Why was the late 45 combine not offered with a diesel??

[wilamayb]

I have to wonder why the late 45 combine was not offered with a diesel? According the parts catalog combines after SN 46000 only a gas engine was offered. The 180 gas engine shared the same block as the 202 diesel of the time. The only thing I can think of that would facilitate any extra engineering would have been an exhaust manifold and throttle controls for the diesel.

We are attempting to install a 219 diesel in a late 45. Maybe we will find out why Deere didnt do it
 

[GreenEnvy]

Small combines like the 45 were on there way out sales wise by the late 60s and I would assume the extra cost of a diesel engine on a combine that small did not justify continuing the option. How many diesel 45s have you seen? I've only seen one. 90% of the 105s around here and almost all 95s still had gas engines.
 

[Bob Bancroft]

I'm sure as GreenEnvy says it was a cost calculation.
AC quit using their own gas engine in 1968 and started using an automotive engine! And yet the engine they quit using (226) was stilled offered in a tractor through 1980.
Then the smallest combine was dropped altogether in 1983.
 

[Cooney Minnie]

Even certain combines of next series were gas only for a while. I think the the 3300 had a diesel option its whole production run, but the 4400 was available as gas only, with the 292 chevy, for the first few years. Only the later ones had the 329 diesel option.
 

[Skyhighballoon(MO)]

The Allis 226 cu in 4 cylinder gas engine was last used in the 175 tractor. Gas 175 tractors stopped in March 1976 but diesel versions of the 175 continued to 1980.

I think Allis dropped the 226 gas in the Gleaner EIII (1968) for the 250 GM gas 6 cylinder in 1969 Gleaner K simply for more HP.

The early F had the 262 buda based AC gas engine till being swapped it for the 292 Chevy in 1970. G had the 301 AC gas until it was swapped in 1970 for the 350 Chevy V8. I'm sure both those Allis gas engines were expensive to produce in low volumes for combines when they were no longer being offer in tractors. Both were also based on diesel engines meaning they were somewhat over engineered for gas engines if the basic engine design had to stand up to diesel compression ratios. High volume Chevy engines I'm sure were less to buy as crate engine to install vs. building your own. My 2 cents. Mike
 

[Bob Bancroft]

I'm always impressed with your detailed information. I just pulled out the year for the last 175, not knowing whether it was diesel or not.
But you got a little dyslexic with the numbers on the AC vs GM six in the F!
I would take the AC226 over the GM250 any day. I suppose part of their challenge was that they had the 226 set up at fairly slow governed speed, and that was changed when they went to the GM250.
 

[wilamayb]

I have never actually seen a 105 diesel but have to believe that they were more gutsy than the gas ones. At one time there were 3 105 squarebacks on the farm in various states of disrepair. All 3 were gas.
 

[jbp]

I had an E3 that used the 226 Allis engine. Worked with a cousin that had a K with the 250 GM engine. The E3 would do as much work as the K until the ground got soft, then it was short on power. Where the K would burn 50 gallons of gas in a long day the E3 would only burn 30 shelling the same amount of corn. The E3 was one great nearly trouble free machine until it finally wore completely out. Joe
 

[randy hall]

[quote="Skyhighballoon(MO)"](quoted from post at 15:30:16 01/23/13) The Allis 226 cu in 4 cylinder gas engine was last used in the 175 tractor. Gas 175 tractors stopped in March 1976 but diesel versions of the 175 continued to 1980.

I think Allis dropped the 226 gas in the Gleaner EIII (1968) for the 250 GM gas 6 cylinder in 1969 Gleaner K simply for more HP.

The early F had the 292 buda based AC gas engine till being swapped it for the 262 Chevy in 1970. you turned your numbers around for the f combine. the early ones used a 262 buda, i had one, and the later ones used a 292 gm gasoline engine.
 

[DeltaRed]

I have a 105 diesel(and a gas).Never really used either one.There used to quite a few 105s locally.All the'old timers' say the desel has more 'poop' than the gas burners.They also say the diesel will use 1/3 to 1/2 as fuel as the gas models do.
 

[wilamayb]

Ours could burn 50-60 gallons a day in corn. The late 105 had more separator capacity than the engine could supply power to utilize. I bet if our last 105 had been a diesel I bet it would still be hanging around the place.

Too bad you are so far away.... I would like to have the 105 diesel for a play toy/converstation piece...
 

[wilamayb]

It would be interesting to see the price pages for difference in cost of gas vs. diesel for the various models of combines.

I wonder what a new 45 or 105 cost in 1969?
 

[Skyhighballoon(MO)]

I have an EIII myself with a 10" grain head and a 330 corn head that I haven't tried out yet. I use it every year on a 6 acre hilltop on wheat or beans that my farming partner can't get a JD9500 to that field. I'll have a 2nd hilltop field of 5 or 6 acres that I'm putting in production this year. I love my EIII. Even if the combine wears out some day I'll still have a spare engine for one of my two D17's or the WD45. Mike
 

[Skyhighballoon(MO)]

Yep...typed those in backwards...I edited my original post to fix. Thanks for pointing that out. Mike
 

[tomstractorsandtoys1]

If my outside chores go good tonite(barn cleaner,milkers and silo unloaders) I will dig out some of my late 60's price books and list some dealer prices.I think te reason tat a late 45 was only a gas is that the diesel would of aded alot to the price of a machine that was not selling good anyway.There would have ben little difference betwen the 45 diesel and the 55.