Allis Chalmers WD vs Farmall H

[Bill VA]

I gather the Allis Chalmers WD and Farmall H are very close in HP. Which is the better tractor and why would the farmer have bought one over the
other back in the day?

I?ve always liked the WD, but may have the chance to buy a friends Farmall H at a decent price. Chores would be pulling around empty wagons, a
tedder and rake. Maybe pull a small cultipacker or other tillage tools if a deal on them were to be found.

Anything sage advice on potential problems to look for when giving an H a look-see and test drive is appreciated.

Farmall H or Allis Chalmers - which is the better tractor and why? Maybe I should wait on a decent WD...

Thanks!
Bill

 

[npowell]

I've spent a little time on an H, a WC, and a WD45. All seemed to be pretty good tractors. I prefer the ergonomics of the Farmall. Never cared for the offset seat on AC. I also find it much more comfortable to have my feet below my knees on the Farmall, whereas you kinda sit with your legs straight out in front of you on the AC. My $0.02.

Neil

 

[DeltaRed]

Most likely a good dealer would have the biggest influence. The WD is a lighter tractor,also had 'live' pto,wearas the H did not. The AC was generally a snappier tractor,and had a better rear hitch set up. The 'snap coupler'.HoweverIMHO,it mostly personal preference,and dealer that was the issue.

 

[fastfarmall]

The WD has a bigger motor,so a little more power,they would make a good team on a small farm! The Allis was a 4x4 engine 202cubic inches. The H was 3 3/8 X 4 3/8 stroke, i think 152 cubic inches, standard pistons for both!

 

[cdmn]

I kind of agree. My dad had several Farmalls and so did most of the neighbors. The dealer was a big factor. In
those days, dealerships were all over the place.

As a kid, I cultivated many rows of corn with an H. I didn't much care about ergonomics then, but I do now.
I liked the way you shoved the throttle handle toward full speed and waited for the engine to answer. Then,
at the end of the row, give it a little whack and it would pop back to idle instantly. I seem to remember that
the hydraulics worked nice enough, but one side lifted before the other. What I don't like today is the whine of
the radiator fan. Sounds like the tractor is trying to take off down the runway. Makes me nervous.
I've had several Allis tractors. I guess the WD is about as solid as they get. But I've never used them for putzing
around. I've got two of them now. The B, C, and CA have terrible ergonomics. In my old age, I don't want to break
a leg getting on or off. In hill country, being able to depend on the brakes is important. My brother was
an Allis mechanic in the 60's and the one that he bought for himself was a D17.

 

[jal-SD]

The Farmall H came out with the option of a hydraulic lift when it came out in 1939. Most others didn't get hydraulic systems until later and although the use of hydraulic power was a "new" concept, there were advantages to having it available. Many people understood the new concept's potential. Dealer & sales forces also had a huge influence as to what sold well in any area.

 

[Traditional Farmer]

WD had a far better motor,a hand clutch which let the tractor stop while the PTO and hydraulic kept working.WD implements could be taken off and on easily.H was nothing but a F14 with a few updates.In today's market I'd be looking for a D17 instead of a WD for what they are selling for.

 

[Rich'sToys]

As mentioned, the ergonomics is the main difference. We had a WD-45 when I was growing up, along with several tractors of other colors. The 45 was harder to get on and off of, plus you sat differently. Then the ignition switch was way down by the clutch pedal--not a handy set up. Good solid tractor otherwise. My brother still has it.

 

[Tim(NY)]

I've owned both, still have the WD my father bought in 1949. The WD is superior for any kind of PTO work because of the hand clutch. The H excels in pulling and traction. I think the seating comfort on the WD depends on your height. Tall guys have trouble fitting in. Both tractors are reliable work horses.

 

[NY 986]

The WD could pull more but the H was more ergonomically friendly. I prefer the H but there were all kinds of WD's and WD45's around New York back in the day. Perhaps the high point for AC as an organization at least around here.

 

[gmccool]

WD is a plain to get on & a bigger pain to get off of.

 

[gmccool]

WD is a pain to get on & a bigger pain to get off of verse a H

 

[Goose]

We've had both, at various times.

To me, the H is a whole lot more comfortable to drive. Plus factory parts are still available through Case IH dealers.

 

[ss55]

"Chores would be pulling around empty wagons, a tedder and rake".

I would look at what speed selection each tractor has and how well they are suited to your needs for haying. I think an H has 5 gears with 4th being around 5 MPH wide open and 5th being 16 MPH road gear. An H with a 9 speed conversion kit would have 4 extra gears between the standard 4th and 5th gears. A WD has 4 gears? Oliver 77 and late Deere A & B all have 6 speeds and are better suited to haying, unless you want a slow tractor for young kids to learn to drive on.

A slightly newer tractor might have faster gears better suited to your needs and better features and still be in the $1000 to $2000 price range: live hydraulics, live PTO, better ergonomics, stronger hydraulics, etc. I would look at IH super H, 300, 350, Oliver 66, 77 (6 speeds), Deere 50, 60 (6 speeds).

 

[fastfarmall]

I agree NY, it was a huge company, but the agriculture design people just didnt have it in my humble opinion,they were good if they had blueprint's to follow,even one of there tour guides told my brother that when he went for their fly in, buy a tractor win a trip promotion, in 1962.

 

[M Nut]

Having both, and realizing both are very good tractors, I'd likely opt for the H, especially as a hay tedder tractor. The larger tires on the H give it a much smoother ride across a hay field.

 

[NY 986]

I was told that AC as a company was reluctant to spend money on research and development. When they did some of their efforts were not half bad. Air Champ planters, 8000 series tractors other than engine which should have been updated, "2" series Gleaners, and the foundation was laid with the "N" series that turned into the far better "R" series. In my mind what doomed AC as a company was turning their back on the small farmer which was the customer backbone for them. During the 1970's AC had nothing to sell the small farmer in terms of hay and forage plus materials handling. The area dealers got by selling combines due to the 1970's grain boom then the 1980's hit. More Gleaners got sold around here than IH because AC could sell for a very good price in any given combine class.

 

[Gambles]

They are both good tractors. The "H" has a nice road gear.

 

[tractorguy2]

Back in the day. The WD would have been the better tractor with constant power. My dad had a 47 JD A, 48-49 Farmall M and a 56 WD45. These was no comparison the 45 blew the other two away. I still have the 45. The A and the M have been gone for decades.

 

[rustred]

myself I would take the H. better tractor. the wd45 has about 10 more h.p. than the wd. and should walk away from the H but don't know if it will. I have a wd45 I will be trying out at the antique tractor pulls " maybe" this year. they are more of a clumsy tractor. hooked it to the auger and its even clumsy for that. my little w4 is way more handier on the auger. the wd is a "square engine" bore is the same as the stroke. 4x4.

 

[old popper]

I have an H with the M&W 9 speed transmission. That makes the H a whole different tractor. Much more versatile for ground speeds.

 

[Mark-Mi]

IH sold 400,000 H tractors. Must have been something good about them.

 

[Bill VA]

Thanks for the replies - I did not buy the tractor. It wound-up selling fast at a higher price than I wanted to pay.

Bill

 

[4wdtom]

On a WD or 45 you put your right food back on the step behind the differential for a change of position and you can also lean on the right fender. Spent a lot of time on a 45. And you can stop quick even with your clutch far from the clutch-use the hand clutch.

 

[PJH]

Sometimes when you miss a deal it is for a good reason.

I put a lot of hours on the AC tractors when I was a young man. I have a lot of respect for them. They were tough and reliable, but whoever designed the seat/pedal/steering configuration was having a bad day. When I was young the local farmers and their families all went to our little town on Saturday night. One old farmer was walking down the sidewalk toward me and his shoulders were noticeably mis-aligned with his hips. I had spent some time on his WD45 and the question crossed my mind - did that horrible seat cause his crooked body profile or did his crooked body profile cause that seat to be so horrible? A strange thought for a 15 year old kid to ponder.

 

[Rich'sToys]

(quoted from post at 08:40:20 04/09/20) They were tough and reliable, but whoever designed the seat/pedal/steering configuration was having a bad day.

YUP!!

 

[Leroy]

That seat design cost them a lot of sales. I in my younger days could have never stretched out like that to set on one and now I could not even try to get on one. If they would have just put on a decent seat would have sold more tractors. reason they sold was they were cheaper for farmer to buy withinking how stove up his body was going to become. Igrew up with Farmal H and JD A & B tractors as well as Ford 2N. On all those could stand up to drive as I did at times. The AC did have about 8 more HP than the H and was sold as a 3 plow tractor but would not handle a 3 bottom in conditions around here. But it was a good engine, just needed an extra gear and a decent seating araingment. Even the CA even tho it was center seat hurt your body to set on it. Drove one a bit a couple of years ago and if it was mine I would have modified the seat and steering colume. Nice looking tractor untill you tried setting on one.

 

[Traditional Farmer]

Same reason N Fords sold in big numbers they were cheap to buy.

 

[wilson ind]

Just amazing how when original post was compare H to WD so many went to WD 45. WD 45 is not comparable to International H. Wonder if people do not think or do not care if they totally change what the original subject is?

 

[Traditional Farmer]

Same tractor basically, WD45 has a few more HP,unless I'm going to plow or disk I'd rather use a WD burns less gas and I like the straight stick transmission better.WD had one of the best hydraulics/lift system of any tractor in their day.

 

[PJH]

"why would the farmer have bought one over the other back in the day?"

I didn't comment on the H because I have no first hand experience. I spent time on the WD and the WD45 tractors. Both were solid and dependable tractors with identical seat/pedal/steering. It should be obvious to the most casual observer, but I thought the seat was worth mentioning.