666/686 tractors

[NY 986]

Following a discussion over on another board. I think reason that 686 production continued as long as it did and maybe should have carried on is the price point versus the higher HP tractors. MF and Ford tractors around that HP class had minimal features and I doubt once the choice was a 786 that IH competed well on price versus a 5600 Ford. Quite a few small farmers really only wanted a bare bones tractor and almost went out of their way to avoid 1000 RPM PTO implements so a dual speed PTO was unimportant. I have to wonder that if the finances at IH were not so strained that maybe they might have carried the 686 for a few more years. Remember times were tough for a great many farmers so saving a few thousand dollars was most likely a big deal. Compare to JD that the 4040 and 2940 were within 10 HP of each other but a 4040 carried a significantly higher price tag. Even though the 2940 was inferior in a lot of ways to the 4040 they sold fairly well in small dairy country even in the 2 wheel drive configuration.

 

[BarnyardEngineering]

I suspect that in order to carry 686 production any further than it went, IH would have had to retool because the tooling that had been in use since the 656 was introduced, would have been worn out.

That and I think if you look, the 686 wasn't selling all that well. Sure there was a small segment that complained loudly when it was discontinued, but they were producing fewer and fewer tractors every year, so sales were dropping off as farms got bigger. How long do you hold on to a design because you'd pi$$ off a few farmers by getting rid of it? You can't please everyone, and they were trying to not go bankrupt right about then.

Besides, IH did have tractors that more directly competed with the likes of a 5600 Ford, which is a utility tractor. The 784 would be a direct competitor to the 5600, and a pretty simple tractor in its own right.

 

[2002sliverado]

Am I correct the 686 was a US origin tractor? I think back to those years of the farm economic crisis. I believe the US dollar had a very high "value" or "worth" relative to other currencies. In the case of the 2940, and its successor the 2950, those tractors were produced in Mannheim, Germany. The dollar was quite high versus the European currencies. I distinctly remember seeing at our state fair a John Deere 4050 tractor with a price tag of around $44,000, while (IIRC) a John Deere 3150 or possibly a 3155 priced at around $30,000. These tractors were both equipped with the SoundGard cab and mfwd, essentially pretty well equipped and there was only 5 horsepower difference between the two. I also recognize these two tractors are not the same in how they are built, as the German model was not as heavily built as the U.S. model, but I was told the exchange rate played into this quite a bit, and one could (if it was possible in doing so) potentially produce a tractor in Germany for a lot less than what it could be produced in the United States at that time.

 

[NY 986]

The 686 had the advantage of being a "true row crop" with shift levers not directly on top of the transmission case, 38 inch rear tires, good lugging 300 plus CI displacement engine to name a few features. I understand the efficiency aspect of the production line but in the end we were talking real sales units that were hard to come by around 1980. The 686 and the Ford 5000-5600 were looked at as being tried and true designs by hard to please farmers. You make a good argument in that the tooling to make the 686 may have been approaching totally worn out status with perhaps enough life to supply parts for existing units for a time. I had to wonder given all US companies badly needed sales volume after 1980 that even if some models did not provide the return that others may have that they were still worth building. The 686 may have been obsolete in the MidWest by 1980 but many farmers here wanted such a tractor for baling hay, pulling a 1 row chopper, and other primary tractors type chores.

 

[NY 986]

Exchange rate is no doubt a part of it and IIRC the 784 was built over in Doncaster to give it an advantage in selling price. But for what I see the list price was on a 686 the 686 prices out pretty competitively all things considered. Certainly on parr with the White 2-70. IH was not the only one to have a market in a 65-70 HP row crop. Coming down to personal preference that if you are not seeking a MFWD equipped unit many including myself would opt for a 686 over a 784.

 

[NY 986]

I would further note that around here you did not see many 84 series IH versus JD or Ford utilities. I don't know why given the success of the IH row crops being sold back then.

 

[DR. EVIL]

FARMALL had pulled 686/H86 production off the main lines about 1978. They were built by a group manning the small assembly area on the far West end of the plant where two 4100's, then 4156, 4166, and finally 4186's were built. Not the most efficient way to build something. When they stopped building 686/H86 I think they were down to 10-12 per day. No more gasoline engine option, no factory cab or ROPS, 540 pto only, only 10 speeds with the big gap from 4th to 5th. Signs of the 560 problem was beginning to show itself again, final drive issues. The 686 was more like a 460 than 560. They production tooling had maintenance when it needed maintenance. What probably most likely killed the 686/H86 was the fact the tractor needed a total makeover but no money available for the engineering and new tooling required.

The 784, and all the 84-series were shipped as assembled chassis from Doncaster, England and finish assembled at LVL as skidded units. I'm not sure how many a day they made but had to be more than 686/H86 sales.

686 was only a decal change from a 666, H86 was only a decal change from a H70, that model line had run it's course. The 686 should have been stopped with the 544 and 786 started in 1976 with the rest of the 86 series.

The 84 series were actually a really good line of tractors. 3&4 cylinder Nuess engines, good hydraulics, FWA available, more compact than the 686, more like the utility tractor competitors.

 

[NY 986]

Again, I would point out that a 786 is not going to price similar to a 65-70 HP tractor that has fewer speeds, single speed PTO, etc. White tried to steer the market by phasing out the 2-70 in favor of the Iseki built 2-75 and we all know the saying about leading a horse to water. Little wonder that White dusted off the 2-70 to build the American series tractor that was pretty much the same unit sans the Cummins engine in place of the Waukeshau. Further, the perception was not the same by the farmer back then versus today. Today most farmers are privy to the economics of farm machinery production. Back then it was held as a negative to phase out a product especially one built domestically in favor of a foreign built unit. Even worse it was a blow to the image of being a full line company. One could argue that JI Case, Ford, AC all suffered in the eyes of the farmer in terms of not being committed to the farm equipment business even when it was good business to shed a product because it was not bringing enough return to a company. From what I was told this was the battle that was being fought amongst certain factions of IH managers and stockholders. Some contended that not being a full line company would negatively affect the farmer's perception of the company as far as a long term commitment. Others contended that the return was insufficient in terms of building such products as side delivery rakes, drag harrows, and forage blowers to name a few. They contended that capital should be used to build higher value products and in particular trucks. That IH ultimately evolved into a truck company is no surprise to the people my dad knew who worked for IH in Chicago. It was a couple decades long dream ultimately coming true for quite a few managers and stockholders.

 

[DR. EVIL]

There's many costs to be considered when entering into producing a product. Trucks took a lot of engineering, and the bigger trucks all had mostly non-IH engines, transmissions, axles, etc. Lots of outside suppliers, outside Dollars that didn't use IH product. That made it expensive to build cost effectively. Things like hay rakes, silage blowers, forage boxes, IH started to buy more and make less because they could charge more for highly engineered equipment.
IH traded lots of parts between other IH plants. I think collectively between the three operating units at Louisville, they were the largest supplier to Farmall. The forge shop made all the gear blanks for Farmall, made conn rods and crankshafts for Melrose Park. The machine shop made a variety of stuff for Farmall. The LVL Foundry made 3-4 semi loads of castings for Farmall a DAY. The Indy, and Memphis foundry made castings for Farmall too. Originally when I started in Material Scheduling at Farmall East Moline made cabs, ALL the sheet metal, hoods, steps, battery boxes, 3-point hitch arms, fenders for tractors that got fenders, and shift levers. Canton made quite a bit too, frame rails, drawbars, and all the burned plates for the front framework of the 2+2. Eventually the hitch arms, cab steps and battery boxes all transfered to Canton. The Shadyside Ohio truck sheet metal stamping plant did all the hood sheet metal for the 2+2. Eventually Canton welded the front frame for the 2+2 complete for Farmall.

Reason I bring all this up about who made what for Farmall, would have been several months after the big strike of '79 & '80, there was talk at Farmall and the one plant at LVL about starting an office, professional, and clerical union. Management tried to discourage it as much as they could. We had several all salaried employee meetings with the plant manager. In one, he said that if Farmall could run at their normal 150 tractor a day rate, that in one year the company would have generated enough profit to bail the company out of debt. And for IH that was a lot of money in 1981. They had dropped to around 125/day, and later to 105. 100 per day was their minimum rate, if demand slowed to less than that per day they would shut the plant down for weeks as necessary as they did during 1982 to '85.

It was the widely held opinion at FARMALL that the company's future was brighter as an Ag equipment company. IH had been the truck market leader in medium and heavy trucks and couldn't make money. IH having been a truck company for 32 years now plus the millions of engines they have sold tends to make me think the Farmall managers were right. Anyhow, news that Tennaco bought IH Ag came as a huge surprise. When I went to the Last Farmall ceremony there were no happy faces.