Talk:Farmall

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Brands (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Agriculture (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Farmall branded CaseIH tractors(Modern)[edit]

Should a mention be made of the new CaseIH tractors which carry the Farmall name? They're the DX series if I recall correctly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.129.225.211 (talk) 02:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

https://wisconsin.libraryreserve.com/10/50/en/BANGPurchase.dll?Action=Download&ReserveID=A1A39547-60E7-483A-A27A-BBD74774460D&FormatID=410&url=MyAccount.htm. Nyth83 (talk) 16:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

460[edit]

I moved the 460 back into the 3 plow category. It has about the same horsepower as the 450, but isn't as heavy a tractor. The H evolved into the Super H, 300, 350 then 460. The M evolved through the Super M, 400, 450, 560. n2xjk 02:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I see BDM popped the 460 back to the 4 plow list. I'll have to see if one of the Farmall books I have and/or the original marketing materials for the 460 actually rates it higher than a 450. I know the 460 has a 6 cyl and the 450 has a 4 cyl, but the 450 is a bigger, heavier tractor than the 460. n2xjk 13:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

According to the Nebraska Tests, the 450D has 48bhp and weighs 5800lbs and the 460D has 49bhp and weighs 5200lbs. They're closer matched than I thought, but I don't know if there's some sort of rule for saying one's a 3 plow vs. 4 plow tractor. n2xjk 13:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Trivia[edit]

I removed "Farmall's have been used as the model for more toy tractor designs than any other make" from the trivia section because I don't know how correct this is. I did a quick google search on toy tractors and I can't find correlating information anywhere. If anyone knows the source for this fact, they are welcome to restore this trivia and cite its source. n2xjk 20:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Farmall vs. International brand tractors[edit]

I see someone keeps adding International brand tractors to the list of models. When I originated this article, I wanted it to focus exclusively on the Farmall brand. Perhaps a separate new article should be added to cover the other tractor models that IH produced. Only a few tractors are mentioned in the International Harvester article. [unsigned, May 2007]

I contend that Farmall is a form factor for row crop tractors rather than a brand, per se. As late as 1973, tractors in the -66 series wore Farmall namepates, albeit in a much more subdued fashion, with International nameplates on the hood, and in the model designation placard, "Farmall." Midway through the -66 series run, Farmall disappeared from the nameplate.
The Farmall (row crop) tractors had an F-prefix in the serial number, while standard tread tractors had an I-prefix. This practice continued to the end of International Harvester's tractor production in 1985. Sperryrand 15:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I think that Sperryrand's ideas are essentially correct, although I think that "form factor" is either not quite the right concept, or maybe is truly accurate, but its application to "Farmall" would need to be defended against the more conventional idea that "no, it's just a brand name". I think that the name "Farmall"'s history was definitely a case of unmanaged branding over the course of decades—the evolution and dilution of the name "Farmall" from model name (c. 1920s) to product line (c. 1930s) to (effectively) a brand (c. 1950s) to "let's just keep sticking this name all over our IH products because it's a selling point" (pretty much just honor by association). Reminds me also of the name Schwinn.
Anyway, I think the lead of this article should be revised to treat this topic (started as model; became brand; perhaps then form factor or similar concept; etc.). Then there should be a history sequence under "History" or some such heading that goes from the original Farmall through each decade. Right now the lead starts by talking specifically about the first Farmall model, but of course as a lead it should summarize everything that the "Farmall" name became. Then specifics can be in the "History" narrative.
— Lumbercutter 17:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

In my thinking row crop is the form factor, Farmall is the brand. I do agree with Lumbercutter in that the meaning of the Farmall brand diluted over the years. I think IH realized this after the -66 models and that's why the label was first downplayed (the 'black label' Farmalls) and then dropped. I'm not even counting CASE-IH's current use of the Farmall brand (i.e., totally meaningless). n2xjk 21:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Title[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Couldn't the title of the article just be "Farmall"? I can't think of anything else called "Farmall" that would cause confusion. - Geekosaurus - 00:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Support move. Quite right that "Farmall" alone is the best page title. — ¾-10 02:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Looks like the move has been accomplished. I used a db-move tag to ask that an admin finish it. Thanks admin! [For the record, the page title before was "Farmall tractor".] — ¾-10 14:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.