer (baler). Raking is key to success too.

Here my smaller tractor with less HP and engine torque than you 8N pulling a NH 65 baler and it does NOT have live PTO either. Tractor is a Kubota L285 compact tractor of around 23 PTO hp at 540 PTO rpm. The one and only advantage that this Kubota does have over your 8N is a better selection of slower gears to choose from so the Windrow input can be adjusted accordingly to fit the limited hp available. N's tend to be fast in 1st gear so it will be critical to rake accordingly - an idiot on the rake will make for a long day since neither of these tractors have live PTO.

Wife sabotaged my pic as she painted herself out of it (she hates cameras).

 

[SgtMoe]

I understand the Hupp or Sherman will effect the PTO speed, which is the goal. The 8N hits 540 on the PTO at proximately 1500 RPM engine speed. Max hp is developed at around 2200 RPM which would normally put the PTO at over 750 RPM. My hope with the Hupp or Sherman is to use the under-drive to slow the PTO to 540 RPM at 2200 engine RPM to give more hp and more stored energy in the tractors flywheel. In theory it sounds good, just wanted to see if anyone had used a Hupp or Sherman before to help with baling. (Just because it seems like a good idea in my head doesn't mean it will really work well):laughing:

 

[Soundguy]

drawbar hp means nothing on a hay machine.. pto hp does.

a NAA is alot more machine than an 8n, and even mor ethan a 9n or 2n ( lower comp ratio ).

since I see you mention 'range'.. we can assume your jube had a step down or a combo trans. OP did n't mention he has either.. (sounds like he was looking )so thus it is not a direct comparison. 'course.. compairing a naa and an 8n is not a direct comparison either. like an orange to a grapefruit...

soundguy

 

[Soundguy]

I understand the Hupp or Sherman will effect the PTO speed, which is the goal. The 8N hits 540 on the PTO at proximately 1500 RPM engine speed. Max hp is developed at around 2200 RPM which would normally put the PTO at over 750 RPM. My hope with the Hupp or Sherman is to use the under-drive to slow the PTO to 540 RPM at 2200 engine RPM to give more hp and more stored energy in the tractors flywheel. In theory it sounds good, just wanted to see if anyone had used a Hupp or Sherman before to help with baling. (Just because it seems like a good idea in my head doesn't mean it will really work well):laughing:

yes.. getting the engine faster will help. however.. with the cost of an underdrive or combo.. I think you would be wiser to put that money plus your 8n toward something like an 840/841, 850/851 or 860/861.. or even a 3000

combo and underdrives go for 700$ or more in my area.

that plus what you could get out of your 8n should get you even dollars into some sort of 800/801 model and then you have 2x the tractor and options.

if lucky and an 861 with ps .. or even an 860.. you have live pto. a huge bonus..

soundguy

 

[sixdogs]

yes.. getting the engine faster will help. however.. .. I think you would be wiser to put that money plus your 8n toward something like an 840/841, 850/851 or 860/861.. or even a 3000

combo .....

Ditto on the 3000 or even 800 or 600 series. Those have more HP and lower gears better suited to baling hay at high RPM with slower ground speed.
Very classic looking tractors with lots of used parts and easy to work on.
There was a time when my dream tractor was the 600/800 Fords.
Would still like to find a nice one.

 

[Soundguy]

the 3000 would hopefully have an 8spd and dual clutch.. that or an 860 / 861 would be ideal IMHO. the 3000 is a lil less hp than an 800.. but has more hyd flow in case he needed hyds for the rear implement. in any case.. an 861 will likely be cheaper than a 3000.. and if I had to choose.. it would depend on the 3000's options.. IE.. was it a 4 - 6 or 8spd.. did it have ps.. and was it a diesel? and how much $cabbage$

soundguy

 

[tessiers]

drawbar hp means nothing on a hay machine.. pto hp does.

a NAA is alot more machine than an 8n, and even mor ethan a 9n or 2n ( lower comp ratio ).

since I see you mention 'range'.. we can assume your jube had a step down or a combo trans. OP did n't mention he has either.. (sounds like he was looking )so thus it is not a direct comparison. 'course.. compairing a naa and an 8n is not a direct comparison either. like an orange to a grapefruit...

soundguy

Either way the H is comparable to the 8n on HP

I don't know if my NAA steps up or down but it is high geared even on the low side, that is the one drawback to the Ford.

My point is you can bale hay with about any tractor you choose, plugging is caused by improper feeding, not too little horsepower. I can plug a baler on a 50 hp tractor if I want to, or at least shear pins faster than you can change them.

 

[Soundguy]

I like fords and all.. but an H or a jd B with simialr hp will outwork an 8n at certain tasks.

yes.. fords have pretty tall gears till you hit at least 65+

and yes.. plugging is alot of technique.. but given less technique.. more hp helps..

soundguy

 

[catskinner]

I'm a 8n diehard, but my dad found a mint 3000 with the 8 speed and dual clutch for cheap, I'm always using the 3000 now. I didn't think it would make that much difference but it did.

 

[wolc123]

I am also an 8n diehard, but pto work is definitely not the strong suit. I have not done any pto work with mine in more than 20 years. I am not even sure if the shaft is still there under the cover that I threaded on tight 21 years ago. The only worse thing I can think of someone doing with an 8n is putting a front loader on one. To this day, there is no tractor I would rather have on my 2-row corn planter or use for moving firewood with a 3-point carryall than an 8n. My suggestion would be to find some better things to do with the 8n and get one of the better choices as others have recommend. I had a 3 cyl Ford 2000 for a long time, which is similar in size, will work on all the implements sized for the 8n, but do a heck of a lot better on the pto. Make it a diesel and it will also bale your hay for less than half of the fuel. Cost, as others have mentioned, is not all that much more. Personally, I would not buy a Ford tractor other than a 1951 or 52 8n, but I dont bale hay or need it for any pto work. If you want to stick with old gas tractors of that era, I cant think of a single similarly sized IH, JD, or Allis Chalmers that would not outperform the 8n on the baler. It was on the plow where the 8n stood out from the crowd back then, pto was merely an afterthought. You may love your 8n now, but you will loose some of that love if you put it on a baler or a loader.

 

[rankrank1]

...The only worse thing I can think of someone doing with an 8n is putting a front loader on one... You may love your 8n now, but you will loose some of that love if you put it on a baler or a loader.

Well, I both agree and yet disagree with you. I actually hate the non-live hydraulics of an 8N more than I hate the non-live PTO. Luckliy, the non-live hydraulics does not come into play with either a baler or a loader (assuming it has a live front mounted pump for the loader).

Back a few years ago I always felt 8N's were very overpriced - you could get a Ford 2000 or 3000 for similar money so I did not see the value back then. However, since the economy collapse 8N's have drastically fallen in price and can sometimes be found for cheap and for a cheap price they are better than nothing and a good value at a cheap price. If my choice is no tractor and obviously no loader as compared to an 8N with a loader then sign me up. For occasional use they are actually not too bad - assuming loader is powered with live front pump and is of modern step-thru design (i.e. not the old cage trip bucket Dearborn loader). Dad had one when I was a kid in the early 1980's and really all we used it for was as a loader tractor. Certainly did not use it every day or use it hard but it was handy when we did use it and unfortunately it was only the old crappy caged dearborn loader.

As a baler tractor: While admittingly not the ideal choice, The 8n will be very limited, but it can be made to work with proper baler selection, and very careful raking and careful planning ahead - especially considering we are only talking a few acres. If you want to daydream while raking or daydream while baling with an 8N then forget even attempting it as it will not work well at all.

FWIW: All New Holland balers of the vintage from my earlier list will have an over-running clutch built into the baler. That said, I would still put one on the tractor too.

Here are a couple of videos of possible interest - neither video is mine. One is an 8N - I would not recommend pulling a wagon but it seems to be working at least on flat ground. The other is a Jubilee and a NH 66 and yes I know a Jube has about 6 more hp but still no live PTO and the same fast 1st gear just like the 8N so there is at least some indirect comparison.

http://www.the-farm.lone-wolfs-den.com/video/NH66.mpg

YouTube - Baling Hay with the 1950 Ford 8N & NH Hayliner 68 Baler

 

[pavol]

Hi, I'm new here on the forum. I live in Slovakia in Europe. I do not know English very well, so I'm sorry. This year in August, virtually in the season I bought a New Holland 68 baler. He was in very bad condition. Was not timed. Knotters did not work. I got to him he made before I put it together. Previous owner presses really understand. Bill Hook. was the sisal twine and he used plastic twine. At a press spring hay missing dog. Knife frame was completely bent. Knotters I rebuilt the plastic twine. I used parts rasspe. Press has a new clutch plates. I still need to make wooden gliders on the plunger and set it in the compression chamber. I need to deal with the placement of the fingers cross inserter. What is the distance from the first finger gripping the pin? It was set incorrectly, because the press did Packages C. I set it by eye. Now press works great and already I am looking forward to next season. Here you have some photos after the correction press.