- Advertisement -

The WA-14 and WA-17

0

The WA-14 and WA-17 must be two of the most overlooked and misunderstood tractors that John Deere ever put the company’s name on. The tractors marked the first time that Deere and Company sold a tractor built entirely by a different company, giving them a history that is all their own.

It is impossible to tell the story of the WA-14 and WA-17 tractors without first explaining a little bit about their manufacturer, FWD-Wagner. The company’s lineage began in 1949 when, after returning from World War II and drawing on inspiration from a machine that he had seen in Europe, Elmer Wagner produced a prototype industrial vehicle. This vehicle had four-wheel drive and was articulated, allowing it to put full power to the ground, even in the hills encountered in the forestry industry around Wagner’s home of Portland, Oregon. From this machine, a number of pieces of successful industrial equipment were built.

Five years later, Elmer Wagner, six of his brothers and J. Burke Long came together and created Wagner Tractor Company, Inc. This company focused on the agricultural market and began its work buoyed by the successes that had been seen with its logging machines. In 1955, Wagner was ready for production. The TR-6, TR-9 and TR-14 tractors made up the company’s line. The smallest tractor, the TR-6, used a 64 horsepower Waukesha engine; the TR-9 held an 85 horsepower Buda and the TR-14 was powered by a 148 horsepower Cummins engine. Later, Cummins engines were adopted for the whole line, as Wagner was most impressed with their reliability.

The key, though, to the Wagner tractors was the patented Pow-R-Flex Coupling. This coupling allowed the articulated joint in the tractor to work; even when the front and rear of the tractor were oscillated by as much as 20 inches, or when the tractor was turning fully, full engine power was still able to get to all four tires, resulting in minimal loss of traction and pulling power.

 

In 1961, FWD Corporation purchased a majority share of Wagner and the company was renamed FWD-Wagner Incorporated. Over the next few years, three more models were introduced and the rest of the line went through a bit of a facelift. The new tractors were labeled the WA-4, -6, -9, -14, -17 and -24. Power throughout the line was increased significantly and now went from 125 horsepower in the (relatively) small WA-4 to 300 horsepower in the massive WA-24. Also, the tractors were now painted yellow, not orange as before.

When John Deere introduced the 8010 in 1959, it was remarkably similar to a Wagner tractor in many respects. Of course, at that time, the only production articulated four-wheel drive tractors in the world were those made by Wagner and the John Deere 8010, so there were bound to be similarities. Deere was certainly inspired by Wagner. In fact, in 1956, Deere tested a Wagner TR-9 against a modified Case “LA.” Each tractor was attached to a 24-foot chisel plow and sent to work simultaneously in a hilly field in front of Deere President William Hewitt and other representatives of the company. Reportedly, the Wagner and Case performed similarly on the flat ground, but then the driver of the Wagner pointed the nose of his tractor directly up one of the field’s steeper hills, pulling the plow right over the top. When the driver in the Case tried to follow, his tractor lost traction and slid back down the hill. Not long after that, one of Deere’s representatives was taking pictures of the Wagner tractor—pictures that were undoubtedly referenced when Deere’s engineers were developing the 8010.

It is hard to say what Deere expected of the 8010, but the company could not have been happy with its sales. The tractor was put into production in 1960 and 100 were built, but the tractor’s unbelievable price tag of almost $30,000 caused even farmers with huge landholdings to shy away. Several of these farmers had given their vocal support to Deere when the company was considering the project, telling them that they would be buyers for a tractor like Deere was contemplating. But when Deere unveiled the tractor, even those farmers shied away as the cost, which is equivalent to well over $200,000 today, was simply astronomical and the purchase of such a tractor would also basically require the farmer to replace all of his implements with new equipment, sized to match the tractor. The few tractors that were sold developed issues in the field and were recalled and improved, becoming 8020s, costing Deere yet more money and probably annoying many of those customers who had to foot the bill for the beast.

It would take Deere six years to sell all of the 8010/8020 tractors. While Deere was likely soured on four-wheel drive tractors in the process, it could not let that bother for long. When a turbocharger was first equipped on a diesel engine for agricultural use, the game had changed. Suddenly, more horsepower than ever before was attainable and efficiency increased. While this obviously had uses on two-wheel drive tractors, the massive amounts of power now available meant that four-wheel drive tractors were the only realistic means of making use of all of the power. By 1968, Deere was working on plans for a new four-wheel drive tractor, but it was still going to be a few years before it could be brought to market. Other companies were already making inroads into the big tractor market, including those upstarts Steiger and Versatile, and Deere had no interest in sitting on its hands until the new tractor was ready—they had to remain relevant in the market.

Of the companies with an established presence in four-wheel drive tractors, FWD-Wagner was really the only one that Deere could turn to. Steiger and Versatile were both too big and successful to consider selling to John Deere, one of their competitors. A Wagner tractor was also the machine that inspired Deere to dive into the market with the 8010 and was likely what Deere had looked to for inspiration for that tractor, so Wagner was the perfect fit for Deere. Improving its situation, Deere knew that Wagner was willing to go into business with other companies to sell more tractors, having contracted out the WA-4, -14 and -17 to the Minnesota-based Raygo Corporation in the mid 1960s.

On the other hand, Deere had clearly annoyed Wagner with the 8010. FWD-Wagner advertising material of the early 1960s took on the 8010, stating, “Leadership cannot be copied. FWD-Wagner experimentation preceded competition by five years. Competition finally awakened to the fact that FWD-Wagner was right all along. Now some are belatedly trying to copy FWD-Wagner features, but it will be difficult to catch up. Our mistakes are behind us. In product engineering, the company with the head start stays ahead.” Wagner’s frustration with Deere’s mimicry of its tractors may even have brought about patent infringement litigation. While there is no known evidence remaining to support this, it is a widely accepted rumor and one that brings a lot of questions, especially considering the deal that was to follow.

The lineup of FWD-Wagner tractors was freshened up again in 1968, providing a more modern style and slightly improving operator comfort and the function. Primarily, though, the tractors were little changed from their introduction. While Wagner tractors were still profitable, FWD could probably see that they were nearing the end of their salable lifespan.

Just how Deere and Wagner came to an agreement and drew up the contract that gave Deere rights to sell the WA-14 and WA-17 is unknown, leaving people to draw their own conclusions. The most likely scenarios, it seems, are either that Deere and Wagner came to the agreement in order to settle the infringement lawsuit or that Wagner was able to look past its previous disagreement with Deere and saw that this deal was a chance to put a bigger name on its product, brightening the company’s future.

Those are certainly possible reasons for the two companies agreeing to a contract in principle, but reasoning out the fine print makes one scratch his head. On December 31, 1968, Deere and FWD-Wagner signed a contract for as many as 100 tractors, models WA-14 and WA-17, to be built by Wagner and painted, decorated and sold by Deere. Deere was allowed by the contract to cancel it at any time and there was a no-compete clause in the contract, keeping FWD-Wagner from selling any articulated four-wheel drive tractors for five years after the termination of the contract.

Why did FWD-Wagner sign such a one-sided contract? Again, possibly Wagner was just hoping to boost the sales of its tractors. Perhaps FWD-Wagner was planning on liquidating soon anyway, since other companies had passed it in the market and the big boys were making their way into the market. FWD-Wagner had already sold the rights to some of its tractors to Raygo, so maybe they were just trying to get as much as they could out of what they had left. If the lawsuit was real, perhaps this deal was not as one-sided as it appears. The cash terms of the contract are not known, so it is possible that Deere substantially overpaid for these tractors as compensation.

Whatever the final terms were, what Deere got was a pair of massive tractors with a name that was already well established in small grain country. The tractors were component built, as they always had been, but careful selection and experience meant that all parts were particularly reliable. The WA-14 and WA-17 both utilized an 855 cubic inch, six cylinder Cummins diesel engine. The WA-14 put out 225 horsepower at the flywheel with a naturally aspirated version of the engine. The engine in the WA-17 was turbocharged and capable of 280 horsepower. Transmissions in these tractors were the Fuller Roadranger RTO 910 10-speed. FWD supplied the axles and Wagner made the drop boxes and hinges.

The tractors could be equipped with optional cabs, which in turn could have air conditioners and heaters installed. Fifteen or 35 gallon per minute hydraulic pumps with single, dual or triple outlets were available. No three-point was available for the tractors. The WA-14 was equipped with 18.4×34 inch dual wheels or 23.1×30 single or dual wheels and the WA-17 had 28.5×26 inch single tires or 23.1×30 inch duals.

In terms of sales, the WA-14 and WA-17 fared little better than the 8010 had earlier in the decade. At more than $35,000 for the WA-14 and over $41,000 for the WA-17, the tractors cost even more, even adjusting for inflation, than the 8010. Admittedly, they offered more power and had been field proven and refined over the last decade, but the size and type of the Wagner tractors still had a rather limited audience. Other than opening up a field, they had little use in row crop country and the size of the machines made them viable only on very large farms. Nevertheless, Deere managed to sell somewhere between 55 and 65 of the machines.

Another factor that likely made sales of the Wagner tractors a bit sluggish was the simple fact that they were not built by John Deere. Farmers who had grown fond of John Deere and its tractors’ reliability did not want to risk trying out another manufacturer’s tractors. Also, many of Deere’s own sales people probably felt little desire to push the big machines. Built out of so many outsourced truck and industrial parts, servicing the Wagner tractors would have required Deere dealers to order parts from Wagner, Cummins and possibly other companies, making extra work for the servicemen that they simply did not need. There is also evidence that a bearing in the tractors was installed incorrectly, causing quite a bit of vibration. Many of these were corrected, but a test drive with one out of place would probably have turned off most prospective buyers.

The Wagner tractors had two serial numbers. The Deere WA-14s started with a Wagner number of WA-14-902 and Deere number 101. WA-17 tractors were numbered from WA-17-901 and 101. The Wagner serial number appeared on a larger tag that included transmission numbers, an engine number and other information, as well. Deere-sold WA-14 tractors started with number 902 because Raygo sold a single tractor during the 1969 model year before its deal with Deere was struck. WA-14 serial number WA-14-902, or 101, had a four-legged deer logo on the grill. The rest of the tractors had a two-legged deer.

Deere ended its agreement with FWD-Wagner in 1970. As per the contract, FWD-Wagner was not allowed to sell articulated four-wheel drive tractors for five years. This move effectively ended Wagner’s business. Wagner dealers, then, had no tractors to sell. Many of these turned to other brands, some shut their doors, but a few went on to create their own tractors or refit old Wagner tractors. Big Bud and Rite were just two brands to come out of these dealerships.

Deere collectors generally dismiss the Wagner tractors as a pair of machines that were cobbled together out of truck parts and built in Oregon, far from any Deere factory. This is basically true, but the Wagner tractors deserve a bit more credit than that. These tractors were essentially the progenitors of every articulated four-wheel drive agricultural tractor ever produced. They were also built about as ruggedly as a tractor can be. They were produced almost entirely of steel and reliability and durability were the first traits looked for in every part considered for the tractors. Wagner knew, after all, that the tractors were going to be used for thousands of hours, pulling enormous tools that were buried deep in the ground. Many of Wagner’s tractors, including those sold by Deere, are still used daily in the same conditions for which they were built.

What does this mean to the collector? People interested in buying a WA-14 or WA-17 for their collection are in luck, because most of them have survived. The bad news, though, is that most of them are still an integral part of someone’s farm. If you couple that fact with their rarity, these things are simply challenging to acquire. These tractors are not exactly at the top of most collectors’ lists, however. That is really too bad, because even though they may have been purchased from another manufacturer, these machines really are a part of Deere history.

Waterloo Boy Reunion

A few of the Waterloo Boy tractors at the 2018 reunion.

John Deere Speedster

Modeled after a Model T Ford speedster but built with many Deere parts.

Family Tractor Collection

Levi (15) and Luke(13) Farnsworth of Wadsworth, Ohio lined up their collection that they tinker with daily.
(left to right) 1937 unstyled ‘A’, 1951 ‘B’ with single front wheel, 1935 unstyled ‘B’, 1945 ‘H’ and a 1946 ‘LA’.

Foot clutch on a 730

This is a clutch system sold in Argentina that converts 720s and 730s to a foot clutch.

Smallest Vintage Tractor John Deere Built

Bruce of Delaware has a passion for smaller John Deere Tractors. His collection includes several Model L series John Deeres including a restored 1938 Unstyled Model LA. Bruce shares his passion and the story of his Model 1938 Tractor.

Sampson, The World’s Strongest “GP”

0

Corwin Groth has several friends who are antique tractor pullers. So when the Eldridge, Iowa man known as “Cork” to his friends saw the amount of horsepower they were getting from what were originally 5-½ by 6-½ inch bore and stroke unstyled “A” tractors, he wondered what one of his favorite tractors (a “GP”) could produce. So with a pile of extra, but not inexpensive, “GP” parts he had accumulated over the years, he set about to find out.

A 1931 “GP” standard main case, a 1930 wide tread belly pan and front pedestal were the starting point. The short rear axle quills from a 1930 “GPO” were added, which would eventually lead to the tractor’s “Nar-O-Tread” designation. An operator’s station and seat assembly from an over the top steer wide tread was added to the back.

Power for this chassis started with a late model six inch “GP” block that was bored out to 6.17 inches. A small bore head was bolted on, but not before 5/16ths of an inch was milled off. To get even more power, Cork did what his tractor puller friends do to their engines and modified the crank to add 2.5 inches of stroke to make the total 8.5 inches. The result is 501 cubic inches with a compression ration of 8.1 to 1. Compare that to 339 cubic inches and a compression ratio of less than 4 to 1 on a standard large bore “GP.” The camshaft was rebuilt to give the valves an extra 1/8th inch lift.

All those cubic inches won’t do much good, though, if the engine can’t breath and to take care of that problem, two “GP” manifolds were cut in half and turned to face opposite sides of the tractor. This made it possible for the engine to utilize dual exhaust and dual carburetors. A second arm off the governor from a 1947 “D” was added to run the second carburetor. Both carbs are Marvel Schebler DLTX 5s, standard equipment on a late “GP” tractors.

Atop the engine sits an unstyled “B” fuel tank, covered by a hood, custom made by Dave Geyer. The Nar-O-Tread decals were made by Travis Jorde. The steering gear box was made by combining parts from a 1937 “D” and 1929 “GP.” The proper steering shaft support was found on a 1943 “D.” Cork machined and added bronze inserts to a steering universal joint from a 1928 to use in the tractor.

New final drive gears were made, much heavier and geared lower than the originals. A factory “GP” has a final drive ratio of 4:11 to 1, but Cork’s new tractor has a 6.66 to 1 ratio.

After getting the tractor together, it didn’t take long to realize that turning an engine with all those cubic inches and compression by hand was going to be difficult. A 12 volt starter from a “G” now turns the electric start “A” flywheel. The starter bracket was fabricated from steel. A model “M” generator tucks neatly in front of the head, while the battery sits below the seat.

By now you’re asking yourself how many horsepower? Cork doesn’t know for sure, but it is no coincidence that he named the tractor “Sampson” after the biblical strong man. Shortly after completion, the tractor, then fitted with 13.9 by 38 inch rear wheels, easily pulled a five bottom plow in high gear. It has been belted up to a dyno a couple of times but with the narrow “GP” type pulley, the belt would start slipping at about 60 horsepower. Cork doesn’t dare try channeling the tractor’s horsepower through a “GP” power take-off shaft which, he says, “would be turned into shrapnel” adding that the original PTO was “barely adequate for 23 horsepower.”

Cork Groth is always glad to answer questions about what is likely the world’s strongest “GP.” So if you see the tractor at a show, look for Cork and ask away.

March 2020

If you've already purchased digital magazine access, . To get access, you must purchase either a digital or digital+print subscription. Click here for more info.

February 2020

If you've already purchased digital magazine access, . To get access, you must purchase either a digital or digital+print subscription. Click here for more info.

The Closest Thing to a Model “Y” You Will Find

0

When Jack Kreeger of Omaha, Nebraska attended antique tractor shows in the early 1980s with his collection of “L” series tractors, he would display a sign stating that he was looking for a model “Y” tractor or parts of one. At the Mount Pleasant, Iowa show one year, a man stepped up and told Jack that he had a two cylinder Novo engine like those used on the early model “Ys,” complete with a tag indicating it had been shipped to Deere and Company on June 22nd of 1936. A deal was made and Jack became owner of the engine. I should add here that whether this Novo was destined to be installed in a “Y” or in some other application isn’t known for sure.

Can we do it? Yes, we can!

Sometime later, a friend told Jack about a Deere employee magazine that had an article about retired engineer Willard Nordenson, who had worked on the “Y” project. Jack tracked down a copy of the magazine and then Mr. Nordenson, who was retired and living in Dubuque, Iowa.

On a visit to the Nordenson residence, Willard brought out a pair of albums containing 214 photos. The photos showed many breakdowns of the parts, including those built by Deere and those like the steering column and transmission bought from Ford. The photos also showed early Deere engineers like Theo Brown, Max Sklovsky and others.

Jack received permission to make copies of the photos, took them back home to Nebraska and showed them to his friend, weldor and machinist Dan Schmidt, and asked him, “Can we do it?”

Dan’s reply was, “Why not?”

The tractor shown at the top of the opposite page and at right was the result. Everything was built as close as possible to the original, using parts Kreeger found or Schmidt fabricated. A few internal parts in the rear axle and final drives weren’t exactly what the actual “Y” would have had, but the pair used what they could find that would work—besides, unless someone tore the tractor apart, they would never know.

Construction began on November 28, 1986 and was completed on June 5, 1987—just in time for Deere’s sesquicentennial.

The “Y” reproduction shortly after completion

 

The “Y” leaves Nebraska

The current owner of the “Y” is Marvin Swanson shown here with his grandson.

Jack sold the tractor to Jimmy Dillon of Lebanon, Tennessee in the early 2000s, with the intention of beginning a new project—the even more rare “LW,” a narrow front wide rear axle version of the “L.” After Mr. Dillon’s death, the “Y” didn’t see much light of day until his sons sold his collection several years later. Marvin Swanson of Orion, Illinois is the owner of the ”Y” today.

That’s an “LW” on the right.

So as not to ever deceive anyone into thinking it was the real thing, Kreeger and Schmidt gave the tractor a serial number tag reading “101RP,” the “RP” standing for reproduction. Though it will never be a “real” John Deere model “Y,” it will always be a testament to the dedication of Jack Kreeger, the skill of Dan Schmidt and the ideas of past Deere engineers.

 

The Styled “A” Low Seat Standard

0

 

 

Most of us have probably hatched some idea in our brains about building a tractor that Deere never did. Perhaps you wanted to put tracks on an “R,” MFWD on a 730 or a diesel engine in an “L.” The trouble is that, with most of us, the project never gets beyond the dreaming phase.

One person who turned his dream into a reality, though, is Obie Van Dyk of Pella, Iowa. His dream was to build a styled “A” standard, something a little different than what we know of as an “AR.”

The starting point was overhauling the engine on a 1945 unstyled “AR” that would be the basis for the new tractor. Because he wanted to be able to take the new model on tractor drives, Obie replaced the main case with one from a six speed row crop. When this was done, the tube that the vertical steering shaft goes through on a standard tractor was lost. Local machinist Bill Van Zante drilled holes in the row crop main case and installed a tube and bearings for the new steering system. Turning brakes were also added using a combination of parts from a row crop “A” and styled “AR.”

The frame was extended in the front by bending a piece of one-half inch by four inch steel to the same curve of the styled grill. Since there was no center pedestal to bolt the two halves of the grill to, like there is on a row crop tractor, a piece of sheet metal of the same dimensions had to be made. For this, the help of John Deere restoration legend Lawrence Van Zante, who lives nearby, was enlisted. Brackets to mount the styled hood were made and the water and exhaust pipes were reshaped.

To complete the sheet metal, the steering rod hole in the hood was closed and styled “AR” rear fenders were bolted to the rear axles.

After three years of work, Obie Van Dyk has a tractor that looks like something that might have rolled out the door at the Waterloo factory, but actually rolled out the door of a home shop in Pella, Iowa.

 

That’s Obie with the tractor below, however he sold it at Mecum’s 2015 auction, and it is now owned by Mike Scher of Columbus, Indiana.

January 2020

If you've already purchased digital magazine access, . To get access, you must purchase either a digital or digital+print subscription. Click here for more info.

The Smallest Combines of the 1960s.

0

 

 

This article isn’t strictly John Deere but it does give comparisons to Deere’s smallest self propelled combine, the model 40.

Although a few were produced earlier, self-propelled combines made their first big splash in the 1940s. Most of these combines were large and expensive for their day and usually only appealed to larger farmers and custom operators. In an effort to increase sales, some manufacturers designed combines in a size and price range affordable for those farming a quarter section or less, while others were content to stay out of that segment of the market.

 

To be eligible for this competition, the combine had to have either started or ended its production in the 1960s. Since Oliver, Minneapolis Moline and Ford tended to sell the same combines with different paint jobs, rather than have a three way tie somewhere in the middle, we’ve included three different models.

 

We’ve used three criteria to judge the size of these combines. The first is engine cubic inch displacement. While horsepower might have been a better benchmark, ratings from these engines are in many cases nearly impossible to find. The second test is cylinder width. As you will see, this varies widely in this group of combines. Grain bin or, as some prefer to call them, “tank” capacity is the third test.

 

9: New Holland got into the combine business later than the other companies in this contest, which perhaps was part of the reason its small combine technology suffered. The model 975 introduced in 1965 could do no better than seventh in any of the individual categories. This fact doomed it to a last place finish.

8: The Oliver 35 likely wasn’t considered a small combine when it was originally designed in the 1950s. However, it was built until 1964 and at that time was the company’s smallest machine. Its 244 cubic inch engine was the largest in the test, which helped drag it down to an eighth place finish.

7: The Minneapolis Moline 2890’s 226 cubic inch engine and massive 62 bushel grain tank didn’t even let it finish high enough to get a participation ribbon. It was seventh.

6: The Ford 611 was almost drug down by its powerful 223 cubic inch engine, but its 27.6 inch cylinder helped it to a somewhat respectable tie for fifth place.

5: Tying with the Ford for fifth place was the Case 600. Its 40 inch cylinder, which was second largest in the competition, was its downfall.

4: Before the competition, I might have guessed that the McCormick Deering 91 would have been a contender. Unfortunately, its 41.5 inch cylinder was the largest of any of the combines and it was too much to overcome. If we could have given it a bonus deduction for being the only one of our group to have steering levers rather than a steering wheel, we would have; however, competition rules didn’t allow that, so the 91 ends up in fourth place.

3: Finally to the medal round, and we start with the Gleaner “E.” Its 40 bushel grain tank and 27 inch cylinder made it a contender; however, its 226 cubic inch engine kept it from placing any higher. Bronze medal.

2: Our silver medalist is the John Deere model 40. Its engine, stolen from a 1010 tractor, was the smallest of the bunch and its cylinder was second narrowest.

  1. The Massey Harris 35 ran away with the competition. Its diminutive combine score of 4 was half that of the closest competitor. In the individual categories, it ranked first in grain tank lack-of-size, first in cylinder narrowness and second in cubic inches. Gold medalist and winner by a knockout.

Deere 400 goes “Hmmmmmmmmm”.

0

 

Some of you are probably old enough to remember the old Mazda car commercials from the 1970s and ’80s. At that time, Mazda was using smooth and quiet, though not very fuel efficient, Wankel rotary engines in its cars and the little jingle in the commercials said, “Piston engine goes boing, boing, boing boing, boing, boing, boing but the Mazda goes hmmmmmmmmm.”

Bill Schwab of Cincinnati, Ohio saw one of these rotary engines sitting at a swap meet one day and thought to himself that it might look good sitting in a John Deere lawn and garden tractor. It’s not like this was a revolutionary idea for Bill. He had already successfully transplanted a Craftsman V-Twin engine into a 212 and Geo Metro three cylinder and Pontiac “Iron Duke” four cylinder engines into 300 series tractors. And he has the skills to do it, having worked at the family’s welding and fabrication shop for 58 years.

For the Mazda engine, though, Bill felt that he would need a little more room than the 300 series could offer, so he found a model 400 with a bad engine. It was still a tight fit and probably the most difficult part of the job. The engine had to be high enough to clear the steering shaft, low enough to clear the hood and back enough to allow room for a radiator.

When Bill bought the engine, it was still attached to the original four-speed transmission. Since the starter was bolted to the clutch housing, and the clutch housing was part of the transmission, the two had to be cut apart.

Because of the way the 400’s original Kohler engine sat in the tractor, the Mazda engine now ran the hydrostat backwards. This, in turn, made the tractor’s hydrostat lever work backwards, having to push it forward for reverse and back for forward. To solve this problem, a jackshaft was built into the linkage and the lever now worked as it did originally.

The spec sheet for a Mazda RX-2 (which is probably what the engine was originally installed in) listed it as having 97 horsepower. The turbo charger was not original equipment on the Mazda rotary engine, but was added sometime between when the car left the factory and when Bill bought the engine. How many horsepower it would add is unknown, and isn’t really important, because Bill never runs the engine at high enough RPM to create enough boost to have an effect. To do so would ruin the hydrostat in short order.

Bill Schwab doesn’t know what his next project will be, but he has several ideas. Part of the fun of it for him is finding the needed parts without spending too much. He has collected a Triumph Spitfire engine, a flat head Kohler four cylinder engine and has considered an all electric articulated tractor. Of that list, only the last one will “hmmmm” any quieter than the 400 rotary.

If you would like to see that old Mazda “boing boing” commercial. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHzeGEHWMjo

December 2019

If you've already purchased digital magazine access, . To get access, you must purchase either a digital or digital+print subscription. Click here for more info.
- Advertisements -