|
|
southwest in | these two models seem to be priced very reasonable, to me,
what the good, bad and ugly on these two?
i know there old, but would be limited use, thank you |
|
| |
|
North Central Illinois | Motor was the weak link. Many have been properly updated and are fine. Hydraulics suck too |
|
| |
|
Martinsville, Ohio | 310 Waukesha turbocharged was built stronger than the bottom end. Most have been fixed. Most of them died in the first 10 years. Over Under Hydraul shift is great, rear end OK, hydraulic avg and if not maintained it does suck. Deere and IH were ahead in hydraulics at that age. Still many used here every day. One of the better driving tractors of its day. Ed |
|
| |
|
| The bad is the Waukesha engine and cab if it has one.
The good is everything besides the engine and cab.
The hydraulics on the 55 series Olivers was 20 gpm closed center which is as good or better than everything else that was built at the same time including JD.
The tractor part of 1855/1955 Oliver later became the 2-85/2-105 White which had a Perkins engine in place of the Waukesha and was offered with a better factory cab. The 2-85/2-105 Whites were very good tractors.
|
|
| |
|
s.e. Pa | Ed covered them pretty well. 1955's had oil cooler blocks, and so did late or updated 1855's. Comfortable and maneuverable. Not the tractor to hook to a chisel plow and hammer all day. But very good for general use. 12 point rid bolts and 1 piece wrist pin bushings would make me more inclined to buy one. Most probably have had this done. I think you can see down the dipstick hole and tell what rod bolts are in it.
Josh |
|
| |
|
. | Worst tractor we ever bought was an 1855, and it wasn't even the engine that gave problems; clutch, turbo, injectors, even steering spindle broke off. Hydraulic problems were the final straw as no one seemed to know how to work on them. On the plus side the over/under hydro shift was nice;) |
|
| |
|
| I have worked on Olivers for 35 years. I would not own a 1855 Diesel. Seems like the engine had a vibration or something that effected the hydraulics and other parts. The 1755 and 1955 were good tractors. Some trouble with the piston pin bushings if you got the engine to hot. Very nice handling tractors. www.greendrills.com |
|
| |
|
Southwest Missouri | Don't know what you are going to use it for but I think you would be better off in the long run with a 2-85 or 105 white much more refined tractors |
|
| |
|
Tennessee | +1
2-105 is a much better tractor. |
|
| |
|
Sourthern WI | +1 Get a 2-105. Many significant improvements for not much more money. Things are usually cheap for a reason. |
|
| |
|
Liberty, MO | Go with the 2-105 , I've had both 2-105, and 2-85, much preferred the 2-105, bought the 2-105 new in February 1975, still got it, but mostly retired to loader and 3 pt blade now. |
|
| |
|
Ohio | A bit off subject
Olive 1655 was a great tractor. It's been our 'go to' tractor for decades. |
|
| |
oliver 1855/1955 tractors ?
