Two Cylinder Magazine

Commentary

With reference to the November–December 2007 issue, I’m writing about the hay press on page 18. Having grown up on a peanut farm in southeast Oklahoma, I recognized the peanut shocks visible in the background of the upper picture. And, the thresher in the pictures has all of the characteristics of a wooden peanut thresher.

Shocking peanuts involved plowing up green vines (peanuts attached), and stacking them around poles to which two crosspieces were nailed about a foot off the ground to keep the bottom of the stack off of the soil, and to allow air to circulate through the shock to dry and cure the peanuts and vines. To keep the shocks dry, available grass in the field (there was usually plenty of it in the middles and at the end of the rows) was pulled and used to fashion a water-shedding cover. The net results, after a month or more drying under these conditions, was the most beautiful clean peanuts and bright green forage.

After proper drying, the shocks were pulled over and transported to a stationary thresher (usually on a sled) where they were pulled apart and fed into the thresher. Obviously, the threshing operation shattered most of the leaves from the stems. The leaves and stems were blown out the back of the thresher and allowed to accumulate in a pile (dirty job, keeping the back of the thresher cleared). Most peanut farmers took advantage of the high quality forage by baling it and using it for cow feed. Tricky part was getting the extremely dry material into the bale chamber. In the area where I grew up, horse-powered Dain stationary balers were used. Horse-powered balers did not have a mechanical stomper to load the bale chamber; the person(s) feeding the bale chamber accomplished the “stomping.” So, I think the baler at the bottom of page 18 has been modified by removing the mechanical “stomper,” and the stems and leaves are being fed (dumped) directly into the bale chamber. (The threshed vines did not require “stomping” to the degree that long hay did.) With the stomper removed, it was possible to remount the engine over the main frame of the baler. This required repositioning the cross-mounted drive shaft in front of the bull gears. Net result was a more compact baler that would have been easier to transport. I’m not sure how reversing the engine affected the rotation direction of the baler. Perhaps it did not matter after the stomper was removed. I would have to admit that, in the picture at the bottom of the page, it appears long-stem forage is being placed in the bale chamber — perhaps a clump of crab grass was being baled along with the peanut forage. Crab grass made an excellent waterproof topping on the shock.

Another thought I have about the baler without the stomper has to do with “setting the block” between bales. The stomper was used to set the blocks between bales. With the stomper removed, setting a block by hand is a little tricky depending on the speed of the plunger. On a horse-powered baler, there is plenty of time between plunger strokes. My guess is that the baler at the bottom of the page was run at a pretty slow speed. The bales that are visible in the lower picture appear to be well formed, indicating the use of blocks between the bales.

Everett L. Martin, Ph.D., Washington

Thank you so much for the “530” toy. It was a great thrill to win first place in the “Friends” category (November–December 2007, page 42). My friend, Thornton, got a big kick out of it when I showed him the picture. I plan to put the “530” under the Christmas tree.

I have been a member of the Two-Cylinder Club since the late 1980s, and I must say that Two-Cylinder magazine is by far the best on the market today. Please run the photo contest next year. I’m sure you will get even a better response than you did this year.

Tommy Smith, North Carolina

Okay, we’ll do it. There will be another Photo Contest for 2008. Information will be published in the March-April 2008 issue. Meanwhile, readers, plan your best shots and get ready to send them to us.

The article by Ralph Hughes on manure spreaders does not mention either the “A” or “P”, and some manufacturing dates do not correspond with John Deere brochure and Repair Catalog dates.

To clarify a point, the “A”, “B”, and “C” used wood slots attached to a metal chain to create an endless-apron for the floor of the spreader box. This apron moved material to the rear like a conveyor belt. The “D” and its successors used a solid wood or metal floor with a conveyor chain and metal slat angles to move material.

Thank you for another outstanding year of Two-Cylinder, and keep up the good work!

Nathan Tank, Iowa

I read Ralph Hughes’ article on John Deere manure spreaders in the November–December 2007 issue, and have a few comments: There were actually three models, the “A”, “B”, and “C”; basically the same spreader in three different lengths. The fourth spreader, the “D”, was added in 1926 rather than 1929. The “D” was called the “Roll-Box Spreader,” because the tongue operated a rack-action that rolled the box left or right on the front frame so the wheels would not rub against it.

Also, Deere & Company introduced new spreaders after the “D” starting with the “P”, and then the “E”. Manufacturing order was dated according to the introduction date.

Over the past 15 years, I have restored several different models of early John Deere spreaders. Most of my detailed information comes from the John Deere Ottumwa Works Parts Catalog (PC-C63 [1-48]).

I was pleased to read the article on old spreaders. It would be information lost unless it was revisited from time to time by those who appreciate history.

Kenneth Sears, Iowa

I read with interest the article about John Deere manure spreaders, but did not see mention of the Model “P” built from 1930–1937. The “P” is significant because it was the first power-driven spreader built by Deere, the first departure from the “beater-on-the-axle” design, and the first designed purely for tractor operation.

Darren Tebbitt, England

The above and other comments were forwarded to Ralph and he offered to answer them directly; but, we felt it adequate to simply publish comments from his general response, starting with, “I’m both pleased and surprised at the number of letters received regarding my article about John Deere manure spreaders and loaders!”

Ralph pointed out that he had not intended to write a comprehensive article, and instead tried to provide something less than an in-depth overview. He used old branch catalogs, sales folders, and Furrow ads to compile information and images, which obviously resulted in some omissions and inconsistencies in the continuity of some features and specifications. One known item that he did not include in the article was an experimental manure spreader built out of stainless steel. We encourage him to come forth with more information about that one! Thanks to all of you who responded regarding Ralph’s article.

Tip: Super Penetrant

It may be a dream come true, but there is now a super penetrant/lubricant that has reportedly loosened stuck tractor engines during their ride home on a trailer. It’s called SP3, and you can learn more about it at: www.commanderchassis.com

Believe It Or Don’t…

But a “Not Deliverable As Addressed” Two-Cylinder magazine was returned to us by the U.S. Postal Service in November. The address was printed correctly at the time, but had been changed in recent years to comply with the 911 telephone response program. The date of the magazine? July–August 1992. Yup, it was still in the poly wrapper after over 15 years.

On pages 34–37 of the November–December 2007 issue, there is intriguing information about a General Motors truck powered by a John Deere six-cylinder engine. You described it as “screamingly rare.” Can you give me more information such as years built and number of units sold? Or, could you point me in a direction to find this out for myself? This would be a very interesting truck to own.

Dale Douglas, Missouri

Our “screamingly rare” comment is based on the (verbally) reported “very small number” of GMC and Chevrolet trucks built with the John Deere 6359T diesel engine, and industry figures of survival rates for medium-duty trucks 20 years old. The best way we can think of to find one is to place a free “Wanted” Ad in the “Classified” section of this publication.

I am a long-time collector of the “Numbered” Series two-cylinder tractors, and had vowed to never get involved with the New Generation. About three years ago I had the opportunity to do some cultivating with a 4020 Diesel, and I was really impressed with what that tractor could do. With that variable-speed engine, you have total control. Due to ongoing rainy weather that had kept my neighbor out of the field, conditions were pretty bad in some spots. That’s the reason I was helping out in the first place, and the New Generation definitely got my attention. Since then, I have purchased that very same 4020, as well as a 4000, a 4010, and a 5010. I am in the process of restoring the 4010, and so far have found this to be quite a bit less difficult than restoring my “730” Diesel.

Whereas I used to not like seeing things in the magazine about New Generation Tractors, I now read everything I can get my hands on. Other people must be doing the same thing, because sales literature for them has about tripled in price over the past two years.

One thing that has my curiosity aroused is Deere Day in Dallas. Did all of those dealers go there without having a clue of what was going on? They must have had some idea, but how could John Deere expect all of them to keep so big a secret? This is something I’d like to learn more about.

Jim Kline, Illinois

Deere Day in Dallas occurred on August 30, 1960. Twenty days prior to that, dealers were sent Pre-Announcement Kits for the new tractor line. The instructions were that each dealer was to put the kit into “full use” upon receipt. The kit included window streamers; an already prepared advertisement for the local newspaper; a news release for the newspaper that was to inform readers that he (the dealer) will be going to Dallas for the first showing; scripts for the local radio station(s); and stickers to apply to customer statements, letters, and sales tickets. The secret was pretty much dashed by that time, and it was far too late for the competition to do much more than helplessly wait for the other shoe to hit the floor as the New Generation was about to be unveiled.

On the Barber-Greene Model “50” that I recently purchased, serial number 5017871, I noticed that the rear cast centers (wheels) do not have the B2920R part number cast into them. Instead, there is an “II” on one and a “XIII” on the other, presumably a 2 and a 13, Roman-numeral style. Were these pre-production centers? How many Barber-Greene “50s” were built?

Dennis Wegner, Minnesota

Your Model “50” was the 14th shipped to Aurora, Illinois, home of the Barber-Greene factory. In all, 140 were shipped to Aurora; the first on November 28, 1952; yours on April 1, 1954; and the last on April 20, 1956. How many of these were used to build the Barber-Greene Model 550 Windrow Loader is not known by us, and we did not wish to pursue Barber-Greene at this time to see if they kept any such records.

The numbers on your cast centers are typical of what was done to track “pilot lots” of castings being routed through the foundry and factory. The numbers started as scratches made in the green-sand mold in the foundry. Roman numerals were used because they made sense backwards. In other words, an “I”, a “V”, or an “X” read the same whether they were scratched in the sand (negative impression) or appeared on the casting (positive image).

Pilot lots were tracked for things as simple as testing a new mold spray or core wash, to things as complex as testing an entirely new part through the foundry, machine shop, assembly, and field. In this case, especially considering the absence of a part number on your wheels, we believe that they were among the very first produced. Model “50s” serial numbered 5017848, 5017870, 5017871, 5017872, 5017873, and 5017874 were all shipped to Aurora, Illinois, on April 1, 1954. We suspect that they all went to Barber-Greene, and may have all been equipped with pilot lot wheels, as 20 to 30 was a common range for pilot lot runs. Interestingly, two more “50s” were shipped to Aurora on April 22, and six more on April 29. This totals 14, corresponding to 28 wheels. Further, the Model “50” shipped to Aurora prior to the first run of six mentioned above left the factory way back in November of 1953.

And finally, two different sales branch codes were used for “50s” destined for Aurora. If the “odd” code was used for the special-order tractors for Barber-Greene, note that they first show up with serial number 5017848. The total number of “50s” shipped to Aurora under this code is 94.

Obviously, there is still a fair amount of research required to continue with this story, but this will hopefully provide enough background to give you an idea of what may have transpired.

When I sponsor a new member, which t-shirt do I get?

John P., Minnesota

For such a short question, you get a lengthy answer, because we’ve had dozens of phone calls essentially asking the same or similar questions regarding premiums for sponsoring a new member.

First, what is a sponsor? A sponsor is any current member who introduces Two-Cylinder magazine and the Two-Cylinder Club to someone new, with the result being that the person becomes a member/subscriber. The new member needs to identify you as the sponsor, so make sure that you ask them to do that when they phone, fax, or E-mail us. Or, you can handle the communication, and at the same time request the premium of your choice. Why are we doing this? Simply because an increase of interest in this hobby will benefit everyone involved.

You specifically asked about the t-shirt. The t-shirts that have been mentioned in the list of premiums are those that are silk-screened on white. Please refer to the revised Premiums List for an update on what is available.

Each of the items on the Premiums List (shown on page 23) can also be purchased; the price is shown in parenthesis (regular shipping/handling charges apply). Also, information about the embroidered caps and t-shirts is shown on page 23. These items are custom run on demand, and are not included in the Premiums List. They are “for-sale-only” items, available by phoning or E-mailing the Club office.

I have a Model “60” Tractor that I’ve owned for many years, and it always seeped a little coolant externally at the head gasket. My dealer assured me that most Model “60s” did this to some degree and that it wasn’t worth worrying about. A couple of years ago I decided to restore the tractor, but wanted to make sure before it was painted that the slight seepage could be stopped, because I know what antifreeze does to paint. A call to a member of the Technical Council solved the problem. I’d already taken the precaution of having the sealing surfaces of the cylinder block and head trued, and he sent me a copy of a page from the August 1957 edition of the John Deere Service Bulletin that gave exact instructions on how to solve the leak problem on Model “60” Tractors. I’m pleased to report that the information solved the problem completely on my tractor. What I’m wondering is why it took until 1957 for a solution for the problem to be published, and why the “620” tractors never seemed to have the leaking problem.

It’s impossible for us to know exactly why a solution to the head gasket sealing problem on Model “60” Tractors wasn’t published sooner, but we can make some educated guesses. The Model “60” used the same cylinder block as the late Model “A”, which weren’t known for a leaking problem in the head gasket area. However, the water pump and pressure cooling adopted for the Model “60” could possibly have been more than the gasket would stand, especially as time went by and gaskets and gasket sealing surfaces became a little warped by hard use. By the time Model “60s” were receiving their first overhauls, design work on the “620” was already well under way. With reports of leaking problems beginning to come in from the field, John Deere engineers quickly took action to ward off a potential sealing problem in the new “20” Series Tractors, and to find a solution for the Model “60” Tractors.

Engineers don’t work in a vacuum, and very few companies made all their own parts. If a vendor-supplied part was giving a problem, both Deere engineers and the engineers of the vendor got together to come up with a solution. In this case it was Victor, who had long been a supplier of gaskets to John Deere. Together, they designed cylinder head gaskets that would solve the problems of the Model “60” head gasket leakage, and prevent the problem from occurring on the Model “620”. Many of Deere’s parts suppliers were proud of their association with Deere & Company, and often drew attention to this association by publishing full-page ads in trade magazines, such as the ad (above) that ran in the April 15, 1958, issue of Automotive Industries magazine.

I’m interested in collecting Generation II Tractors, especially those with Power Shift Transmissions. Just recently, I discovered that there were Low-Profile 4230 Tractors built. I would like to know how many of these tractors were equipped with Power Shift Transmissions.

Some years ago, a rather hurried hand-count of 4230 Low-Profile Tractors was done. Doing hand counts is trying on the eyeballs, to say the least; and because of the sheer numbers involved, it is easy to make a mistake. However, with the understanding that the figure could easily be off by a few tractors, the hand count revealed that just 51 Low-Profile 4230 Tractors were built with Power-Shift Transmissions. There could be a few more or a few less, but we feel this number is pretty close, as it was done by an experienced team of researchers.

I am in the process of restoring a Model “AN” Tractor, serial number 573008. Everything on it fits with the information I have on the styled Model “A”, as found in the January–February 2002 issue of Two-Cylinder, pages 16-17, with one exception; on my tractor, the seat is of the battery-box style as found on the late-styled Model “A” Tractors. The plate for the battery of the early-styled tractors is still in place between the fuel tank and dash. The tractor is owned by my nephew, and no one in his family recalls any alterations being done on the tractor since they purchased it new. Were there a few “hybrids” manufactured during the last part of the early styled production run and the introduction of the late-styled Model “A” (March 1947)? I have one other question. On page 19 of the same issue, in the lower right-hand corner, it states that a true “AN” must have an A3271R Rear Axle Housing. How can I tell if this is what I have?

Clarence Gerig, Oregon

It’s been a long time since your “AN” was built, and memories blend and fade. While no one can say with absolute certainty that your tractor wasn’t delivered to your nephew’s family with the battery-box type of seat, the chances are 99-plus percent that, sometime during the last 60 years, somebody got tired of having to fool with the battery underneath the hood panels, and decided to buy some convenience and comfort by purchasing the late-styled battery box and seat assembly and adapting it to your “AN”. It’s not a hybrid, because the new-style seat was going to be one of the major selling features of the new late-styled tractors, and Deere would not have revealed it early. And, despite continuing rumors that Deere built a number of “hybrid” tractors over the years out of mixed-year parts, the truth is that it was seldom, if ever, done. So, to make your “AN” like it was from the factory, you’ll have to find the old pan-style seat, platform, and seat support assembly. On the other hand, if you like it the way it is, and it’s important to you, leave the seat as it is. What kind of seat and where it was shouldn’t become a family issue. It can always be changed later on. As for the A3271R Rear Axle Housing, that doesn’t apply to your “AN”, but it does apply to late-styled “AN” and “AW” Tractors serial numbered 584000–up. Your “AN” should have an A1866R Rear Axle Housing, also used on Model “A” and “AW”Tractors 477000–583999.

I have a 1010 RUS that I use for everyday tasks around my small farm, and despite some bad things I’ve heard about 1010s, I’ve not had any trouble with mine to speak of. I know that the “S” in the model designation stands for “Special,” but I don’t understand what’s special about it. Other than that decal on the side panel, it looks like every other 1010 Row-Crop Utility I’ve ever seen. So, what makes my tractor “special”?

Obviously, the 1010 was the low-cost tractor of the John Deere line, and the Row-Crop Utility was the sales leader. In those areas of the country where a 1010-sized tractor was the main tractor, and price was a more important factor than in other areas of the country, Deere had a bit of a challenge. There was plenty of competition in the 35 horsepower class, and Deere was higher priced than some of the other brands. In addition, the 1961 and 1962 models of the “1010” didn’t have the shiniest reputation. However, the major problem you may have heard about was probably associated with the diesel engine. Other early 1010 problems were minor in comparison. With major improvements slated for 1963, the marketing and manufacturing forces put their heads together to improve Deere’s sales in the areas where dollars, not brand loyalty, often made the sale.

The solution was simple: Make the most popular features regular equipment, and keep the option list down to nearly nothing. The result would be less costly to manufacture, and the dealers would have a tractor with the features most buyers wanted at a lower price. The strategy worked, as almost 5000 of the 1010 RUS Tractors were built from 1963 through 1965. As to what made them special, the full-page advertisement (page 29) that ran in ag magazines late in 1962 tells the story quite well. And despite the rather high level of production, the 1010 RUS can make an excellent addition to any collection — especially considering that it retro’d back over 15 years for that steel seat.

In 1969, John Deere introduced the WA-14 and WA-17 Four-Wheel-Drive Tractors. These tractors followed the 8020 as Deere’s early entries into the big articulating-tractor marketplace. It is no secret that the “WA” Tractors were built by Wagner Tractor Company of Portland, Oregon, with little engineering or design input by John Deere. Still, the “WAs” did fill a time gap between the 8020 and the 7020/7520, and I believe they are an important part of the Deere legacy that will be forgotten unless they are covered by your outstanding magazine. I honestly think their existence is known by perhaps fewer than one out of ten John Deere enthusiasts. So, please comment about the “WAs” in a future issue of Two-Cylinder.

David Smith, Kansas

We checked, and your letter is one of 43 inquiries that we have had over the past three years about the “WA” Tractors. That may not sound like many, but it actually is in the top 20 regarding rare model inquiries insofar as frequency is concerned. Initially, we were somewhat surprised at what seems to be an upslope of interest in these tractors. After all, records indicate that in nearly three years of availability (spring of 1969 through to the end of 1971), only 32 “WA-14s” and 28 “WA-17s” had been sold.

We looked at several possible ways to approach the “WA” Tractors in Two-Cylinder, and ultimately decided that coverage would be included in this first issue of 2008 as a companion piece to the New Generation Tractor production numbers. As far as how and what to present goes, we felt it best to fully reproduce the extremely rare sales literature (A-1771-69-4 [April 1969]), along with the dealer ordering instructions and retail price lists (see pages 43–45). In the future, we will likely again take the approach of reproducing exceptionally scarce literature to tell a story, as doing so presents thorough information as well provides somewhat of a bonus for readers. For instance, the mint-condition John Deere-WA Tractor literature we used here is valued at several hundred dollars.

Where do the John Deere “WA” Tractors stand today? They are unique and potentially very valuable collectibles that will, in all likelihood, become even more desirable in the years to come. Very few are known to be in collections at this time.