Ih 656 gas hydro

[AndrewAnderson]

I just bought a 656 gas hydro from an online auction. I know next to nothing about them but it was cheap enough. What are everyone's opinions on this model? I'm wary that it's a hydro but it runs and drives so we will see how it goes when I go pick it up.

 

[BarnyardEngineering]

Hope you got it cheap. Gas hydros are pretty hard on fuel because you run the tractor at high throttle settings most of the time its moving.

 

[DeltaRed]

Hydros are awesome. Everyone is scared of them because they "use too much fuel and cost too much to fix".Yes,they do tend to use more fuel than a gear drive. but not excessive.My 826H really doen't seem to use much more fuel than my 706.Everything costs a lot to fix these days.even a 'simple' TA/clutch job. Ever priced a JD powershift OH? A hydro is cheap compared.yes you can plow with them. The thing to do is to put in LOW when you are in the field. Set it to rated RPM,let the tractor 'chew',dont just push the lever clear ahead to get more speed and pull the guts out of it.Let it 'breath'.Hydros are great tractors.Best there is for PTO work(baleing),choreing.......Once you get used to it,you will love it.

 

[Jeff M NY]

Oh absolutely. Although my 656 hydro is diesel not gas, so i'm not sure how much gas it would use. In comparison, I have a 666 gear drive which is gas and it isn't terrible on gas. Hydro works great for pto work. I use mine on the CIH 8530 square baler and it works great. Have also used it for many other things as well (sprayer, grain drill, etc.), but that is it's main job baling hay. Would really like to get a big frame hydro someday to run the round baler. Everything is expensive to fix, so it really doesn't matter what it is.

 

[544hydro]

I have a 544 gas hydro. I don't think it's bad on fuel and I love the hydro. If the hydro is bad they are spendy to fix.

 

[BarnyardEngineering]

Whether you think a gas hydro is bad on fuel depends on how much you use it. If it's just a chore tractor to scoop out a pen with, or run some feed to the cattle, you probably won't notice it too much but if you're running it hard you'll be lucky to get a half day out of a tank of fuel.

 

[farmall pete]

I have a gas and diesel hydro 656. Love 'em both.

 

[504]

I use mine all of the time,mine is hard on gas only when it is on the bush hog. I wish the loader hydraulics were faster, but I am sure it was fast when it was built.

 

[AndrewAnderson]

I won't be using it for anything other than
a few acres plowing and hauling firewood.
It's a toy not a tool. Fuel usage doesn't
matter to me. I am pretty excited to go
pick it up. It is missing the 3pt arms. I
am going to be looking for a set. Anyone
know if other models will fit it as well?
I'm thinking they are similar on the
706/806, possibly the whole 66 series.

 

[Dave O'Brien]

The 706/806 3-pt. does NOT fit the 656, or vice-versa. The 656 is a 'narrow frame'. Also, the drawbar support bracket that bolts to the transmission housing around the PTO shaft is different between 3-pt. and Fast-hitch versions. Good luck with yours. I'm pretty sure you are going to like it.

 

[2002sliverado]

I am not sure, but I think the 656 gas had the same 263 cubic inch engine as the early 706 gasoline powered tractor. I used to run this 706 for a neighbor whom I had worked for. In that particular tractor, I never felt it was extremely thirsty, with respect to gasoline consumption. I also grew up around a Deere 6 cylinder gasoline tractor, too, which was known to be a fuel hog. I also had a 656 gasoline powered tractor, but in a gear drive. Like the 706, I never thought it was excessively thirsty, and I believe the engine in the 656 was "de-tuned" some and the top rpm of the engine was slower, by comparison to the 706. I tend to believe the 656 Hydro engine runs a faster rpm versus the gear drive. I DO have 86 Hydro with the U.S. built diesel engine. It is primarily used as yard, loader, and snow removal unit. Love the hydro, particularly on the snow blower, and my wife can operate the tractor with ease. The prior 656 gear drive was not as user friendly to the "novice" operator. With light loads, my 86 Hydro uses very little fuel. I do not plow with it or use it for high draft pulling, such as plowing. In terms of putting the power to the rear wheels, a hydrostatic is the least efficient means of doing so. I only heard of one man who had a 1026 Hydro, who actually used it to pull a plow, and it was his large tractor at the time. I was told he did this for a number of years, and it would be worked hard in the fall pulling the plow. I know he did burn up a hydro unit at least once in doing so, but I also knew he had the fuel injection pump opened up a bit on that engine, too.

 

[hydro70guy]

Why would you run the engine any faster than a gear driven doing the same job? I would not if anything just driving it you throttle back and push hydro forward vs a gas where you might throttle up to not shift,