190xt allis chalmers

[Anonymous-0]

Can anyone tell me how many Allis Chalmers 190xt gas tractors were made? And also what does the "xt" stand for? Thanks

 

[John (MO)]

22419 XT's built, don't know the gas vs diesel #

XT didn't stand for anything

 

[old]

They made a 190 and a 190XT the ones called 190XT had a little more HP then the 190s did
Hobby farm

 

[Anonymous-0]

I may be the outsider but I owned a "190" Gas AC. and it fit right in with my "Gas" D17 and 2 WD 45's on my 320 Acre Dairy Farm in N.Central ILL. My neighbor had a D19 which I thought was an ugly Tractor and a XT 190 Diesel and as I recall the D19 was always run by a Relative or Hired Help. Tell you something?

 

[Randy165]

The 190XT was turbocharged diesel. That's why it had a little more horsepower.

 

[Anonymous-0]

190 gas was 75 hp, diesel was 77. 190XT turbo diesel was 93, gas was 89, LP was 85hp. These are pto ratings. I don't have a book showing production numbers, but I would guess that the XT was more popular.

 

[Anonymous-0]

Found serial numbers in Wendel's book- 190 was made for for 8 years, XT for 7 years, roughly 30,000 for each tractor. Production started in 1964.

 

[Paul from MN]

The size and power and technology of tractors was growing by leaps and bounds in the early 60's. Allis introduced the number series to replace the D series in 1964. All of the tractors were getting new style, features and a slight HP boost. D19 went from 71.5 to 75.3. Very late in the preparation Allis realized they had needed more HP to keep up. Also there was to large of a gap between the D21 and the new 190, so they still introduced the 190 as planned and also the 190XT which is pretty much the same tractor with more HP. The HP was added in the gas and LP tractors by simply putting in a larger engine. The 190XT diesel got it's HP boost by turbo charging. I think the 190XT was the first turbo diesel tractor.

 

[Anonymous-0]

After looking closer at the book, noticed that each year's beginning number was the same for each model, so they must have been intermixed on the line. Last year of production, they were over 30000, but they may not have used all the numbers, so John's figure could certainly be correct.