On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 19:59:06 -0500, dpb wrote:

Roy wrote:
On Jul 31, 3:10 pm, "RBM" wrote:
...

It was a standard feature built into some older cars. You flipped a lever
and "freewheeled" Whenever you weren't accelerating, it just coasted
==

==
Massey-Ferguson made a few models of tractors that way. ...

I'd have to see the spec's for that to believe it...

I don't know about M-F having any hand clutch models or not, but either
that or the 2-speed power-shift w/ a neutral between is the only way I'm
aware of that any tractor would have such a behavior. Since Ferguson
wasn't folded into Massey-Harris until the early to mid-50s sometime, it
would have had to been fairly modern to have been M-F branded and it
"just does not compute". I'm thinking the story has been sanitized in
the telling...

Have had several that did have hand clutches and Allis-Chalmers w/ the
"Power Director" (their version of the 2-speed power-shift). Never seen
any that would free-wheel unless shifted or clutch disengaged.

You haven't seen 'em all!!!


The MF1100 (as well as the 135, 65, and 165, among others) had
"Multipower" as an option. Built from 1964 to 1972.
With the multi-power system there is one hydraulic clutch pack and
also a ratchet type assembly. When in low multi the hydraulic clutch
is dissengaged and the drive goes through a pair of gears into a
ratchet clutch which takes the drive to the gearbox. There is no
engine breaking in low multi because of the ratchet clutch. When you
move the transmission to high multi it locks up the hydraulic clutch
and the hydraulic clutch gear drives another gear. Because the drive
is now turning faster than through the low-multi ratchet clutch, this
now becomes a free-wheeling device. It is for this reason that there
is engine breaking in high multi power, but no engine breaking in low
multi power.
This is also why if you are in high multi going up a hill and you
depress the clutch pedal that whilst in gear no roll-back can occur
because of the ratchet clutch. ie. both systems are locked together.
The hydraulic multi-power clutch is not torque converter, but is
merely a multi-plate hydraulically operated clutch pack. The good
thing about this is that there is no loss of power through to the
gearbox.
The clutch is a conventional clutch and so is the 3 speed gearbox.

So now you have the whole story.

wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 19:23:32 -0400,
wrote:

On 7/30/2010 7:17 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
In , wrote:
On 7/30/2010 5:46 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
In
,
wrote:

They both use the same gas, in gear or out, with foot of the
accelerator its in idle mode, just enough gas to run the motor.

You didn't read the article, did you?

According to the article, when coasting in gear, the injectors don't deliver
ANY gas to the cylinders.

Well, engines don't use any gas while slowing to idle speed.

Once the engine is at idle speed it needs gas to keep running- so it
depends on how long you are coasting vs. how long it takes the engine to
slow to idle speed.

I guess you didn't read the article either...

Yes, I did read it& I understand how engines work. You can't coast
forever& use no gas unless you turn the engine off, what am I missing here?

MikeB

MikeB
What you are missing is the engine is being turned over by the wheels
through the transmission, with the fuel shut off untill a mi imum
engine speed is reached, where the fuel comes back on. In many cases,
putting the car in neutral does NOT allow the engine to return to curb
idle - it idles at almost the same speed as the engine would be
running in gear at the speed you are coasting.. My PT cruiser behaves
this way - the idle slows down as the car coasts to a lower speed.

This is what my SUV does. If I put it in neutral while coasting down a
hill the engine revs at the RPM the car's computer estimates will cause
the least amount of resistance when reengaged. As a matter of fact as
the car gains speed rolling down the hill the engine's RPM increase.

On Jul 31, 6:59*pm, dpb wrote:
Roy wrote:
On Jul 31, 3:10 pm, "RBM" wrote:

...

It was a standard feature built into some older cars. You flipped a lever
and "freewheeled" Whenever you weren't accelerating, it just coasted
==

==
Massey-Ferguson made a few models of tractors that way. ...

I'd have to see the spec's for that to believe it...

I don't know about M-F having any hand clutch models or not, but either
that or the 2-speed power-shift w/ a neutral between is the only way I'm
aware of that any tractor would have such a behavior. *Since Ferguson
wasn't folded into Massey-Harris until the early to mid-50s sometime, it
would have had to been fairly modern to have been M-F branded and it
"just does not compute". *I'm thinking the story has been sanitized in
the telling...

Have had several that did have hand clutches and Allis-Chalmers w/ the
"Power Director" (their version of the 2-speed power-shift). *Never seen
any that would free-wheel unless shifted or clutch disengaged.

--

==
The MF1100 had a pull up bolt on the cab floor which was pulled/pushed
up or down to engage or disengage the freewheeling aspect. I know
cause I owned one of them...these were the bigger tractors not those
puny little Ferguson pieces of **** that were a glorified go cart. The
1100 could pull a 14' cultivator with ease. It had a dual range
transmission. I bought mine used for next to nothing and used it until
the motor packed it in....oh, and it does compute. I have a service
manual which I will sell for $25 if you are interested.

==

On Jul 31, 7:38*pm, wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 19:59:06 -0500, dpb wrote:
Roy wrote:
On Jul 31, 3:10 pm, "RBM" wrote:
...

It was a standard feature built into some older cars. You flipped a lever
and "freewheeled" Whenever you weren't accelerating, it just coasted
==

==
Massey-Ferguson made a few models of tractors that way. ...

I'd have to see the spec's for that to believe it...

I don't know about M-F having any hand clutch models or not, but either
that or the 2-speed power-shift w/ a neutral between is the only way I'm
aware of that any tractor would have such a behavior. *Since Ferguson
wasn't folded into Massey-Harris until the early to mid-50s sometime, it
would have had to been fairly modern to have been M-F branded and it
"just does not compute". *I'm thinking the story has been sanitized in
the telling...

Have had several that did have hand clutches and Allis-Chalmers w/ the
"Power Director" (their version of the 2-speed power-shift). *Never seen
any that would free-wheel unless shifted or clutch disengaged.

You haven't seen 'em all!!!

The MF1100 (as well as the 135, 65, and 165, among others) had
"Multipower" as an option. Built from 1964 to 1972.
With the multi-power system there is one hydraulic clutch pack and
also a ratchet type assembly. When in low multi the hydraulic clutch
is dissengaged and the drive goes through a pair of gears into a
ratchet clutch which takes the drive to the gearbox. There is no
engine breaking in low multi because of the ratchet clutch. When you
move the transmission to high multi it locks up the hydraulic clutch
and the hydraulic clutch gear drives another gear. Because the drive
is now turning faster than through the low-multi ratchet clutch, this
now becomes a free-wheeling device. It is for this reason that there
is engine breaking in high multi power, but no engine breaking in low
multi power.
This is also why if you are in high multi going up a hill and you
depress the clutch pedal that whilst in gear no roll-back can occur
because of the ratchet clutch. ie. both systems are locked together.
The hydraulic multi-power clutch is not torque converter, but is
merely a multi-plate hydraulically operated clutch pack. The good
thing about this is that there is no loss of power through to the
gearbox.
The clutch is a conventional clutch and so is the 3 speed gearbox.

So now you have the whole story.

==
I couldn't have said it better...thanks.
==

On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 09:29:04 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

So says Popular Mechanics:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars...?click=pm_news

'Course the author is assuming an internal combustion engine. Presumably
with a hybrid, the coasting actually CHARGES the batteries, thereby
increasing gas mileage. I'm not even going to get into external combustion
engines...

Where in this article does the author consider engine braking lowering
the speed of the vehicle? Thus increasing the need for gas because of
more frequent and longer acceleration.

Using neutral delays and reduces the need for acceleration and thus
increases gas mileage.

This article is a good example for not believing everything you read.

"Roy" wrote in message
...
On Jul 31, 7:38 pm, wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 19:59:06 -0500, dpb wrote:
Roy wrote:
On Jul 31, 3:10 pm, "RBM" wrote:
...

It was a standard feature built into some older cars. You flipped a
lever
and "freewheeled" Whenever you weren't accelerating, it just coasted
==

==
Massey-Ferguson made a few models of tractors that way. ...

I'd have to see the spec's for that to believe it...

I don't know about M-F having any hand clutch models or not, but either
that or the 2-speed power-shift w/ a neutral between is the only way I'm
aware of that any tractor would have such a behavior. Since Ferguson
wasn't folded into Massey-Harris until the early to mid-50s sometime, it
would have had to been fairly modern to have been M-F branded and it
"just does not compute". I'm thinking the story has been sanitized in
the telling...

Have had several that did have hand clutches and Allis-Chalmers w/ the
"Power Director" (their version of the 2-speed power-shift). Never seen
any that would free-wheel unless shifted or clutch disengaged.

You haven't seen 'em all!!!

The MF1100 (as well as the 135, 65, and 165, among others) had
"Multipower" as an option. Built from 1964 to 1972.
With the multi-power system there is one hydraulic clutch pack and
also a ratchet type assembly. When in low multi the hydraulic clutch
is dissengaged and the drive goes through a pair of gears into a
ratchet clutch which takes the drive to the gearbox. There is no
engine breaking in low multi because of the ratchet clutch. When you
move the transmission to high multi it locks up the hydraulic clutch
and the hydraulic clutch gear drives another gear. Because the drive
is now turning faster than through the low-multi ratchet clutch, this
now becomes a free-wheeling device. It is for this reason that there
is engine breaking in high multi power, but no engine breaking in low
multi power.
This is also why if you are in high multi going up a hill and you
depress the clutch pedal that whilst in gear no roll-back can occur
because of the ratchet clutch. ie. both systems are locked together.
The hydraulic multi-power clutch is not torque converter, but is
merely a multi-plate hydraulically operated clutch pack. The good
thing about this is that there is no loss of power through to the
gearbox.
The clutch is a conventional clutch and so is the 3 speed gearbox.

So now you have the whole story.

==
I couldn't have said it better...thanks.

Here is the actual article:

How Does Massey Ferguson Multi Power Work
We are often asked how the multi power system on models such as the Massey
Ferguson 65, 135, 165 etc. works. What really seems to intrigue people is
that the engine breaking system works when in high multi-power, but there is
no engine breaking when in low multi-power...

With the multi-power system there is one hydraulic clutch pack and also a
ratchet type assembly. When in low multi the hydraulic clutch is dissengaged
and the drive goes through a pair of gears into a ratchet clutch which takes
the drive to the gearbox. There is no engine breaking in low multi because
of the ratchet clutch. When you move the transmission to high multi it locks
up the hydraulic clutch and the hydraulic clutch gear drives another gear.
Because the drive is now turning faster than through the low-multi ratchet
clutch, this now becomes a free-wheeling device. It is for this reason that
there is engine breaking in high multi power, but no engine breaking in low
multi power.
This is also why if you are in high multi going up a hill and you depress
the clutch pedal that whilst in gear no roll-back can occur because of the
ratchet clutch. ie. both systems are locked together. The hydraulic
multi-power clutch is not torque converter, but is merely a multi-plate
hydraulically operated clutch pack. The good thing about this is that there
is no loss of power through to the gearbox.
The clutch is a conventional clutch and so is the 3 speed gearbox.


==

wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 19:59:06 -0500, dpb wrote:

Roy wrote:
On Jul 31, 3:10 pm, "RBM" wrote:
...

It was a standard feature built into some older cars. You flipped a lever
and "freewheeled" Whenever you weren't accelerating, it just coasted
==
==
Massey-Ferguson made a few models of tractors that way. ...
I'd have to see the spec's for that to believe it...

I don't know about M-F having any hand clutch models or not, but either
that or the 2-speed power-shift w/ a neutral between is the only way I'm
aware of that any tractor would have such a behavior. Since Ferguson
wasn't folded into Massey-Harris until the early to mid-50s sometime, it
would have had to been fairly modern to have been M-F branded and it
"just does not compute". I'm thinking the story has been sanitized in
the telling...

Have had several that did have hand clutches and Allis-Chalmers w/ the
"Power Director" (their version of the 2-speed power-shift). Never seen
any that would free-wheel unless shifted or clutch disengaged.

You haven't seen 'em all!!!


The MF1100 (as well as the 135, 65, and 165, among others) had
"Multipower" as an option. Built from 1964 to 1972.
With the multi-power system there is one hydraulic clutch pack and
also a ratchet type assembly. When in low multi the hydraulic clutch
is dissengaged and the drive goes through a pair of gears into a
ratchet clutch which takes the drive to the gearbox. There is no
engine breaking in low multi because of the ratchet clutch. When you
move the transmission to high multi it locks up the hydraulic clutch
and the hydraulic clutch gear drives another gear. Because the drive
is now turning faster than through the low-multi ratchet clutch, this
now becomes a free-wheeling device. It is for this reason that there
is engine breaking in high multi power, but no engine breaking in low
multi power.
This is also why if you are in high multi going up a hill and you
depress the clutch pedal that whilst in gear no roll-back can occur
because of the ratchet clutch. ie. both systems are locked together.
The hydraulic multi-power clutch is not torque converter, but is
merely a multi-plate hydraulically operated clutch pack. The good
thing about this is that there is no loss of power through to the
gearbox.
The clutch is a conventional clutch and so is the 3 speed gearbox.

So now you have the whole story.

Interesting...I was not aware of that--there were virtually no Massey
tractors ever in this area; they dominated the combine market for a
while when the 90's came out but IH red, Deere green and Case orange
were the only significant tractor varieties by the early 60s thru the
merger wars w/ just a smattering of Allis, M-M and Oliver. Nuow there's
Deere dominates in almost everything other than some specialty items.

I'll agree that's a seemingly worthless feature; can't see what it was
intended to accomplish useful but certainly wouldn't be good in roading
situation.

Grandad bought a little A-C WD45 when he was getting less able but still
wanted something he could manage and a full line of the snap-coupler
attachments. Since we had so much in the equipment, Dad traded up to a
D-17 and I did a _lot_ of row crop work (milo sorghum) with it. It had
the 2-speed power ranger w/ the disengaged section between shifting that
occasionally would be the cause of trouble in a loaded condition if
tried, particularly to shift up under heavy load. In low gear w/ load
it might come to a complete halt and in our sandy conditions could then
bounce and dig when engaged the high speed and then one had a mess in
the field w/ a hole/hill...but it was always possible in a road
situation to shift it in w/o needing to clutch so it wouldn't ever run
away from you.

--

On Jul 30, 12:05*pm, ransley wrote:
On Jul 30, 9:29*am, "HeyBub" wrote:

So says Popular Mechanics:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars...ting-in-neutra...

'Course the author is assuming an internal combustion engine. Presumably
with a hybrid, the coasting actually CHARGES the batteries, thereby
increasing gas mileage. I'm not even going to get into external combustion
engines...

I dont buy it, it isnt a gasolene consumption issue, when coasting in
gear the engine is not moving at idle speed, the extra rpms are a drag
on the transmission and lower mpg, the trans also has more drag being
in gear. He is only thinking gasolene not drivetrain friction loss.

How can it NOT be a gasoline consumption issue? Either it save gas
or not. Isn't that the point?

If there is a problem with the Popular Mechanics analysis, I'd say
it's that they seem to assume you come to a stop at the bottom of the
hill. Let's say you're coming down one hill and then going back up
another. If you coasted in neutral and allowed the car to pick up
additional speed, then at the bottom, that momentum would reduce gas
consumption for a brief period when going up the next hill. Of
course the problem with that is that you could only pick up a little
more speed without things becoming unsafe, you lose engine braking and
the gas saved isn't worth it.

Another interesting thing that PM didn't talk about. They said that
while going downhill in gear the fuel flow to the injectors is
actually zero. If you coasted in neutral, the fuel flow would have to
resume so the engine could idle. So, it seems like you could
actually use MORE fuel coasting.

On Jul 30, 7:52*pm, BQ340 wrote:
On 7/30/2010 7:44 PM, Doug Miller wrote:





In , *wrote:
On 7/30/2010 7:17 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
In ,
* wrote:
On 7/30/2010 5:46 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
In
,
* *wrote:

They both use the same gas, in gear or out, with foot of the
accelerator its in idle mode, just enough gas to run the motor.

You didn't read the article, did you?

According to the article, when coasting in gear, the injectors don't
deliver
ANY gas to the cylinders.

Well, engines don't use any gas while slowing to idle speed.

Once the engine is at idle speed it needs gas to keep running- so it
depends on how long you are coasting vs. how long it takes the engine to
slow to idle speed.

I guess you didn't read the article either...

Yes, I did read it& *I understand how engines work. You can't coast
forever& *use no gas unless you turn the engine off, what am I missing here?

Where did anyone suggest you could "coast forever& *use no gas"? What you're
missing is the concept that if there is no signal pulse to the injector, then
the injector delivers no fuel -- and if the injectors aren't delivering fuel
to the cylinders, then it's IMPOSSIBLE for the engine to be using ANY fuel.

I was expanding on your statement "According to the article, when
coasting in gear, the injectors don't deliver ANY gas to the cylinders."

That is true, it uses no fuel, but only until the engine reaches idle
speed- then it uses fuel again as the car continues to coast.

MikeB- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

As Doug pointed out, that isn't what the article says. Even at idle
speed the engine doesn't need any gas as long as it's coasting. The
car movement is turning the engine over. It's only when the car
slows way down and creeps to a stop that fuel flow resumes.

RBM wrote:
"Roy" wrote in message
...
On Jul 31, 7:38 pm, wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 19:59:06 -0500, dpb wrote:
Roy wrote:
On Jul 31, 3:10 pm, "RBM" wrote:
...
It was a standard feature built into some older cars. You flipped a
lever
and "freewheeled" Whenever you weren't accelerating, it just coasted
==
==
Massey-Ferguson made a few models of tractors that way. ...
I'd have to see the spec's for that to believe it...
I don't know about M-F having any hand clutch models or not, but either
that or the 2-speed power-shift w/ a neutral between is the only way I'm
aware of that any tractor would have such a behavior. Since Ferguson
wasn't folded into Massey-Harris until the early to mid-50s sometime, it
would have had to been fairly modern to have been M-F branded and it
"just does not compute". I'm thinking the story has been sanitized in
the telling...
Have had several that did have hand clutches and Allis-Chalmers w/ the
"Power Director" (their version of the 2-speed power-shift). Never seen
any that would free-wheel unless shifted or clutch disengaged.
You haven't seen 'em all!!!

The MF1100 (as well as the 135, 65, and 165, among others) had
"Multipower" as an option. Built from 1964 to 1972.
With the multi-power system there is one hydraulic clutch pack and
also a ratchet type assembly. When in low multi the hydraulic clutch
is dissengaged and the drive goes through a pair of gears into a
ratchet clutch which takes the drive to the gearbox. There is no
engine breaking in low multi because of the ratchet clutch. When you
move the transmission to high multi it locks up the hydraulic clutch
and the hydraulic clutch gear drives another gear. Because the drive
is now turning faster than through the low-multi ratchet clutch, this
now becomes a free-wheeling device. It is for this reason that there
is engine breaking in high multi power, but no engine breaking in low
multi power.
This is also why if you are in high multi going up a hill and you
depress the clutch pedal that whilst in gear no roll-back can occur
because of the ratchet clutch. ie. both systems are locked together.
The hydraulic multi-power clutch is not torque converter, but is
merely a multi-plate hydraulically operated clutch pack. The good
thing about this is that there is no loss of power through to the
gearbox.
The clutch is a conventional clutch and so is the 3 speed gearbox.

So now you have the whole story.

==
I couldn't have said it better...thanks.

Here is the actual article:

How Does Massey Ferguson Multi Power Work
We are often asked how the multi power system on models such as the Massey
Ferguson 65, 135, 165 etc. works. What really seems to intrigue people is
that the engine breaking system works when in high multi-power, but there is
no engine breaking when in low multi-power...

With the multi-power system there is one hydraulic clutch pack and also a
ratchet type assembly. When in low multi the hydraulic clutch is dissengaged
and the drive goes through a pair of gears into a ratchet clutch which takes
the drive to the gearbox. There is no engine breaking in low multi because
of the ratchet clutch. When you move the transmission to high multi it locks
up the hydraulic clutch and the hydraulic clutch gear drives another gear.
Because the drive is now turning faster than through the low-multi ratchet
clutch, this now becomes a free-wheeling device. It is for this reason that
there is engine breaking in high multi power, but no engine breaking in low
multi power.
This is also why if you are in high multi going up a hill and you depress
the clutch pedal that whilst in gear no roll-back can occur because of the
ratchet clutch. ie. both systems are locked together. The hydraulic
multi-power clutch is not torque converter, but is merely a multi-plate
hydraulically operated clutch pack. The good thing about this is that there
is no loss of power through to the gearbox.
The clutch is a conventional clutch and so is the 3 speed gearbox.

What was the advantage of freewheeling on a big tractor? I can
understand the ratchet to keep it from rolling backwards, but surely
they could have done that without the freewheeling.

wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 09:29:04 -0500,
wrote:

So says Popular Mechanics:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars...?click=pm_news

'Course the author is assuming an internal combustion engine. Presumably
with a hybrid, the coasting actually CHARGES the batteries, thereby
increasing gas mileage. I'm not even going to get into external combustion
engines...

Where in this article does the author consider engine braking lowering
the speed of the vehicle? Thus increasing the need for gas because of
more frequent and longer acceleration.

Using neutral delays and reduces the need for acceleration and thus
increases gas mileage.

This article is a good example for not believing everything you read.



In the case of my SUV I can shift into "M" - manual and either choose to
use a gear that has engine braking, maintain the speed, or even gain
speed depending on the the incline.

Tony wrote:
....

What was the advantage of freewheeling on a big tractor? I can
understand the ratchet to keep it from rolling backwards, but surely
they could have done that without the freewheeling.

I see none; I found only the barest mention on the M-F site in the
heritage section of the Multi-Power transmission and that was the
following...

In 1962, the industry’s first ‘change-on-the-move’ gearbox,
‘Multi-Power’, was offered as an option on selected MF tractors.

Sometimes one can find vintage sales literature on such features online
but I haven't been able to so far in a relatively short time.

I had thought it was only a dual-speed arrangement similar to the A-C
and others; have never run across a live animal of the type and wasn't
aware of the free-wheeling nature of the design.

It seems, indeed, perilous in that mode w/ any grade and an implement in
tow in particular out of ground for transport, say.

--

On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 08:02:05 -0500, dpb wrote:

wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 19:59:06 -0500, dpb wrote:

Roy wrote:
On Jul 31, 3:10 pm, "RBM" wrote:
...

It was a standard feature built into some older cars. You flipped a lever
and "freewheeled" Whenever you weren't accelerating, it just coasted
==
==
Massey-Ferguson made a few models of tractors that way. ...
I'd have to see the spec's for that to believe it...

I don't know about M-F having any hand clutch models or not, but either
that or the 2-speed power-shift w/ a neutral between is the only way I'm
aware of that any tractor would have such a behavior. Since Ferguson
wasn't folded into Massey-Harris until the early to mid-50s sometime, it
would have had to been fairly modern to have been M-F branded and it
"just does not compute". I'm thinking the story has been sanitized in
the telling...

Have had several that did have hand clutches and Allis-Chalmers w/ the
"Power Director" (their version of the 2-speed power-shift). Never seen
any that would free-wheel unless shifted or clutch disengaged.

You haven't seen 'em all!!!


The MF1100 (as well as the 135, 65, and 165, among others) had
"Multipower" as an option. Built from 1964 to 1972.
With the multi-power system there is one hydraulic clutch pack and
also a ratchet type assembly. When in low multi the hydraulic clutch
is dissengaged and the drive goes through a pair of gears into a
ratchet clutch which takes the drive to the gearbox. There is no
engine breaking in low multi because of the ratchet clutch. When you
move the transmission to high multi it locks up the hydraulic clutch
and the hydraulic clutch gear drives another gear. Because the drive
is now turning faster than through the low-multi ratchet clutch, this
now becomes a free-wheeling device. It is for this reason that there
is engine breaking in high multi power, but no engine breaking in low
multi power.
This is also why if you are in high multi going up a hill and you
depress the clutch pedal that whilst in gear no roll-back can occur
because of the ratchet clutch. ie. both systems are locked together.
The hydraulic multi-power clutch is not torque converter, but is
merely a multi-plate hydraulically operated clutch pack. The good
thing about this is that there is no loss of power through to the
gearbox.
The clutch is a conventional clutch and so is the 3 speed gearbox.

So now you have the whole story.

Interesting...I was not aware of that--there were virtually no Massey
tractors ever in this area; they dominated the combine market for a
while when the 90's came out but IH red, Deere green and Case orange
were the only significant tractor varieties by the early 60s thru the
merger wars w/ just a smattering of Allis, M-M and Oliver. Nuow there's
Deere dominates in almost everything other than some specialty items.

I'll agree that's a seemingly worthless feature; can't see what it was
intended to accomplish useful but certainly wouldn't be good in roading
situation.

One thing it accomplished was a "hill holder" in high range, and the
second is an extremely easy to implement clutchless downshift.

Grandad bought a little A-C WD45 when he was getting less able but still
wanted something he could manage and a full line of the snap-coupler
attachments. Since we had so much in the equipment, Dad traded up to a
D-17 and I did a _lot_ of row crop work (milo sorghum) with it. It had
the 2-speed power ranger w/ the disengaged section between shifting that
occasionally would be the cause of trouble in a loaded condition if
tried, particularly to shift up under heavy load. In low gear w/ load
it might come to a complete halt and in our sandy conditions could then
bounce and dig when engaged the high speed and then one had a mess in
the field w/ a hole/hill...but it was always possible in a road
situation to shift it in w/o needing to clutch so it wouldn't ever run
away from you.

On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 11:39:11 -0400, Tony
wrote:

RBM wrote:
"Roy" wrote in message
...
On Jul 31, 7:38 pm, wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 19:59:06 -0500, dpb wrote:
Roy wrote:
On Jul 31, 3:10 pm, "RBM" wrote:
...
It was a standard feature built into some older cars. You flipped a
lever
and "freewheeled" Whenever you weren't accelerating, it just coasted
==
==
Massey-Ferguson made a few models of tractors that way. ...
I'd have to see the spec's for that to believe it...
I don't know about M-F having any hand clutch models or not, but either
that or the 2-speed power-shift w/ a neutral between is the only way I'm
aware of that any tractor would have such a behavior. Since Ferguson
wasn't folded into Massey-Harris until the early to mid-50s sometime, it
would have had to been fairly modern to have been M-F branded and it
"just does not compute". I'm thinking the story has been sanitized in
the telling...
Have had several that did have hand clutches and Allis-Chalmers w/ the
"Power Director" (their version of the 2-speed power-shift). Never seen
any that would free-wheel unless shifted or clutch disengaged.
You haven't seen 'em all!!!

The MF1100 (as well as the 135, 65, and 165, among others) had
"Multipower" as an option. Built from 1964 to 1972.
With the multi-power system there is one hydraulic clutch pack and
also a ratchet type assembly. When in low multi the hydraulic clutch
is dissengaged and the drive goes through a pair of gears into a
ratchet clutch which takes the drive to the gearbox. There is no
engine breaking in low multi because of the ratchet clutch. When you
move the transmission to high multi it locks up the hydraulic clutch
and the hydraulic clutch gear drives another gear. Because the drive
is now turning faster than through the low-multi ratchet clutch, this
now becomes a free-wheeling device. It is for this reason that there
is engine breaking in high multi power, but no engine breaking in low
multi power.
This is also why if you are in high multi going up a hill and you
depress the clutch pedal that whilst in gear no roll-back can occur
because of the ratchet clutch. ie. both systems are locked together.
The hydraulic multi-power clutch is not torque converter, but is
merely a multi-plate hydraulically operated clutch pack. The good
thing about this is that there is no loss of power through to the
gearbox.
The clutch is a conventional clutch and so is the 3 speed gearbox.

So now you have the whole story.

==
I couldn't have said it better...thanks.

Here is the actual article:

How Does Massey Ferguson Multi Power Work
We are often asked how the multi power system on models such as the Massey
Ferguson 65, 135, 165 etc. works. What really seems to intrigue people is
that the engine breaking system works when in high multi-power, but there is
no engine breaking when in low multi-power...

With the multi-power system there is one hydraulic clutch pack and also a
ratchet type assembly. When in low multi the hydraulic clutch is dissengaged
and the drive goes through a pair of gears into a ratchet clutch which takes
the drive to the gearbox. There is no engine breaking in low multi because
of the ratchet clutch. When you move the transmission to high multi it locks
up the hydraulic clutch and the hydraulic clutch gear drives another gear.
Because the drive is now turning faster than through the low-multi ratchet
clutch, this now becomes a free-wheeling device. It is for this reason that
there is engine breaking in high multi power, but no engine breaking in low
multi power.
This is also why if you are in high multi going up a hill and you depress
the clutch pedal that whilst in gear no roll-back can occur because of the
ratchet clutch. ie. both systems are locked together. The hydraulic
multi-power clutch is not torque converter, but is merely a multi-plate
hydraulically operated clutch pack. The good thing about this is that there
is no loss of power through to the gearbox.
The clutch is a conventional clutch and so is the 3 speed gearbox.

What was the advantage of freewheeling on a big tractor? I can
understand the ratchet to keep it from rolling backwards, but surely
they could have done that without the freewheeling.
Simplicity. The dual rang and hillholder were one simple mechanism.
To make dual range and hillholder without freewheel in low would have
required almost twice as much mechanism.

wrote:
On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 08:02:05 -0500, dpb wrote:
....

I'll agree that's a seemingly worthless feature; can't see what it was
intended to accomplish useful but certainly wouldn't be good in roading
situation.

One thing it accomplished was a "hill holder" in high range, and the
second is an extremely easy to implement clutchless downshift.

It seems that the free-wheeling was a side effect of the design rather
than a design feature, maybe. I'm sure it was somehow advertised as a
boon although.

The A-C power-shifter accomplished the clutchless downshift as did
several other variations (but w/o the hill holder, of course).

That would have had some value in some places but out here on the high
plains it would have served no purpose as one would have to hunt really
hard to find any hill upon which to practice.

--

dpb wrote:
wrote:
On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 08:02:05 -0500, dpb wrote:
...

I'll agree that's a seemingly worthless feature; can't see what it
was intended to accomplish useful but certainly wouldn't be good in
roading situation.

One thing it accomplished was a "hill holder" in high range, and the
second is an extremely easy to implement clutchless downshift.
....

For clarification, I meant that only the freewheeling was a worthless
feature; certainly the clutchless downshift is useful and in some
circumstances I could see the hill-holder (albeit not much call for it
around here).

--

wrote:

Another interesting thing that PM didn't talk about. They said that
while going downhill in gear the fuel flow to the injectors is
actually zero. If you coasted in neutral, the fuel flow would have to
resume so the engine could idle. So, it seems like you could
actually use MORE fuel coasting.

That's what they said. Coasting in gear equals zero fuel consumption.
Coasting in neutral uses idle speed gas.

Whatever the latter is, it is more than zero.

dpb wrote:
wrote:
On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 08:02:05 -0500, dpb wrote:
...

I'll agree that's a seemingly worthless feature; can't see what it
was intended to accomplish useful but certainly wouldn't be good in
roading situation.

One thing it accomplished was a "hill holder" in high range, and the
second is an extremely easy to implement clutchless downshift.

It seems that the free-wheeling was a side effect of the design rather
than a design feature, maybe. I'm sure it was somehow advertised as a
boon although.

The A-C power-shifter accomplished the clutchless downshift as did
several other variations (but w/o the hill holder, of course).

That would have had some value in some places but out here on the high
plains it would have served no purpose as one would have to hunt really
hard to find any hill upon which to practice.

--

My dad had a 971 Ford with the 10 speed Selecto-0-Speed
transmission. The tractor would coast in some gears too. I think 5th,
6th, and 9th.
They had red lines drawn through the gear numbers to indicate which ones
were the coast gears.

Dean Hoffman wrote:
dpb wrote:
....
... that's a seemingly worthless feature; can't see what it
was intended to accomplish useful but certainly wouldn't be good in
roading situation.
....
My dad had a 971 Ford with the 10 speed Selecto-0-Speed
transmission. The tractor would coast in some gears too. I think 5th,
6th, and 9th.
They had red lines drawn through the gear numbers to indicate which ones
were the coast gears.

OK, so there was at least one other w/ the aberration...

Did you ever find an actual productive use for the feature?

Or do you recall if Ford had some sales pitch?

--

On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 07:15:28 -0500, dpb wrote:

Dean Hoffman wrote:
dpb wrote:
...
... that's a seemingly worthless feature; can't see what it
was intended to accomplish useful but certainly wouldn't be good in
roading situation.
...
My dad had a 971 Ford with the 10 speed Selecto-0-Speed
transmission. The tractor would coast in some gears too. I think 5th,
6th, and 9th.
They had red lines drawn through the gear numbers to indicate which ones
were the coast gears.

OK, so there was at least one other w/ the aberration...

Did you ever find an actual productive use for the feature?

Or do you recall if Ford had some sales pitch?
The freewheel was not a "feature" it was an "artifact".

wrote:
On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 07:15:28 -0500, dpb wrote:

Dean Hoffman wrote:
dpb wrote:
...
... that's a seemingly worthless feature; can't see what it
was intended to accomplish useful but certainly wouldn't be good in
roading situation.
...
My dad had a 971 Ford with the 10 speed Selecto-0-Speed
transmission. The tractor would coast in some gears too. I think 5th,
6th, and 9th.
They had red lines drawn through the gear numbers to indicate which ones
were the coast gears.
OK, so there was at least one other w/ the aberration...

Did you ever find an actual productive use for the feature?

Or do you recall if Ford had some sales pitch?
The freewheel was not a "feature" it was an "artifact".

That was my earlier conclusion based on the M-F design.

I found a Ford sales brochure which doesn't even mention the overrunning
clutch in its extolling of Selct-O-Shift...

http://www.antiquefarming.com/PDF/ford_801.pdf

I was simply trying to find out if somebody really did have a reason
that could be advanced that I couldn't/can't see...

--

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 07:23:38 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

mm wrote:

I had a girlfriend who lived near 65th and California in SW Chicago,
when I lived near 57th and Woodlawn. I had many stop lights and a
minumum of 5 turns to make to get home from her house. I tried to do
it without using the brakes. It was usually late at night with very
little traffic. It took me about 7 tries, but eventually I made it
all t

Did it EVER occur to you that you could have saved a ton of gas and a lot of
mental aggravation, computations, and honing your driving skills by simply
staying at your girlfriend's house?

I don't think her mother would have liked that.

Wait a second. I'd still have to go home eventually. I had things to
do there.

Geeze! Why do I have to think of everything!

Maybe.

mm wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 07:23:38 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

mm wrote:

I had a girlfriend who lived near 65th and California in SW Chicago,
when I lived near 57th and Woodlawn. I had many stop lights and a
minumum of 5 turns to make to get home from her house. I tried to
do it without using the brakes. It was usually late at night with
very little traffic. It took me about 7 tries, but eventually I
made it all t

Did it EVER occur to you that you could have saved a ton of gas and
a lot of mental aggravation, computations, and honing your driving
skills by simply staying at your girlfriend's house?

I don't think her mother would have liked that.

Wait a second. I'd still have to go home eventually. I had things to
do there.

At your age then, and flush with the vigor of youth, perhaps you could have
provided mom with sufficient incentive...

dpb wrote:
Dean Hoffman wrote:
dpb wrote:
...
... that's a seemingly worthless feature; can't see what it was
intended to accomplish useful but certainly wouldn't be good in
roading situation.
...
My dad had a 971 Ford with the 10 speed Selecto-0-Speed
transmission. The tractor would coast in some gears too. I think
5th, 6th, and 9th.
They had red lines drawn through the gear numbers to indicate which
ones were the coast gears.

OK, so there was at least one other w/ the aberration...

Did you ever find an actual productive use for the feature?

No. It was something to avoid going downhill without an implement
in the ground.

Or do you recall if Ford had some sales pitch?


No, I don't. My dad bought it used. It did make a good
cultivating tractor.
There's just a little here at a site called Yesterday's Tractors.
http://tinyurl.com/32g9oso

HeyBub wrote:
So says Popular Mechanics:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars...?click=pm_news

'Course the author is assuming an internal combustion engine. Presumably
with a hybrid, the coasting actually CHARGES the batteries, thereby
increasing gas mileage. I'm not even going to get into external combustion
engines...

OK a different question. If stopped at a red light, does it save fuel
to take the vehicle out of gear? Taking it out of gear raises the
RPM's, in gear it has a load on it.

Personally, at a light I will take it out of gear if the A/C in running.

Dean Hoffman wrote:
dpb wrote:
Dean Hoffman wrote:
dpb wrote:
...
... that's a seemingly worthless feature; can't see what it was
intended to accomplish useful but certainly wouldn't be good in
roading situation.
...
My dad had a 971 Ford with the 10 speed Selecto-0-Speed
transmission. The tractor would coast in some gears too. ...
....
Did you ever find an actual productive use for the feature?

OK, thanks; was curious if somebody who had one did find a reason to
have it other than it simplified design and thereby kept cost/complexity
down.

Overall, I think I'd take the A-C power-shift or the JD synchro-mesh w/
the four ranges each w/ hi/lo/rev that was shifted sans clutch inside
each range (but required clutching between ranges).

No. It was something to avoid going downhill without an implement
in the ground.

Indeed! As noted earlier it wouldn't be an issue out here but I can
imagine it could be a lot of "fun" where we were in VA and E TN...

Or do you recall if Ford had some sales pitch?


No, I don't. My dad bought it used. It did make a good cultivating
tractor.
There's just a little here at a site called Yesterday's Tractors.
http://tinyurl.com/32g9oso
....

If you didn't see it, earlier posted a link to a sales brochure that
extolled Ford's new SOS but never mentioned the overrunning clutch.

http://www.antiquefarming.com/PDF/ford_801.pdf

What kind of cultivating out of curiousity? Corn and/or beans I
suppose...we're dryland wheat and row crops are milo (grain sorghum) and
various feeds for silage, etc. Only rarely a little dryland corn and
the occasional sunflower but beans won't make it dryland.

--

dpb wrote:

What kind of cultivating out of curiousity? Corn and/or beans I
suppose...we're dryland wheat and row crops are milo (grain sorghum) and
various feeds for silage, etc. Only rarely a little dryland corn and
the occasional sunflower but beans won't make it dryland.


Mainly corn back then. Dad did raise some soybeans but he was
one of the few. No Roundup back then so weeds were a problem in the
beans. He had a couple not very eager "volunteers" for rogueing.
One thing has really changed. There used to be whole families of
Latinos who would travel around to do the rogueing. Grandma age down to
toddler. That would be a rare sight now.
Beans are pretty common now. Roundup is one reason. Another is the
seed corn companies. Guys are alternating seed corn and beans.
Pioneer has a big plant nearby as do Mycogen and now Monsanto.
I don't remember a time when there wasn't irrigation in my area.
It's as much a part of farm life as planting and harvesting. Farmers
have gotten by this year without much irrigation so far.
Most of the irrigation is done by pivots anymore. Farmers just cut
the plant population when they get to the corners. So I do see a lot of
dryland, I guess. It's hard to tell the difference some years. One of
our farmer customers commented that the crops are much better at
handling dry weather than in the past.
Some relatives do farm dryland because of some oddity in the water
table. Milo and wheat mainly. One relative will harvest his wheat then
put in some short season beans.
I'm in south east/central Nebraska by the way.

Dean Hoffman wrote:
dpb wrote:

What kind of cultivating out of curiousity? Corn and/or beans I
suppose...we're dryland wheat and row crops are milo (grain sorghum)
and various feeds for silage, etc. Only rarely a little dryland corn
and the occasional sunflower but beans won't make it dryland.


Mainly corn back then. Dad did raise some soybeans but he was one
of the few. No Roundup back then so weeds were a problem in the beans.
He had a couple not very eager "volunteers" for rogueing.
One thing has really changed. There used to be whole families of
Latinos who would travel around to do the rogueing. Grandma age down to
toddler. That would be a rare sight now.
Beans are pretty common now. Roundup is one reason. Another is the
seed corn companies. Guys are alternating seed corn and beans. Pioneer
has a big plant nearby as do Mycogen and now Monsanto.
I don't remember a time when there wasn't irrigation in my area. It's
as much a part of farm life as planting and harvesting. Farmers have
gotten by this year without much irrigation so far.
Most of the irrigation is done by pivots anymore. Farmers just cut
the plant population when they get to the corners. So I do see a lot of
dryland, I guess. It's hard to tell the difference some years. One of
our farmer customers commented that the crops are much better at
handling dry weather than in the past.
Some relatives do farm dryland because of some oddity in the water
table. Milo and wheat mainly. One relative will harvest his wheat then
put in some short season beans.
I'm in south east/central Nebraska by the way.

There's always been irrigation here as well but water rights are closed
so expansion is only by acquiring existing water rights from somewhere
else. We're in one of those areas that has "some oddity" in the water
table; namely there's a salt water layer not terribly far below the
fresh water that if pump too much will intrude.

This is far SW KS where annual precip is roughly a third to perhaps
two-thirds of what you would expect depending how far east ya' are
there. Irrigation is, of course, center-pivot w/ some intrusion of drip
systems on trial/experimental basis. So far they're installation cost
and maintenance has kept it from taking over but it does reduce water
loss so expect it gradually will increase. Given how dry dry is out
here, many of the corners are in continuous CRP, particularly if the
ground is a little harder. The one quarter of dryland corn neighbor put
out this year look really good until mid-June when it turned hot and dry
and now it's almost completely burned up after the last two weeks of
100+F and nothing but one 3/4" rain 3 weeks ago now. I haven't walked
into it to see if it managed to make anything at all or not...

--