TRACTOR PARTS Allis Chalmers Case & David Brown Farmall & International Ferguson Ford & New Holland John Deere Massey Ferguson Massey Harris Minneapolis Moline Oliver & Cockshutt Kubota / Yanmar

TRACTOR MANUALS

Allis Chalmers	Case	Farmall IH	Ford 8N,9N,2N	Ford
Ferguson	John Deere	Massey Ferguson	Minn. Moline	Oliver

Farmall & IHC Tractors Discussion Forum

656

Welcome Guest, Log in or Register

Author

ChrisAS

01-01-2008 20:23:19

Report to Moderator

Some of you people need to take a good look at a 656. If the 460 560 would have beed made like a 656 IHC would not have to have recall the first 2 3 years as they did. Take a 656 apart and look at it. Did the M have draft control I never saw one Did the M have the power steering like 656 I never saw one did M have tapped bearings in the rear end I never saw one. Never had some one complain about brakes not working or hang up. Did M have the the suports in the rear end has the 656 I never saw one. Just give the 656 it's do Much more tractor then the M's to 560's ever were!!!!! !!

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

skyharborcowboy

01-06-2008 23:49:41

Report to Moderator

Re: 656 in reply to az tractor guy, 01-01-2008 20:23:19

I just bought a 656 today. Where would be a good source to locate some fenders for it? What other models share the same fenders? I know the flat top models are the standard ones but I heard that you could get them with a clamshell type fender as well since they had the same bolt patterns as earlier fenders. Which models and places would be good sources?

Thanks,

Joe

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

Steven f/AZ

01-04-2008 04:05:56

Report to Moderator

Re: 656 in reply to ChrisAS, 01-01-2008 20:23:19

Have you had both apart to inspect the thickness and trusses within the casting? Also, technology in casting and the quality of the steel changed over time so that it was stronger with less material.

The problem with all of these tractors and a loader is simple: Not one of them was designed for the added weight and stress of it. They were designed as row crop cultivating tractors and also to pull implements.

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

Steven f/AZ

01-03-2008 14:45:13

Report to Moderator

Re: 656 in reply to ChrisAS, 01-01-2008 20:23:19

Hugh, as always I enjoy your experience and discussion.

The only high-hour tractor I've seen on our farm was the 806 Wheatland. It had to be a very early model as it had the black tachometer with the dial you turn to select the gears for MPH instead of the new-style colored tach as in a 1256, etc. It also had the old IH RD injector pump, and the short hydraulic levers (with extensions bolted on). It had the cab that fit between/on top of the big wheatland fenders with a door in the back and came with the tall narrow tires (Dad switched them to something more like what came on a 1086). I wish I still had that tractor...

Anyway, it had somewhere north of 20,000 hours on it. It showed 7 thousand some hours on its 3rd tachometer since Dad owned it (he was 3rd owner, had operated as a hired man for the neighbor when it was new). Supposedly overhauled somewhere around 13,000 hours and a new clutch around 15,000 hours. Original, working TA when we traded it off.

Dad had both a 560 and a 660 at one time - both diesels. He still curses those glow plugs to this day and says they both warped heads like there was no tomorrow. He said you could plow all afternoon with one, shut it off at the end of the field, come back 3 minutes later and need glow plugs to start them... I personally believe that a previous owner (of both) must have overheated them, or something to distort the block deck for them to keep blowing gaskets, even with rebuilt heads that were known to be true.

Anyway, I've rambled enough...

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

Lee in Iowa

01-02-2008 19:18:54

Report to Moderator

Re: 656 in reply to ChrisAS, 01-01-2008 20:23:19

My turn to brag, I have a 560 diesel my dad bought new when I was 1 year old. It has 6600 hours on the clock and it quit 35 years ago. Only overhauled once that was when it sitting on a silage blower unattended and a radiator problem caused it to overheat. Late model so no rearend update. Many hours on 4 bottom plow and 2 row silage chopper in good bottom ground corn. Had to chop on the bottom not enough weight to pull chopper and wagon in the hills. But now I have to hurry up and get cam bushings put in this winter, losing oil pressure. I've only run one 656 and I can't say I was impressed I probably didn't run it right but I always got it in two gears when I tried to shift. And when the neighbor counterweighted the rearend for the loader like Allan is doing with his tractor it broke that H torque tube two different times. I could never understand why IH put what is basically H size components behind that size motor. Lee

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

Allan In NE

01-03-2008 07:51:13

Report to Moderator

Re: 656 in reply to Lee in Iowa, 01-02-2008 19:18:54

Any loader on that size of tractor has to be truss stregthened. Heck, I've seen 4020 John Deeres that were broke in two from loader use.

Also, look again. They are a far cry from the size of an H.

Allan

third party image

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

Lee in Iowa

01-03-2008 21:01:57

Report to Moderator

Re: 656 in reply to Allan In NE, 01-03-2008 07:51:13

I'm not talking about the size of the whole tractor just from the engine back. The bellhousing and everything is smaller than an M. The frame rails narrow up on some and bolt outside the bellhousing on others. Its basically the same as a 460 and you weren't supposed to put a mounted cornpicker on them unless they were special equipped. I've seen M's and 560's with big loaders and no trusses and haven't seen or heard of one them humping up in the middle. I just never understood why IH took a 560 motor or bigger and put a 460 rear end behind it. Lee

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

jeffnc

01-02-2008 12:15:49

Report to Moderator

Re: 656 in reply to ChrisAS, 01-01-2008 20:23:19

I have each of these tractors starting with a Super M up through a 656. While the 656 has numerous upgrades it is easy to see the progression and similarities through the years. Some for the better and some for the worse in my view. The 300 - 400 fast hitch with down pressure and leveling cylinder was very versatile and seemed to wear less than later versions. The traction control hitch hade many more places to wear and the ones I own seem loose. I like the fast hitch as well as a three point, but i have plenty of implements. The operators platform and flat top fenders on the 656 make it more comfortable. All of these tractors are a pleasure to operate and use. Over time I believe the 656 will be a very collectible tractor with a lot of useable features. Their price is already reflecting this in our area.

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

Allan In NE

01-02-2008 14:38:28

Report to Moderator

Re: 656 in reply to jeffnc, 01-02-2008 12:15:49

Really doubt it.

The 666 and 686 had way better engines, way better front ends under 'em and a far better Hydro in those models. Lighting was far better on the later models too.

Only thing that is keeping the value up on that 656 is word of mouth. Kinda like the John Deere 4020, except that the 656 was a good tractor to start with. :>)

Allan

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

Steven f/AZ

01-02-2008 06:12:30

Report to Moderator

Re: 656 in reply to Farmallgray, 01-01-2008 20:23:19

Hugh MacKay said: (quoted from post at 04:04:08 01/02/08)I'm not sure 560 rear ends were completely IH fault. Farmars back then believed there was no limit to the weight that could be put on a single wheel for traction. The tractor rear end was a small part of the cost. The soil compaction they created was far greater, and today the boneheads want to blame soil compaction on the moldboard plow.

I've yet to find ANYONE that owned a 560 or 660 that had a rearend failure! And there were TONS of those tractors in my home area in the SW corner of ND. These farmers put the wide tires out back and weighted them down to pull, too. I even sold 660 serial #502 and it did not have the triangle stamped on the tag for updates, never been apart and was on its second engine. I'd really, really like to hear from someone who actually had a rearend failure on a 560 or 660 when they came out...

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

Hugh MacKay

01-02-2008 08:20:29

Report to Moderator

Re: 560 rear ends in reply to Steven f/AZ, 01-02-2008 06:12:30

Steven: I forgot to mention, having monitored YT for close to 8 years now, most of growling about 560 rear ends came from the US Mid West Corn Belt. Those were the guys that managed to destroy 560 rear ends doing less than 500 hours per year.

If you had great numbers of 560 out on the western plains, very likely 560 affected much less than the 50,000 customers I earlier suggested.

I have to sit back and chuckle when I read these books written by professor types outlining the reasons for the IH down fall. Most of them missed the boat by about ten years. 8 years after Cockshutt and Oliver, IH introduced IPTO in the MTA in 1954. Harry Ferguson won the hitch war before IH sold their first fast hitch. IH flogged fast hitch on 40+ hp tractors for 8 years. Those two items cost IH hundreds of thousands of customers, customers that never returned even when IH saw the light.

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

Hugh MacKay

01-02-2008 07:57:33

Report to Moderator

Re: 656 in reply to Steven f/AZ, 01-02-2008 06:12:30

Steven: I've yet to find a 560 that had the rear end upgrade either. My 560D cranked out 11,000 hours, in 17 years. 14 of those years it was my main work horse. That was probably higher than average hours per year. I replaced 2nd-3rd driven gear once as it got in 3rd and 4th same time, from shift lever wear, and I dropped the clutch. Now, they all did that all the way back to 1939. Not exactly a 560 exclusive. We've all seen those photos out of the mid west, concrete wheel weights very little smaller than inside diameter of 38" rim, on single 15.5x38 tires loaded with chloride. Then they had the gaul to blame the moldboard plow for soil compaction.

In the end it was 2 pistons in the middle of the barnyard that took my 560 down. That was not the fault of the D-282, but rather the cheap mechanic that talked me into a cheap rebuild, with sleeves that didn't fit the hole. Well, between him and the kid that left it knocking at full throttle and went for help. Just prooves cheap help is actually unemployable. In 1978 I couldn't bring myself to spend $4,000. for a D-282 short block, on a tractor with no 3 point hitch. Besides the IH dealer had a used 2,000 hour 766 for roughly $8,000.

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

Allan In NE

01-02-2008 08:07:37

Report to Moderator

Re: 656 in reply to Hugh MacKay, 01-02-2008 07:57:33

Hugh,

Just wondering. How many acres did you farm?

Always notice your comments on the tractor hours. You must have farmed quite a slug at one time?

Allan

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

Hugh MacKay

01-02-2008 08:32:21

Report to Moderator

Re: 656 in reply to Allan In NE, 01-02-2008 08:07:37

Allan: Only 500 acres of dairy farm. It was custom work that put big hours on my tractors. Many times we operated with two operators running round the clock. I've seen my 1066 rack up 160 hour per week on many ocasions, It crossed the 10,000 mark before it was 8 years old.

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

Allan In NE

01-02-2008 09:03:34

Report to Moderator

Re: 656 in reply to Hugh MacKay, 01-02-2008 08:32:21

Aw Ha! That would explain it for sure. Always wondered about that.

However, good news is that "continous run" hours are actually easier on a tractor than the smaller start/stop operation.

Well, except damage caused by those darned hired men. :>)

Allan

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

dhermesc

01-02-2008 06:55:39

Report to Moderator

Re: 656 in reply to Steven f/AZ, 01-02-2008 06:12:30

We got rid of our 560 diesel in 1980, we figured with only 13,000+ hours it just hadn't proven itself to be reliable. Good thing we got rid of it before rearend went out on it.

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

Allan In NE

01-02-2008 06:46:09

Report to Moderator

Re: 656 in reply to Steven f/AZ, 01-02-2008 06:12:30

Had a hydraulic hose break on one once. Does that count?

Oh wait. That would really be considered a part of the plow, I guess. :>)

Allan

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

Allan In NE

01-02-2008 05:50:30

Report to Moderator

Re: 656 in reply to ChrisAS, 01-01-2008 20:23:19

Possible steering problem.

Things don't seem to be tracking quite right here. :>)

Allan

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

Hugh MacKay

01-02-2008 03:04:08

Report to Moderator

Re: 656 in reply to ChrisAS, 01-01-2008 20:23:19

Chris: Do you know the meaning of the word EVOLUTION? Do you really think the SM would have been given IPTO and called a SMTA had it not been for Cockshutt and Oliver? Do you really think the 656 would have been built heavier had it not been for the 560? Do you really think draft control would have been added had it not been for Harry Ferguson? Do you really think the 450 would have been given a 6 cylinder engine and called a 560, had it not been for Cockshutt and Oliver?

Having said all that, yes I agree 656 was quite a tractor, I put 15,000 hours on one, but I also put 11,000 hours on a 560. I also believe had 656 followed 450, IH would have sold 250,000 units. They might have known what would happen when they put a 6 cylinder engine in front of basically an MTA chassis.

I'm not sure 560 rear ends were completely IH fault. Farmars back then believed there was no limit to the weight that could be put on a single wheel for traction. The tractor rear end was a small part of the cost. The soil compaction they created was far greater, and today the boneheads want to blame soil compaction on the moldboard plow.

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

georgeky

01-01-2008 21:22:40

Report to Moderator

Re: 656 in reply to ChrisAS, 01-01-2008 20:23:19

I don't see what your in a tizzy about. Of course the 656 is a more modern tractor with those improvemnets you mentioned. It is still just a decendant of the M. No one said it was an M. Like IH was, maybe you need to be a little more progressive in your thinking. I have looked at them for years, and I see a great similarity in all the true Farmall tractors. I have a 666, 450 and 2 M's now that I use on a regular basis. Have also had a 400 and 656 so I have looked at these for many years, and still see the likeness. The 450 which was yet another progression of the M did have a draft control, did have power steering, did have IPTO, and those brakes are just like those of the 400.450/SC and many more. They will hang up, as I have one right now on my 666 that does from time to time. Look at the big picture and have a good one.

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

Eric W

01-01-2008 21:00:07

Report to Moderator

Re: 656 in reply to ChrisAS, 01-01-2008 20:23:19

Yeah ok, whats your point. 656 was built like 25 years after M. Do we need to talk about how much better a magnum is than a 656. All very useful machines in their time and still today.

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

MN Rick

01-01-2008 20:56:03

Report to Moderator

Re: 656 in reply to ChrisAS, 01-01-2008 20:23:19

Before you get all shook up, go back and carefully read the posts. What was stated was to the effect that the 656 the was natural progression of M technology, progression being the key word. After watching this board for nearly a decade, I can assure you that you will be hard pressed to find someone who dislikes a 656 in general. You may find someone who has a worn out one that has cost him an arm and a leg, but the general consensus is that it is one of the most practical, usable, well designed tractors to leave an IH factory. Simply put, a 656 is the product of 30 years of improvements to the M, which was a darn good tractor to begin with.

[Log in to Reply] [No Email]

[Options] [Printer Friendly] [Posting Help] [Return to Forum] [Log in to Reply]

TRACTOR PARTS	TRACTOR MANUALS

We sell tractor parts! We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today. [ About Us ]

Home | Forums

Copyright © 1997-2023 Yesterday's Tractor Co.
All Rights Reserved. Reproduction of any part of this website, including design and content, without written permission is strictly prohibited. Trade Marks and Trade Names contained and used in this Website are those of others, and are used in this Website in a descriptive sense to refer to the products of others. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy

TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER: Tradenames and Trademarks referred to within Yesterday's Tractor Co. products and within the Yesterday's Tractor Co. websites are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Yesterday's Tractor Co., our products, or our website nor are we sponsored by them. John Deere and its logos are the registered trademarks of the John Deere Corporation. Agco, Agco Allis, White, Massey Ferguson and their logos are the registered trademarks of AGCO Corporation. Case, Case-IH, Farmall, International Harvester, New Holland and their logos are registered trademarks of CNH Global N.V.

Yesterday's Tractors - Antique Tractor Headquarters

Website Accessibility Policy