|
|
Nova Scotia | i have never owned one , only drove one once, but looking on youtube , came across a few video's of them and givin that back then it was a 2wd row crop world , i think the 2+2 was way ahead of it's time and though i'm a Deere and Fendt man myself , if i farmed in that time i think i would have run one of them. |
|
| |
|
NW Central Ohio | ...you wouldn't happen to have a few plants growing out back that have those cute little multiple lobed leaves....and I'm not talking maple trees....LOL
Edited by pupdaddy12003 4/2/2013 19:21
|
|
| |
|
Callao, Missouri | Day late for April fools. I own one. |
|
| |
|
Elizabethtown,KY | I never was a fan of the ant eaters, never drove one or owned one, a 1066 soured me on IH, too loud, slow steering, and mean shifting, noisiest cab I was ever in. |
|
| |
|
central wisconsin | It was the best day of my life when I got rid of mine does that count at all. |
|
| |
|
swohio | I have a 3788 and I like mine. Use for planting beans and graincart. Had for only two years, but no issuses at all. If used the way they were intended, work fine. There is about 10 of these in my area that are still used. |
|
| |
|
| If a 2+2 is your favorite, I shudder to think what your least favorite is. Never owned one and never wanted to. |
|
| |
|
E.C. IA | You could get through some tough spots (=wet). Dad bought a 3388 new back in the day (?78-79) I was 12 or 13. Was our "big" tractor then. Remember a old(er) mechanic telling dad they had good ones and bad ones off the assy. line. 3388 was good for us, bought a (very) used 3588 for cheap h.p., was not so cheap. Still have the 3388 and is a good snow moving machine when tied to the box scraper. Not good for much else though. Other than PTO duty. |
|
| |
|
West Union, Illinois | The idea behind the 2+2 was great, and I think if Case had allowed it to continue would have been fantastic. But they were a love 'em or hate 'em tractor. If you got a good on there was nothing like it. And if you got a bad one there was nothing like it. The biggest problem with the 2+2 was guys bought them thinking they were a big frame articulated tractor. They were a big wheeled row crop tractor. |
|
| |
|
Nova Scotia | lol i never said it was my favorite , or it was nice to drive, or reliable, none of that , the one time i drove it, it was poison, i guess i should have questioned it bit different, " was the idea of the 2+2 the best ever?" let's say it's 1980, you want one tractor for everything, your looking at brochures , one would have to think it would be the one you want. also why did deere not come out with one , we know it would have been alot better, say a 4840 done up 2+2 style , that would have been cool! |
|
| |
|
SEON | One of my neighbors bought one a few years ago. Can't remember why...cheap HP I think he said. He told me he couldn't believe how gutless it was. |
|
| |
|
central - east central Minnesota - | Chris 924 - 4/2/2013 19:51 lol i never said it was my favorite , or it was nice to drive, or reliable, none of that , the one time i drove it, it was poison, i guess i should have questioned it bit different, " was the idea of the 2+2 the best ever?" let's say it's 1980, you want one tractor for everything, your looking at brochures , one would have to think it would be the one you want. also why did deere not come out with one , we know it would have been alot better, say a 4840 done up 2+2 style , that would have been cool!
The White 4x4's were capable of row crop work and were much more reliable (for the most part),
Comparing Apples and Oranges, I'd say the White 4-210 would be closest to a 3788 or 6788 ant-eater.
The differentials were too weak on the 2+2's. as they were being used as a heavy tillage tractor.
I recall a distant neighbor pulling a 40ft field cult with a 3788. |
|
| |
|
Soutwest Ks. | That's a good one Sheep Herder! |
|
| |
|
swohio | I also have a 5288 that is much nicer, but I needed a FWA for the graincart and you can't touch a FWA price wise for the amount acres I farm. Maybe I'am one of the luckly ones that got a 3788 that hadn't been beaten to death. I will find out in the years to come. I will tell that it has great traction. Pulled a fully loaded semi out of the mud back in Jan. and it never spun the tires. |
|
| |
|
East Central Ia | First tractor dad ever bought new, had it until we traded it on an MX255. I couldn't wait to see it go!
That was the hardest tractor on the planet to drive down the road... Dad pulled wagons with it too! |
|
| |
|
New Brunswick, Canada | There is one up the road on manure pit pump duty and runs the silage bale wrapper. In the 10 years they have had it I've only seen it out of the yard once, to pull their big 2wd magnum out of a wet spot in a field. |
|
| |
|
Louise, TX | Dad had a 3588 with rice & cane tires on it . The only good thing about it is you could drag (literally the wheels would not even turn) the grain cart anywhere you wanted to go. Lots of wet milo harvests here in mid 80's and lots of fun when you are 14 years old. We had a lot of little problems with it. Traded it on a 7140 mfd (best move ever) got $8,000 for it, dealer told dad he could buy it back for $4,000. Dad said he would pass. |
|
| |
|
South Eastern ,ILL | Never owned one, but did drive one a time or two. Never did have the desire to own one, dad wasn't impressed at all .Like has been stated
they were a step ahead of their time, but most people tried to over
load them. I personally could never get over that long "nose" on them. |
|
| |
|
New London, Wisconsin | I was at the new product announcement in Phoenix when they were first introduced to dealers. It really was ahead of it's time. The grill was unfortunately so far ahead, I think that is a big reason they didn't sell well. The reliability good one / bad one thing was actually supposed to have been dealt with in a silent recall the first year they were out. The front axles that had come from the payloader side of IH and had been bullet proof, were not in this application. There were a few other glitches as well. Probably the number one issue that caused the mechanical problems was they were not engineered to be dualed. The whole concept was to minimize compaction and tracking, and it did a remarkable job at that. The thing was EVERYONE dualed up tractors then, and that was no excuse not to do it to this too. The rear axles were sort of okay with it but not the fronts and trouble followed. There was by the way also a prohibition on saddle tanks, but that went ignored too, and why not with all that available frame space.
I never owned one but used to think I would, I got over that. By the time they got to the 63-65-6788's the nose was still too long, but they had things mechanically pretty well figured out. By then harvester's finances were in the toilet, they were lying to the dealers about the financial health of the company. We believing that BS followed along and unknowingly lied to our customers. It was not a happy time to be an IH dealer. I was just the machinery peddler. I have often been glad I didn't own the dealership during those times. The money side of things sealed it's fate, but sales would have anyway.
|
|
| |
|
| I had a 3588. Worse tractor ever. Was glad when it went to the salvage yard |
|
| |
|
wc missouri | Love ours it was ahead of the time. Like many have said its not a standard 4 wheel drive its a large row crop tractor with big wheels. |
|
| |
|
Fairbury, NE (Southeast) | Buddy had one for a couple years. Told me he got it "bought right" Had a head gasket leak and various oil leaks...wound up selling it.
He got 1/3 out of what he had in it. |
|
| |
|
north central NE | I enjoy mine, I guess that's obvious. |
|
| |
|
Wyoming | We've had 3588 for about 15 years. First 4wd we ever had before a magnum. In their day, in this area, they were a pretty good tractor. Alot of guys pulled in-furrow spinner plows with them. As ugly as they were, the long nose on the plow was great. They handled three point equipment better than mfd tractors in those days, and you could turn tighter without laying on the brakes.
I really wished that CaseIH would have carried the design, with some improvements of course. They could have used the same powershift as the magnums, and went to the cummins powerplant. There was a large fuel tank in front of the cab. The tank could have been removed, move the engine back about 3 to 4 feet, shorten the hood, both in length and height. I think they would have really given the front foots a run for their money. |
|
| |
|
east central Iowa | Okay you just took all the weight off the front axle by moving the engine back that was the whole idea of it being a light tractor that would really pull. why do they need to put a ton of weight on a MFD tractor? To make those tires pull under a load |
|
| |
|
S.E. Iowa | I got one and have used it for 20 years. I really like it I pull a 5 shank inline ripper with it. That would be the heaviest load, the first time I used it on a loaded grain cart I turned a corner on a concrete road went sideways a bit. I figured out fast that it was great in the field but be extra careful on the road with a cart. For what it weighs I dont think anything ever made except for tracks can put power to the ground like it. I have to laugh that the new tractors they set the axle back {at least in looks} to capture the same effect as the engine out front. |
|
| |
|
Wi | Sheep Herder - 4/2/2013 18:42 If a 2+2 is your favorite, I shudder to think what your least favorite is. Never owned one and never wanted to.
I know he hates his Fendt, wants to trade for two 2+2s.......... |
|
| |
|
Sort of Central to North Central Iowa | Dad bought a used 3588 in 1982. We still have it. I won't likely ever sell it, sell it as it is in good shape and has been part of our operation in different roles for over 30 years. It was our tillage tractor until 2000, then our planter tractor until 2012. We ran rear duals at times, never front duals. No saddle tanks. It has had a lot of nickel and dime repairs over the years, just a few larger repairs, pivot bushings twice, TA & clutch once, hydraulic pumps. The engine has not been overhauled, except for main bearings around 5000 hours as a preventative step. We at times went through wet spots that should not have been driven through with anything.
The nice thing about them is they are surpisingly manuverable in the field. Once pulled a field cultivator in the same field with the neighbors JD 4450 mfd, I think the 3588 could nearly turn twice in the area the mfd needed. Also great traction. As stated before, there seem to have been good ones and bad ones, and how people used them seems to have a huge effect on their reliability.
I read in a book once that with the release of the 7288/7488 series of 2+2, IH was going to recall all the earlier ones to address some of the weak areas and to appease the potential owners of the newer models. Unfortunately, they never made it that far. Dave
 (0518111156.jpg)
 (0505111637.jpg)
Attachments
----------------
 0518111156.jpg (68KB - 907 downloads)
0505111637.jpg (42KB - 806 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Wyoming | Yes, that would have transferred some weight, it could have been offset with additional casting weight or the like. My point was that they could have cleaned the nose up and made a more attractive tractor without all that snout. The engines are far ahead of the center line of the front axle. Even bringing the engine back 15 to 20 inches would have made a big difference. |
|
| |
|
| I'm a IH man & IMO the 2+2s were some of the worst tractors IH ever made. I demoed a couple different 3588s when they were new & couldn't get them off the farm quick enough. Actually, the first one never made it to the farm, broke down driving it home & they had to haul it back to town. Good friend bought a new 3588 & 3788 and traded them both in less than 6 months for 2wd tractors
Edited by boog 4/2/2013 22:21
|
|
| |
|
Manitoba | I've thought for awhile it was a good idea, ahead of its time and didn't have strong enough components. With today's FWA tractors putting out over 300 HP on a steering axle, I think a solid axle would last much longer when articulated like a 2+2. Throw in a cvt and reverse station for snowblower, silage chopper, discbine, etc they would make a great tractor. Unlike the bi-directional ( bi-sexual as I call it not a real tractor and not a real loader) which is under built, rough riding, and awkward to operate |
|
| |
|
| The 2+2 was a ahead of it's time idea poorly executed. There were very few MFD tractors in our area before the 2+2, now we all have to have a MFD. We ran rear duals and saddle tanks on our 3388. The cab, common to other IH tractors of the era, was and still is not friendly to a tall guy. My kneecap still aches today from bending/breaking the perfectly placed key and my shoulders still ache just thinking about long days cultivating with it. The engine was about the only thing on ours we didn't have major trouble with. Our 3388 had about 170hp and did handle 12 row sized equipment very well, planting, cultivating and spraying. I could give you a LONG list of $$$ fixing, but will just say we traded ours off about 14 years ago for a JD8300 (the first green tractor on our farm in 3 generations if that tells you what I thought of the red ones after the 2+2 debacle) and I thought I had died and gone to heaven. |
|
| |
|
Hagen Brothers farms,Goodrich ND | My opinion, they were a really great idea. The problem is that to save money, they tried to adapt too many off the shelf parts from other applications. Some of the parts did not play well together and hurt reliability of the tractor.
One problem in my area, where all was deep tillage and almost no row crops, was that people tried to use what was a powerful, high speed, 4 wd row crop tractor and , dual it, weight it down and use it for a heavy tillage 4wd tractor. The driveline in a 2+2 was nat designed for that kind of use and suffered some low hour failures.
I owned a 3788 for a few years. finally traded it when our farming needs changed to where we needed a 325 HP heavy tillage Steiger instead of a 170 hp 2+2.
Edited by Jon Hagen 4/3/2013 00:49
|
|
| |
|
Hagen Brothers farms,Goodrich ND | Kel1306 - 4/3/2013 20:59
Yes, that would have transferred some weight, it could have been offset with additional casting weight or the like. My point was that they could have cleaned the nose up and made a more attractive tractor without all that snout. The engines are far ahead of the center line of the front axle. Even bringing the engine back 15 to 20 inches would have made a big difference.
Ugly as it seemed to some folks, their was a good reason for the long nose on a 2+2. Putting that engine 4 ft ahead of where it was on any other IH tractor had it, and mounting the engine on rubber, gave it far less engine noise and vibration compared to a 2 wd or Front Assist IH tractor of that age. The 4 ft gap between the engine and cab, blocked engine heat and noise, plus gave it a huge onboard fuel supply with front and rear tanks..
With the engine so far out front, the tractor had great front traction without adding a ton of cast weights to the front.
That last version that almost made it to production(70 series ?), had a powershift transmission, eliminating the clunky shifting manual transmission and troubled TA.
Edited by Jon Hagen 4/3/2013 00:51
|
|
| |
|
Nova Scotia | durallymax - 4/2/2013 21:50
Sheep Herder - 4/2/2013 18:42 If a 2+2 is your favorite, I shudder to think what your least favorite is. Never owned one and never wanted to. I know he hates his Fendt, wants to trade for two 2+2s..........
You caught me Durally , how did you know i was looking to trade my Fendt for 13 IH 3588's ? |
|
| |
|
Beresford SD | yes |
|
| |
|
| way ahead of its time. just engineered bad super 70's need to come out when the 3588 did. |
|
| |
|
Wi | Chris 924 - 4/3/2013 08:19 durallymax - 4/2/2013 21:50 Sheep Herder - 4/2/2013 18:42 If a 2+2 is your favorite, I shudder to think what your least favorite is. Never owned one and never wanted to. I know he hates his Fendt, wants to trade for two 2+2s.......... You caught me Durally , how did you know i was looking to trade my Fendt for 13 IH 3588's ?
That would be 2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2 |
|
| |
is the IH 3588 the best tractor ever.
