I’m restoring a “420”. I know that the correct color for the mufflers on these tractors was a silver or aluminum color, but the new muffler that I have is painted black. I’ve tried silver paint, but that just burns off. Should I try to have it powder-coated, or is my only solution not to run the tractor?

While powder coating would be an elegant solution to your dilemma, there’s another method that’s almost as good, a good deal less expensive, and closer to factory original. Part of the problem that you’re having is that putting paint on top of paint just won’t work. The solution is to remove the black paint from your current muffler and then paint it with several light coats of high-temperature aluminum paint, which is available at almost any hardware or auto parts store. Make sure that your engine isn’t running on a lean fuel mixture, which can cause excessive exhaust temperatures, and you should be able to run your tractor as much as you like without damage to the paint on the muffler of your “420”.

I am curious regarding the history of the John Deere Mechanical Power Lift for Model “A” and “B” Tractors. I can only remember seeing two in my lifetime, and both of those were at the early Two-Cylinder Worldwide Expos. Some time ago, I came across a 1937 Model “B” for sale. It was equipped with a Model 25 Loader, and a mechanical Power Lift, which I purchased. I was somewhat familiar with the history of the loader, but was clueless regarding the Power Lift. The only references of it I could find were in the Plow Works Parts Catalog “R” on pages 754 and 755. I found that my Power Lift was complete with the exception of the cast iron chain shield. At a show last summer, a man walked over to me and said that he had the correct shield. Of course, I immediately asked if I could buy it. The man said “No,” but that he would sell me the complete mechanical Power Lift and the two-row cultivator to go with it! Shortly thereafter, he dropped off the lift and the cultivator, so now I own two of these mechanical power lifts.

Since then, I’ve looked in all of the John Deere reference material that I have: books by various authors, a Deere Sales Catalog from 1938, and have come up with nothing on the mechanical Power Lift, although there are no shortages of references to the hydraulic Power Lift. Someone told me that the mechanical Power Lift was shown in one of the VHS tapes offered by the Two-Cylinder Club. I have no clue as to which one, or if I even have the tape.

I am trying to learn all that I can about these mechanical Power Lifts. I am turning to you in hopes that you can provide me with some information.

Dave Badger, Ohio

The mechanical Power Lift was the brainchild of Deere & Company engineer Theo Brown. Theo’s ideas had been crucial in the design of the mechanical Power Lift for the “GP” Series Tractors. Brown had also experimented with a PTO-driven hydraulic power lift which never reached production for the “GP”, largely due to the Great Depression. However, his experimentation with hydraulic power was instrumental in the development of the hydraulic Power Lift for the Model “A” and “B” Tractors in 1934. As important as this development was for both the industry and to ease the farmer’s burden, the Power Lift did have a drawback. The rockshaft, which transferred the up-and-down motion to the cultivator gangs via lift rods, could not be “split,” which meant that the cultivator gangs were either “up” or “down” on both sides. This worked fine in square or rectangular fields, but presented a bit of a problem in odd-shaped fields because of the necessary point rows. This was the kind of engineering challenge that Theo Brown loved to solve and, after he was appointed the head of implement engineering in 1936, he set his inventive mind to devise a solution to the problem. Obviously, the ideal solution would have been to develop a hydraulic “split” rockshaft. However, this technology didn’t exist, and would have been too expensive for the market even if it had existed. So, to meet cost requirements, a mechanical system would have to be employed.

The first version of the Mechanical Power Lift.

To do the best possible job of cultivating while saving the most amount of plants in odd-shaped fields with point rows required the ability to independently raise and lower each side of a two-row cultivator. A PTO-driven gearbox could drive a shaft that would rotate a rockshaft via clutches and dogs which, operated by a foot pedal, could lift or drop each side of the cultivator independently from the other. This prevented a lot of “cultivator blight” and destroyed a lot more weeds.

Since Theo Brown was also the head of the Experimental Department, work moved quickly, with a number of experimental units in the field for the cultivating season of 1937. The concept worked, but needed refinement and another year of development, which took place during 1938.

The new mechanical Power Lift was deemed ready for production for the 1939 season, and could be fitted to Model “A” or “B” Tractors with two-row cultivators. Evidently there must have been some problems in the field, and a redesigned unit was introduced in 1940. From that point we know very little, as production seems to have been canceled at the end of 1940, but there is no clear proof of this. Perhaps the demand simply wasn’t as high as had been anticipated. It’s difficult to determine — since so few of the units still exist — whether they just didn’t sell very well or a lot of them were fed to foundries in the last 60+ years.

There is some footage of one of these units in the field. It’s contained on Two-Cylinder tape 90–2 “Six Films from 1939–1943” — “What’s New in Equipment for 1940.” We’re also including a reproduction of the only known piece of literature for this device (page 33). Either the 1939 or the 1940 version is a rare find. Lucky indeed is the collector who can find an example of both.

I was given an HA-145-G Power Unit. What machine did this engine come from, and will it fit any tractors?

An HA-145-G Power Unit was used on 45 Combines from serial number 8432 through 21500. Engine serial numbers up to 30000 are parent-bore (non-sleeved) engines, and this type of engine design was used in the HA and HB-145-G (gasoline) or L (LP-Gas) Power Units. Beginning with the HC and HD Series Power units, the sleeve-and-deck type of engine design was used, serial number 30001 –up. Either series will physically fit into a 1010 or 2010 tractor, although installing a 145 cubic-inch gasoline or LP-Gas engine in a 1010 is not recommended — simply too much power for the drivetrain. However, using the HA or HB series engines will involve quite a bit of parts switching between your tractor engine and the power unit, while the HC Series engines will bolt into a 2010 with only minor parts-swapping from the original 2010 engine. You will need parts catalogs for both the tractor and the power unit to determine the parts that need to be changed in order to make this engine swap successful.

Just when I thought I’d heard of every kind of two-cylinder tractor ever built, I heard about one I’d never heard of before — a “tomato” tractor. According to my source, there were Model “60s” available in this configuration. I’ve never seen one of these tractors, but my source claimed that years ago he’d seen several in vegetable-growing areas. Can you shed any light on this?

What your source is very likely talking about are the special extra-long axles that were available for Model “60” Tractors (and also “620” and “630” Tractors) equipped with the special long rear axle housings. When equipped with offset rear wheels and the special AA6336R Rear Axle Shafts, a maximum tread width of 120 inches could be obtained, enabling a tractor so equipped to straddle three 40-inch or two 60-inch beds. These axles were not available for factory installation because it would have made the tractors too wide to transport. Customers who needed this tread width had to have these special axles installed by their John Deere dealer. When the rear wheels were set at the maximum width of 120 inches, there were restrictions as to the size and weight of rear-mounted implements that could be used so as to minimize the risks of axle breakage. These special axle shafts were also available for “3010” and “3020” Tractors to provide the 120-inch tread width. Evidently, tractors equipped with these axles are a very rare item; we don’t recall ever seeing or even hearing of one. One of these would make a pretty nifty display, equipped with either a 38-inch fixed-tread front axle (which would have been used on 40-inch beds) or a single front wheel (which would have been used on 60-inch beds). Trouble is, hauling a tractor equipped with these axles would require “wide-load” permits, which would be troublesome and expensive.

In reading some old books about agriculture from the early 1900s, the phrase “engine gang” is sometimes used when talking about plows. I really don’t understand what this phrase means. Are they talking about some kind of self-propelled plow, or what?

The early 1900s were one of the more interesting periods of American agriculture, as it made the slow transition from animal to tractor power. The term “gang plow” was first applied to horse-drawn plows with more than one plow bottom. In those early days, before the word “tractor” had come into general use, many farmers and manufacturers referred to tillage implements designed for use with a tractor as being for an “engine,” thus the term “engine gang” was coined when referring to a multiple-bottom plow designed for use with a steam or gasoline traction engine. The vast majority of these plows were used to break the prairie lands of the western Great Plains and Canada, or to plow the large “Bonanza” farms of the Dakotas and Montana. Relatively few plows of this type were built; even fewer survive today. As can be seen on the ad from the February 1910 issue of The American Thresherman (above), sizes ranged from four to fourteen bottoms. One would think that the ten-bottom unit shown in this ad would be capable of considerably more than 25 acres per day, but it must be remembered that, in this era, the ideal plowing speed was believed to be 1-1/2 to 2 miles per hour. Many of the tractors of this era required frequent stops for replenishing water and/or fuel, especially with steam traction engines, which limited productivity. Still, for large acreages, these mammoth plows saved owners a considerable amount of money as compared to plowing with animal power.

The article on utility tractors in the September– October issue was outstanding. If they gave Pulitzer prizes for tractor magazines, Two-Cylinder would surely qualify.

I've often wondered why some utility tractors, particularly the “40” Series, have a one-piece grille, while others have two-piece grilles. For example, on page 5, the “40” in the sales literature has the one-piece grille; while on page six, the literature shows the “40” with a two-piece grille. Were the grille configurations optional? Thank you again for a wonderful magazine.

The reason that the early literature for the “40” Utility shows a one-piece grille and the later literature shows the two-piece grille is because, at serial number 63120, the grille on the “40” Utility Tractors was changed from the one-piece style to the two-piece style. The two-piece grille was used on Model “40” Utility Tractors from then on, and was also used on all subseqent Dubuque-built two-cylinder utility tractors. The two-piece grille assembly was immediately adopted as service parts to repair the earlier one-piece grille, so it's possible that a “40” Utility Tractor with a serial number lower than 63120 could be equipped with the two-piece grille as a result of a repair to a damaged one-piece grille assembly.

The other day, I went to look at a “730” Row-Crop that was advertised for sale. As I looked at it, I saw something odd. Although the tractor had a rockshaft, it did not have a mount for the center link of a 3-point hitch. Looking closer, it was obvious that the tractor had never been equipped with a 3-point. I couldn’t believe what I was seeing! Upon arriving home, I looked in the “30” Series Sales Information book I’d recently received from Two-Cylinder, and sure enough, it stated on page 35-1 that “530”, “630”, and “730” Tractors could be ordered with a rockshaft and without Load-and Depth Control, which included the yoke for mounting the center link for a 3-point hitch. Another source revealed that the price of the Load-and-Depth Control with a rockshaft was only $20.00!! I simply cannot imagine why anyone would order a tractor like that.

Certainly, any “530”, “630”, or “730” Row-Crop Tractor not equipped with Load-and Depth Control would be unusual, but there are several reasons why someone would have ordered a tractor without it. Remember, the 3-point hitch in those days was not as universal as it is today. Many farmers had no real use for one in the days when most machinery was pull-type, and most cultivators mounted on the front of the tractor. A farmer whose machinery inventory didn’t include any 3-point hitch tools had no need of the Load-and Depth Control, so why spend $20 for something he wasn’t going to use? However, there were a number of implements, both front and rear-mounted, that required a rockshaft but not a Load-and-Depth Control. So, to keep his initial costs to the minimum, the original buyer of the “730” you looked at didn’t check the box for Load-and Depth Control when he ordered his tractor. Things like this have to be taken in historical perspective. Fifty years ago, a lot of folks demanded maximum value for their money and didn’t spend money on things they didn’t need. Obviously, the initial buyer of the “730” was one of those folks.

While discussing two-cylinder tractors with some of the members in our tractor club recently, the talk turned to fuel. One senior member, who had run a Model “G” in the field using both distillate and gasoline, insisted that his tractor would pull more when burning distillate as compared to gasoline. I find this a little hard to believe, since when the Model “A” and “B” gasoline tractors were introduced they produced quite a bit more power than the all-fuel versions.
Tommy Long, Nebraska

Until 1947, when the Model “A” and “B” Tractors optimized for operation on gasoline were introduced, all John Deere Tractors except the “L” Series had been specifically engineered to burn heavier fuels such as petroleum distillate and kerosene, but would burn gasoline if the owner chose to do so. The tractors were tested at Nebraska using distillate for fuel, so we have no official basis for comparison in terms of horsepower or pulling power when burning gasoline as opposed to distillate. However, what your fellow club member says makes sense. The heavier fuels contained more actual energy (known as British Thermal Units, or BTU’s) per gallon than gasoline, and burned at a slower rate. So, theoretically, a Model “G” would pull more when burning distillate than when burning gasoline. Those who remember burning distillate in the field often report that the engines ran smoother, had more torque, and would pull as much or more than a comparable tractor burning gasoline. However, if the tractor engine was optimized for operation on gasoline (“cold” manifold, higher compression pistons), then it was a different story; which is why the gasoline versions of two-cylinder tractors produced significantly more horsepower than their all-fuel counterparts. The higher compression precluded the use of low-octane fuels in tractors designed for gasoline.

It’s the same with some of today’s fuels. For example, some automobiles and pickup trucks have an optional engine that can burn either regular gasoline, or E-85 (a blend of 15 percent regular gasoline and 85 percent ethanol). E-85 can be burned in an engine that is designed for it, but at the penalty of poorer fuel economy and less power because ethanol has less btus per gallon than does regular gasoline. Pure ethanol could provide more power and somewhat better fuel economy than an E-85 engine if it was burned in an engine specifically engineered to burn it; but, unfortunately, such an engine would not run on any other fuel approved for highway use due to the extremely high compression ratio required for optimum performance when burning pure ethanol.

About | Contact Us | Membership | Events | Products | Links | What's New

© 2008 Two-Cylinder^® Club