Allis chalmers diesels vs the rest..
Printed From: Unofficial Allis
Category: Allis Chalmers
Forum Name: Farm Equipment
Forum Description: everything about Allis-Chalmers farm equipment
URL: https://www.allischalmers.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=131734
Printed Date: 08 Jul 2025 at 2:40am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Allis chalmers diesels vs the rest..
Posted By: nick121
Subject: Allis chalmers diesels vs the rest..
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2016 at 5:18pm
|
hey, Just curious how you guys rank allis chalmers diesel with the rest from that time? Like the 426 and 301 I read how the 426 isn't great when pushed to the higher end. But probably at suited in the 7040-7060 tractors The 301 seems like a great engine The 354 perkins seem good in the Masseys and other tractors I love the old diesels and they all sound different lol. My massey 165 had its own sound, And the 990 david brown had a cool sound too. I love the sound 426 in my 7040. I always like reading stories from back in the day what farmers were pulling and stories of tractors that were turned up. Just looking for a good conversation about the diesels in tractors.. Also how would you rank the older engines vs the ones of today? |
Replies:
Posted By: DiyDave
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2016 at 6:53pm
| Well VS a tier 4 diesel, of today, they are all angels, to fix... |
Posted By: GM Guy
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2016 at 6:56pm
|
They are good engines, and people have really wrung some impressive horsepower out of them. IMO they were pushed to their limits in a few applications where an engine change would have been the best route, like the 7080 tractor. In a 7040, I am very happy with them. in a 7060, I prefer the 478 Hercules that is found in the 2-155 White tractors. ------------- Gleaner: the properly engineered and built combine. If you need parts for your Gleaner, we are parting out A's through L2's, so we may be able to help. |
Posted By: bakwoodsfarm
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2016 at 6:57pm
| AMEN TO THAT ONE |
Posted By: CTuckerNWIL
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2016 at 8:06pm
|
I had a lot of hours on a 7045 back in the early 80's and lately have quite a few hours running an 8110 green and Yellow thing. The newer tractor doesn't have anywhere near the low end torque the 426 had. The Allis was original at the time with quite a few hours on it and the newer green one has had to have all new pistons and sleeves in it with very few hours of work. You could also by 2 running 7045's for what it cost to fix the engine in the JD!
I never cared much for the PD tranny when I had to come out of a field and head down the road with 500 bushel of corn behind me and the JD has a button to push to go up or down in gears, but that old 426 had REAL guts to it. ------------- http://www.ae-ta.com" rel="nofollow - http://www.ae-ta.com Lena 1935 WC12xxx, Willie 1951 CA6xx Dad bought new, 1954WD45 PS, 1960 D17 NF |
Posted By: DougG
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2016 at 8:15pm
| Why didn't you care for the PD in it ? That transmission and Power director leaves options a little faster by shifting , or down shift to go a little slower ; what more could you ask for ? |
Posted By: victoryallis
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2016 at 9:00pm
A powershift! Got 2 ps and 1 PD The power director is a pain ------------- 8030 and 8050MFWD, 7580, 3 6080's, 160, 7060, 175, heirloom D17, Deere 8760 |
DougG wrote:Posted By: victoryallis
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2016 at 9:05pm
|
Not geeked about the 301 cold blooded, fuel hogging, under performer. The 200 cui used in the 6080's might be the best non Cummins I have seen. Nothing wrong with the 426 as set up for a 7060. The little Perkins my 160 has will start as cold as 8 F without help. ------------- 8030 and 8050MFWD, 7580, 3 6080's, 160, 7060, 175, heirloom D17, Deere 8760 |
Posted By: Unit3
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2016 at 9:18pm
|
If only the 7080 could have had a PS and the 670HI turned a few hundred RPM less. And if the 7000's all could have had the throttle in the console like the 200 did. 35 years and I still complain as if AC could still change their ways for me. I guess they won't. I look around and I don't see many 30-40 year old tractors still out on the job like our old AC's. I'm sure they are out there, but tractors in the 100-200 HP range are hard to find. ------------- 2-8070FWA PS/8050PS/7080/7045PS/200/D15-II/2-WD45/WD/3-WC/UC/C |
Posted By: bigal121892
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2016 at 10:46pm
| For that era, it would be hard to beat the IH DT466. Take a DT466, coupled to a JD 40 series Quad Range, with a White rear end, and an AC 8000 cab. That would have been a tractor. Personally, I think AC, should have stopped at the 7045 with the 426, and found something larger for the tractors bigger than that. |
Posted By: CTuckerNWIL
Date Posted: 24 Nov 2016 at 7:32am
I said, the problem I had with it was when pulling 4-500 bushel of corn out of the field and have to head down the road. There is no way to get from 6 mph to road gear without stopping to shift. Then you have to take off from a dead stop in the low side and slip the clutch. ------------- http://www.ae-ta.com" rel="nofollow - http://www.ae-ta.com Lena 1935 WC12xxx, Willie 1951 CA6xx Dad bought new, 1954WD45 PS, 1960 D17 NF |
Posted By: AC720Man
Date Posted: 24 Nov 2016 at 7:52am
|
I can see the day coming when farmers pull out their old tractors and have them rebuilt. In this day of Obama enviromental madness, the new tractors are just a pain to deal with. The tier engines are constantly giving issues after a few hours are put on them. Transmissions are run by computers, push button junk. I watched a mechanic run up and down the equipment yard with a laptop attached trying to resolve a shifting problem on a new Case/IH for over an hour. Valve body pressure problem. I wasn't looking for a tractor just there doing some phone repair. I won't buy nothing but AC. Darn, I'm wrong, I bought a Mahindra 26 hp compact last year, loader , belly mower, backhoe, yard rack package. Awesome little fellow. I will keep our Ac's running and love the PD that moves them all. Well, the 6060 doesn't have one but the turbo power over comes that. Still wish it had one. Wish the D21, 210,220 had them too. No I don't have the big boys, but always thought they should have had them. My 190 xtd id the biggest I have and what a great tractor it is. 301 has the power and the PD is priceless. ------------- 1968 B-208, 1976 720 (2 of them)Danco brush hog, single bottom plow,52" snow thrower, belly mower,rear tine tiller, rear blade, front blade, 57"sickle bar,1983 917 hydro, 1968 7hp sno-bee, 1968 190XTD |
Posted By: plummerscarin
Date Posted: 24 Nov 2016 at 8:36am
| I know I'll catch flak for this but here goes. The power shift is out on the 7060 so I hooked the 7045 pd to that big Brent. I started in 4 and used the foot throttle to get some speed up then dropped throttle, clutched and pulled into 5 and didn't grind a gear. Dead start in 5 seems awful hard on clutch |
Posted By: DougG
Date Posted: 24 Nov 2016 at 8:41am
| Yeah mostly you can shift those like a truck , just let off and slide it in gear |
Posted By: nick121
Date Posted: 24 Nov 2016 at 12:51pm
| Yeah, In the 7040 usually start in 3 or 4 pulling wagons And shift it like a semi, dont even use the clutch sometimes.. no grinding if you do it right. |
Posted By: Calvin Schmidt
Date Posted: 24 Nov 2016 at 4:00pm
|
I love shifting my D-21 and 220 like a truck. I guess we'll call the transmission an 8 speed Field Ranger. I don't have a foot throttle so it's not quite as easy but almost 50 years experience helps. ------------- Nothing is impossible if it is properly financed |
Posted By: nick121
Date Posted: 24 Nov 2016 at 5:10pm
|
Haha. I like that one (8 speed field ranger) I can downshift okay too most of the time while hauling wagons. If im not pulling a wagon I will usually just start in 5 and low on power director then go into high power director. Sometimes I will start in 4 though even without a load.
|
Posted By: Amos
Date Posted: 24 Nov 2016 at 5:38pm
|
I will take a power director tractor over a powershift...no comparison in my opinion. I can shift my 305 with a loaded cart of 900 bushel up and down whenever I want to, no issue what so ever. The problem today is the electric shifting power shift transmissions are making the day of driving the tractor using all your senses is gone. The nice thing about those transmissions is you only have to fix a mechanical problem, you don't have to diagnose and electrical problem then find out that the electrical problem caused a mechanical problem you now have to fix. I work on newer engines/trucks every day...just have no idea how owners can afford the new tier complient engines, they are way over priced parts and they are always eating parts up, not our old 301s and 426s...
|
Posted By: Unit3
Date Posted: 24 Nov 2016 at 6:47pm
|
I shift the 7080 in high range from 2nd to 3rd, then step on the high floor button. If you miss, DO NOT try again. Stop, then try again. It is a great feeling when you have done it right and your in 5th high on the floor. ------------- 2-8070FWA PS/8050PS/7080/7045PS/200/D15-II/2-WD45/WD/3-WC/UC/C |
Posted By: Dan73
Date Posted: 24 Nov 2016 at 7:30pm
|
From the 80s at the risk of bringing up a bad name I like the deutz air cooled motors with a intake air pre heater. We had one in a Same tractor. Hated the tractor but loved the motor it burned muck less fuel then our older case or the IH 986 we had doing the same job just running a genorator. With the pre heater on the incoming air that motor would start down to about 15 below like it was a summer day. |
Posted By: victoryallis
Date Posted: 24 Nov 2016 at 8:18pm
Their was a Duetz dealer 3/4 mile from where I live. So the neighborhood HAD many all but a couple are gone. One guy scrapped in favor of a older Deere. The two I have been around were broke more than they ran. I remember sticking a salamander heater in the R52 engine compartment to get it going when it was barely below freezing ------------- 8030 and 8050MFWD, 7580, 3 6080's, 160, 7060, 175, heirloom D17, Deere 8760 |
Posted By: Dan73
Date Posted: 24 Nov 2016 at 8:37pm
|
I hated the tractor but we ran it on the Maurer spreader all winter because it started easier then any other tractor we had. Just let the pre heater run for a few minutes and it would fire as soon as it cranked over. The Same pre heater had a fuel line running through it if i rember correctly so the motor got a blast of warm air and fuel. It fired right up them rattled like it wanted to explode for about 5 minutes and was off and running. And it ran on about 25% less diesel then our IH when it was on the genorator. The rest of the same tractor belonged in the scrap yard total garbage. |
Posted By: Lonn
Date Posted: 25 Nov 2016 at 9:32am
------------- -- --- .... .- -- -- .- -.. / .-- .- ... / .- / -- ..- .-. -.. . .-. .. -. --. / -.-. .... .. .-.. -.. / .-. .- .--. .. ... - Wink I am a Russian Bot |
Posted By: Mike Plotner
Date Posted: 25 Nov 2016 at 9:00pm
fuel hogging 301? with one in my 190 XT set at about 115 horse, I worked 22 acres with a 18 foot field cultivator, planted 22 acres of corn with a 12 row deere 7000 planter then planted another 80 acres of beans with the same 12 row planter before having to refuel. cold blooded, yes, but under preforming and fuel hogging? no way! ------------- 2001 Gleaner R42, 1978 7060, 1977 7000, 1966 190 XT, 1966 D-17 Series IV and 1952 WD and more keep my farm running! |
Posted By: victoryallis
Date Posted: 26 Nov 2016 at 10:37am
When the 7000 was the tillage tractor I fueled it at the start of the day, lunch, and at supper time. When we had a PTO batch dryer the the 6080 could go 20-22 hours on a tank. When we went to 11 shank 1000 gallon side dress applicator we started out using the 7000 this past year I put the 6080 on it. Same job the 6080 used noticeably less fuel. Lots of 6080's running over 100hp. ------------- 8030 and 8050MFWD, 7580, 3 6080's, 160, 7060, 175, heirloom D17, Deere 8760 |
Posted By: Lonn
Date Posted: 26 Nov 2016 at 8:28pm
|
6080 is a light weight vs a 7000 by several thousand pounds that's why it uses less fuel and seems snappier. A 7010 feels like a slug compared to a 7000 using the same engine because of the weight difference. Load a 6080 to the weight of a 7010 and you'll have a real pooch. ------------- -- --- .... .- -- -- .- -.. / .-- .- ... / .- / -- ..- .-. -.. . .-. .. -. --. / -.-. .... .. .-.. -.. / .-. .- .--. .. ... - Wink I am a Russian Bot |
Posted By: ironac
Date Posted: 26 Nov 2016 at 9:06pm
| 301 a fuel hog? That's crazy talk. They are pretty powerful for the size they are and they sip fuel. |
Posted By: Jordan(OH)
Date Posted: 26 Nov 2016 at 9:55pm
| You might think they sip fuel, only if you've never run a Ford or anything Perkins powered. |
Posted By: Mike Plotner
Date Posted: 26 Nov 2016 at 10:04pm
true, I've spent a decent amount of time on a neighbors 285 and 596 Massey's with perkins diesels in them. both are way better on fuel than a 6200 or 2640 deere. haven't had a chance to run one that would be comparable to a 190XT size ------------- 2001 Gleaner R42, 1978 7060, 1977 7000, 1966 190 XT, 1966 D-17 Series IV and 1952 WD and more keep my farm running! |
Posted By: ironac
Date Posted: 27 Nov 2016 at 7:23am
| According to Nebraska tests the 190xt with the 301 beats out the comparable Ford 8000 and Massey 1100 in fuel economy. |
Posted By: Jordan(OH)
Date Posted: 30 Nov 2016 at 3:37pm
|
Nebraska tests do not equal the real world. We have a Ford 5640(rated at 68hp), MF 265 (rated 62) and AC 180D (rated 64). The 180 uses way, way, way, more fuel doing the same jobs as the other two. |
Posted By: Lonn
Date Posted: 30 Nov 2016 at 3:44pm
|
Depends on the job and the weight of the tractor. All weights and load the same the 301 is hard to beat for it's day. ------------- -- --- .... .- -- -- .- -.. / .-- .- ... / .- / -- ..- .-. -.. . .-. .. -. --. / -.-. .... .. .-.. -.. / .-. .- .--. .. ... - Wink I am a Russian Bot |
Posted By: Lonn
Date Posted: 30 Nov 2016 at 3:48pm
|
My FIL, who was a big massey fan and even bigger deere fan, borrowed Dad's XT and was sold completely on the fuel usage and power of the XT and he insisted Dad sell it to him. Dad did and my FIL just loved that tractor. I'll take a good XT up against an 1100 Massey every time. ------------- -- --- .... .- -- -- .- -.. / .-- .- ... / .- / -- ..- .-. -.. . .-. .. -. --. / -.-. .... .. .-.. -.. / .-. .- .--. .. ... - Wink I am a Russian Bot |
Posted By: Dan73
Date Posted: 30 Nov 2016 at 4:42pm
|
Well I haven't run the 301 diesel but I can tell you the d17 226 gas with just pie weights will way out work any ford or ih of the same hp rating. It will drink the gas doing it but that d17 is the hardest working tractor for its size I have ever seen. I suspect the diesel in the newer tractors are the same. As much as I hate the gas bill for my d17 I am rebuilding the motor because it just works too hard not to. |
Posted By: AllisandGleaner
Date Posted: 30 Nov 2016 at 5:59pm
| Dy reading this the 301 has been called a fuel hogger but I always heard they were stingy on fuel but what is true |
Posted By: Dan73
Date Posted: 30 Nov 2016 at 6:05pm
|
Tractor data ac 185 Nebraska Tractor Test 1044: Test Date: May 26 - June 3, 1970 Type: Diesel 8-speed 2WD PTO power (rated engine speed): 74.87 hp [55.8 kW] PTO fuel use (engine speed): 5.3 gal/hour [20.1 l/hour] PTO power (rated PTO speed): 70.72 hp [52.7 kW] PTO fuel use (PTO speed): 4.9 gal/hour [18.5 l/hour] Drawbar power (max): 63.82 hp [47.6 kW] Drawbar fuel use (max): 5.3 gal/hour [20.1 l/hour] Drawbar pull (max): 7,568 lbs [3432 kg] Max pull gear: 1-Hi Test report: PDF file |
Posted By: DougG
Date Posted: 30 Nov 2016 at 6:55pm
| Just my opinion here , and have ran many 301 diesels stock and turned up , turboed and not , none were fuel hogs at all , and ive, plowed, disced, brushogged, cut , raked and baled hay with 180,s , 190,s 190 XT,S , A 7000, and all were not at all fuel hogs, put 10 gallons in a 180 tank you can cut hay till 1, rake some other field till 3 , bale it and still have some left , maybe the other guys had a leak ? Just kidding ! |
Posted By: JC-WI
Date Posted: 01 Dec 2016 at 12:35am
|
Tractor data says 5.3 an hour for a 185... I couldn't put that much through my XT... I didn't run it wide open but in the 1900-2000 rpm range plowing and burned about 3 gallons an hour, doing nearly the same amount as the neighbor who said his 966 was burning 7 gallons an hour.... When we were plowing or discing, it was about 6 cans a day....For each of the XT's... now the 190 gas, less hp., would use about 8 cans a day... when working hard. and figure about 10 hrs... Want to talk about fuel hogs, Uncle had a 450 IH gas and he was out plowing with it and found out when he went out in the morning after chores, you fueled it up before leaving... come in at dinner, fuel it up, and plow till chore time and then if he did any more tilling after chores, he had to fuel up before going back out, or he would be walking home. LOL Traded that for a D17 gas and was much happier... then bought an 1800 c series Oliver diesel, much more fuel efficient... Traded his D17 for a 170 Allis with cab and loader... and later traded the 1800 for a White 105. He loved the last two tractors. 105 had air conditioning in it. an the 170 had heat in it for winter. LOL ------------- He who says there is no evil has already deceived himself The truth is the truth, sugar coated or not. Trawler II says, "Remember that." |
Posted By: Dan73
Date Posted: 01 Dec 2016 at 1:47am
| JC that is why I post the tractor data information it looked like a lot of fuel to me but I have only seen a 180 run a baler for a day or two so I had nothing to base it on as the 180 didn't even seem to know that square baler was behind it. |
Posted By: ironac
Date Posted: 01 Dec 2016 at 4:02am
| the 180 only uses .4 more gals an hour then the MF. completely different tractors. id check your air filter. Nebraska tests use actual measurable data. real world has to many variables like engine wear, fuel quality etc.... |
Posted By: DrAllis
Date Posted: 01 Dec 2016 at 7:30am
| 190 XTDiesel 301 turbo was Nebraska test rated at 93.64 HP and only 5.7 Gallons per hr. That, in a way, does make a 185 look kinda bad on fuel useage. |
Posted By: Tbone95
Date Posted: 01 Dec 2016 at 7:38am
It's the damage you do while trying to figure out how to do it right that's the problem 
|
Posted By: Joe(OH)
Date Posted: 01 Dec 2016 at 9:03am
Glad to know that the scientific tested data is not accurate but we have the super calculated measurement of "way,way,way"! LOL My 190 XT is super easy on fuel. 7020, uses more. ------------- Life is simpler when you plow around the stump. |