Well an IH and a Cat anyway..
I've heard the claim a TD25 would push a D8 uphill backward. A chance to find out
You are going to need a bigger garage!!!
I looked outside and I don't see them anywhere on my yard. Oh wait, you mean your home! Haha. Nice lookin iron. You're lucky they're far away or you'd have competition!
I would like to know also. Please TimT, help us find out so we can sleep.
I have another week of vacation left this year, I can run one end of the tug-o-war then we'll switch machines to ensure an unbiased end result
Make real sure the cable you use is up to the task. These two will generate serious pull.
I can only say this... The TD-25C is one powerful tractor. I LOVE both machines, and comparing my 1961 36A direct drive to the TD-25 would not be fair as the 1975 25 is heavier and more powerful, I would say that the TD-25C would give a D8K a real hard time. The 25C is recognized as THE most potent tractor in that size class hands down. It is a very strong tractor, with the D817C engine, "310Plus HP| inboard planetary drive and lower center of gravity. I have heard no one that operated them say they were not a very powerful machine. I have run a later model D8H on train wrecks and worked right next to a TD-25C both moving railroad cars... the 25 smoked the 8H on several occasions. I can also say this, the AC HD-21 was also a very good tractor in certain applications. Very strong machine also... Not talking about FA's just the AC machine.
My friend (RIP) Charlie Abbott felt the IH tractors were special. He owned perhaps a dozen 175s, at least 1 150, two TD7E, a TD25C, and a TD15C. He spoke in glowing terms of the TD25C. His TD15C is nearby now. It sits unused. It has undercarriage maybe twenty years old, but unused. He brought it home with the undercarriage installed, but it never in his life left the yard.
The 8H would be perfect in front of one of these. http://www.grizzly-engineering.com.au/admin/uploads/files/TINY Complete Range.pdf
Now THAT IS A DISC!!!, I would love to pull one of those with the 8H!!
Used to shoot woodchucks at a nearby farm, the 'ol boy had lots of rockpiles in the fields. Behind the barns were 3 TD25's, one for parts, the others were useable at one point in time. Once you got close to the rockpiles, it was obvious why he had 2 running TD25's.....they weren't rockpiles, boulder piles was a better description. Many were the size of a small car, others much larger. The glaciers weren't kind to Ivan. Ed
Hi, new to the site nice looking machines. I always wonder where the Dresser machines fell into the pecking order of Dozers. Sounds like they are powerful machines.
Relay its an International.. built way before Dresser bought the construction line from IH... But in the day IH was number two after Caterpillar in heavy equipment. For many years the TD-24 was the biggest baddest machine. IH had lots of innovative ideas and for the most part built very fine machines. The IH 175 and 250 were some of the best track loaders ever built.The TD-25B and C were the very best of the IH/Dresser Big tractors.
Around here IH was a good name, lots of dealer support until the Dresser change. Same happened to Allis when Fiat got their hand in that pie. Only two survivors of any note Cat and Deere but neither of those are built US much anymore either. I liked the old 250 loaders, dependable, heavy and pretty much bullet proof. 125s were a little light much as Allis were, the TDseries 20, 24 and 25 were awesome machines.
Thanks for the information on the IH/Dresser. My favorite of the big track machines is the 977 Cat. How do the 175 and 250 compare in size to the 977?
IH/Dresser 250C & E are close to a 977, I consider them more nimble than the cat. 47,000# average weight compared to closer to 48,000 977K/L. The E was the last, disc. 1991.
DM, I think you are a bit heavy on the 977L. I ran a new one in the mid 70's with the GP bucket on it & no other attachments & I believe it was closer to 44,000 lbs. What does Ritchie Wiki say? They are not always correct either though.
https://www.uship.com/shipment/Caterpillar-977L/57138040/ This site says 21,610 KG's.
X2.2 lbs per kg = 47500lbs
You are right DM..........heavier than I thought they were!!
As Reggie Lussier says T stands for tractor. D stands for diesel. The number stands for tons. TD7G is a 7 ton tractor fueled by diesel. The letter following is sequential. Weight varies with changes. ROPS has weight, Winch has weight, etc. etc. TD25 should weigh approximately 25 tons. In the last twenty years excavators have their weight lost somewhere in their model number. That is in metric tons (1000 KG)
Sorry to say I was late getting back on here. Last 977K I was looking at had a ripper tool bar with two shanks and a MP bucket, that monster broke 49,000.
A little off-topic, but from the physics standpoint it all boils down to power, weight, traction, and hydraulic power. My little JD 350 three-cylinder gas machine is far better balanced than my several times bigger Cat 955K. The 350 will lose traction (in average soil conditions) just about the same time the engine bogs down. If I'm pushing down a tree, everything seems to be just in balance. A few weeks ago I pushed over a walnut cluster--7 trunks from one root system (they were all about 8" diameter)--and that was about tops for the machine. But it managed. Scale that tree up the same ratio as the 955 to the 350 and I don't think the 955 would have managed it. It's much more than just weight and hp--it's the drive train, the gearing, the ground-engagement, and how it all balances out. When you get a machine that is in balance, it just feels right. The 955K just doesn't feel as right as the 350. Had a Cat 12F grader, too--and that was a lot of fun and seemed very balanced, though it could have used a bit more traction (i.e. new tires!).
I thought a 977 was closer to 60,000lb but 48,000lb looks to be the most common figure. I think the IH loaders were a little ahead of their time. JD copied the bucket linkage for their 755 and 855 loaders, I think the bucket cylinders pushing to roll back is a better design.
I read a bit of IH history. The first of their track loaders were converted bulldozers. With grouser tracks they were ripping lots of drivetrain parts up. IH shipped them off to fitters such as Drott where the shoes were changed to three bar. A track loader turns more than a dozer. Might it be the three bar shoes making the loader feel under tractioned. Is tractioned a word?
Most loaders now run double grousers. The triple grousers tend to pack with dirt which can't help with traction but make it easier on the drivetrain for turning. I wanted to put double grousers on my 931B but they weren't available.
Known a few to put Tall grouser dozer shoes on 977s, all found it was not a good choice as rollers, truck frames and even the operators suffered. Single grouser will push like all get out but hard on turns with a loaded bucket.
Thanks for all of good information. My only experience was on a JD 550H Dozer with T-handle controls my neighbor had. He let me run the machine for a few hours and coming from a guy with no experience I thought it was easy to operator and when I was pushing too much dirt the tracks would start to lose traction but the motor never bogged down.