Farmall Cub

Suggest looking for a bigger (horsepower) tractor than the H if you are planning on using it to operate a baler.

If i were looking for a work tractor I would get one with live PTO, live hydraulics and factory built 2-point/3 point.

An opinion.

Eugene

I think some of you have miss read. I have another tractor that i will use for the round baler. I just want to get the H going to use the sickle mower on. Other wise the other tractor, Allis Chalmer 170 diesel does double duty, sickle mower and baler. And i have to constantly switch the 2 back and forth plus whatever other prodject comes up.

I know the 170 will not handle a large baler but all i want to make are 4x5 anyway.

George Willer wrote:

GILLES wrote::o MY LAND IS ON A MONTAIN SIDE, I WAS TINKING STABILITY

GILLES

Gilles,

That's a good plan. Many don't understand why, but the wide front does help stability. Setting the rear wheels out helps even more. Stability comes at the sacrifice of maneuverability but for sloping terain it's a good trade. Safety is far more important than ease.

2 Busy wrote:thats why all my tractors have wide fronts, hills,dips some of these hills is spooky with a wide front. it would'nt take much to tip a narrow over in places.

This has been discussed at length many times in the past with no final agreement. But I can't let this pass without at least stating my dissenting opinion.

IMHO, the illusion of greater stability with a wide front end is mostly that, an illusion. If it wouldn't take much to tip a narrow over, it wouldn't take much more to tip a wide over.

I don't intend to make this a long discussion again.

Yes Jim, I have seen the numerous debates on narrow versus wide fronts.

I can honestly say i have never used a narrow front tractor , so i can not compare the two . But i have drove a tricycle in my younger days and loaded a wheel barrow too far on one side.

Jim Becker wrote:

George Willer wrote:

GILLES wrote::o MY LAND IS ON A MONTAIN SIDE, I WAS TINKING STABILITY

GILLES

Gilles,

That's a good plan. Many don't understand why, but the wide front does help stability. Setting the rear wheels out helps even more. Stability comes at the sacrifice of maneuverability but for sloping terain it's a good trade. Safety is far more important than ease.

2 Busy wrote:thats why all my tractors have wide fronts, hills,dips some of these hills is spooky with a wide front. it would'nt take much to tip a narrow over in places.

This has been discussed at length many times in the past with no final agreement. But I can't let this pass without at least stating my dissenting opinion.

IMHO, the illusion of greater stability with a wide front end is mostly that, an illusion. If it wouldn't take much to tip a narrow over, it wouldn't take much more to tip a wide over.

I don't intend to make this a long discussion again.

Jim,

We've voiced our opinions several times in the past and we still don't agree. Safety is very important to me and I don't believe in anyone except Eval Knievel taking unnecessary chances with conditions that could be dangerous. That's why I promote WFE for safety. My opinion isn't based on illusions... it's based on physics and geometry. Either you understand or you don't. The margin between 90% certainty of overturning and 105% certainty shouldn't be taken lightly.

The model I use is a static one, but a dynamic model would show an even greater difference.

You KNEW I couldn't resist a reply!

Apparently there are those that have forgotten. Here again, it can be done, it just takes money




The H can easily handle the lifting heavy weight. And its not hard to about double the power either. There are kits to go up to 172cu. The Saginaw can lift way more than the tractor can handle but 1500lbs is a pretty easy load for it. More and you'll need added extra weight up front. Actuall lifting capacity is over 6000lbs at the draw bar.

Aaaahhhh , Is that all it takes is money? I knew there was something i was missing

LJW THATS ABOUT WHAT MY H LOOKS LIKE.MINES A 1950.AS FOR HAY ,MY FIELD ISN'T BIG ENOUGH.[5 ACRES]IT IS STILL A FUN TRACTOR TO HAVE THOUGH!!!!! KETCHAM

WK,
Thanks for posting those pics. Fantastic setup!!

KETCHAM,
I mowed the fields with an H for years. It got so that about in the middle of summer it would start missing and I would have to clean #3 spark plug. After that it ran great for the rest of the year.
Larry

Wasn't aware of the AC---the H is a fine "toy"---if that's what you are lookin' for!!!!!!!!!!!!-------I still have my H and sickle-mower and ac pto rake, work fine for that running on 3 cylinders!!!--no need for expensive or fancy "add-ons"! thanks; sonny

Before the fancy add-ons Sonny there wasn't a whole lot the H could do for me especially since I own not one single pull type implement. Now I can use it for all kinds of utilitarian jobs. I turned an almost useless tractor in to the most useful of all with the Saginaw.

The H just isn"t a handy tractor, way too akward for low utility type use, 404 or 504, now that's handy,(they even come with 3-pt)! thanks; sonny

I actually find the H quite nimble. I once borrowed a 300 utility and I hated it. I could not menuver like the H and operating the hitch was cumbersome. My H steers real nice, turns on a dime, has the hydraulic power of a 100HP tractor and and all is tight and smooth. It has pressure down, power top link, dual remotes. It can boom pole 1200lbs. I would have to spend quite alot of money on a tractor that could pull and lift like that H does. Yes it does have a rather high center of gravity but so far that hasn't posed a problem for me.

After 3 spinal surgeries, I can't climb on the tall tractors and they have became usless to me, My H just sits in the shed cause I cant use it. 404 and 504 are a little better for me but still gonna have to weld steps on the platforms to help get on them. (need to trade serveral tractors for something I can use)

Sonny, here is how Rick (billyandmillie) solved my problem of getting on and off an H.