The WD-35/WD-45

AC should have put the Buda 273 diesel instead of the 230 to step things up a notch in the WD45 frame.

That was kind of the premise for my post. They should have (in my opinion) made them both at the same time from 1948 to 1957 instead of the WD from 48 to mid 53 and the WD-45 from mid 53 to mid 57.

As from the Firestone Tire foot print chart: 16.9 x 28 has a 175 square inch contact area. A 13.6 x 38 has 165 square inch contact area. A 15.5 x 38 has 180 square inches of contact area. The winner of this contest is the 14.9 x 38 (which there aren't as many of, it seems) has 200 square inches !!!!  So, the 15.5 x 38 has a negligible advantage over a 16.9 x 28.      I had mentioned before the 18.4 x 28 tire was 250 square inches versus a 16.9 x 34 which was only 220 square inches. Some of us cuss the 180/185 tire size, when in reality it was better than a 16.9 x 34 !! Didn't see that one coming, did ya !!

bigal121892 wrote: What is the name of Norm Swinford's, "Bible"?

Ed got you the right answer. My copy sits here next to the computer. When someone asks a question I'm not sure about, I consult the 'Bible'!

Allis Chalmers Farm Equipment 1914-1985.

On a side note, I talked to a guy who when to the same Amish guy for a 8.3 for his 8070. He was told that he happened to have a couple of Sisu engines and that they would fit better.  The very happy AC owner now has a Sisu powered 8070 and 7060. 

All great ideas and very interesting thread. Have to keep in mind tho that hindsight is 20/20.  

Great thread!
So many things that could have/should have been done differently by allis. But in the grand scheme of things, a different CEO in the end would have been the one thing that would have saved the company. That coming from a late, very dear friend of mine whom I worked for for 14 years, at the dealership he and his family owned for years, was built up selling the allis brand, and was the second dealership in the nation in sales more than once.
Darrel

The Allis Chalmers CA was almost more tractor than the WD was and surely cheaper at the time. Had the CA been built with about to 30 HP and 11.2X28 instead of the 11.2X24 tires with a corresponding gear ratio change to match speed to power, that would have run circles around a WD35 and would have sold for less. At that time a few dollars was a lot. The CA design is a more modern design tractor than The WD with the somewhat of a platform and centered seat to match other makers and was accepted better by those that had other colors on their farm. What could have been will tantalize all of us. 

If not mistaken, the RC's mounted picker was a one row mounted picker

Look at how long AC stuck with 4 gear transmissions without Hi/Lo options. 3 working speeds didn't equate to a lot of choices. I'd love to read up on the test tractors AC had in the 40's/50's. 

Great article Dave Kamp. The TH400 trans did fit the Chev pattern. There are thousands of them running up and down the road. Was kind of their hi performance option of the day at that time. One big difference was they had electric kick down on them. But the hot rod preference now is the TH350. Less rotating weight and can be made bulletproof easily. Now maybe they made a version with different bell housing pattern to sell to the high end car makers. Just like now ZF has sold millions of the 8-speed transmissions to BMW, Land Rover and Chrysler 300 and Dodge Charger. And now hotrod guys are using them. The 400 and all Chev trannies bolted up to six cylinder, small block and big block motors. Chev was king of interchange unlike Ford. We used to joke that once you took off a ford starter it would not fit back on. Of course now the hot rod guys are using overdrives like the 700 or 4L80E etc. And on the TH350 you can unbolt the tailstock and hook up a gear vendors overdrive to make it a six speed. Sorry for getting off track here. 

Edited by Ed (Ont) - 24 Nov 2022 at 7:26pm

Interesting read, Dave. My WD-35 engine versus the WD-45 engine wouldn't really be an issue, I don't think. Every single part between them is exactly the same, except for the pistons and the crankshaft. The production cost differences of the pistons and crankshafts would be in pennies, just a matter of which ones they used. The carburetor was a bolt on vendored part, so just choose which one is needed. I'd imagine they'd have to make a batch of each engine, maybe a weeks run of one or the other to keep crankshafts and pistons in the proper sequence. Repair parts books would include each type of part used. Anyway, we will never know !!!