1948 HG-68 worth?

[crawlerfan]

Hi all,
 My neighbor has a 1948 HG-68 he is thinking of selling. Tractor runs and seems to be in fair original condition. Tin is good. Have to admit I am a Deere fan, (420C, 40C) and don't know much about these Cletracs. Any help in determining the value of this crawler would be greatly appreciated.  Thanks-Jim

[mleves]

There's a lot of factors.

ie.  where you live, seems mid west
is cheaper then eastern (where I live)

you can always check on e-bay or
antiquetractor.com for how much
ones like it sold for.


anyway, i thought $2500 was a good number.

[Blake Malkamaki]

Have to admit I am a Deere fan, (420C, 40C) and don't know much about these Cletracs.

The little Cletrac may convert you. At least for actual use it will, as the HG will run and work circles around those primitive Deeres. But if you like that 2 cylinder sound, you'll have to pull a couple plug wires off or learn to live with a smooth engine.

Blake

[Lavoy]

Not trying to start an arguement, I like anything on tracks, but I think Blake is off base.
The primitive Deere you are referring to has 50% more power than an HG, dual hydraulics, clutch type reverser, 6 way blade, 5 roller track frames, PTO, and a 3PT hitch, all factory items plus outweighs it by a ton or so.  I am a little stumped as to what is primitive about any of these options.
I have nothing against Cletrac, had a Type F, and when I win the lottery some day, I am going to have an HG31 with an Anderson blade, but unnecessarily and unfairly knocking a competitive crawler accomplishes nothing.  I honestly do not believe an HG will even begin to run with a 420, it is an MC or 40 size machine.  Kind of like saying a TD6 IH will outwork a D6 Cat, it is simply not going to happen.
Lavoy

[andy b.]

hey Lavoy, nice to see a familiar face from another board here!!!  i think Blake may have had his tongue partially planted in his cheek with his knock of the green machines.

i like the little Deere crawlers as well, but i picked up an OC-46 track loader at the end of the summer and it has impressed me with what i can do with it.

andy b.

[Lavoy]

[Lavoy]

Okay, too stupid to use the board, so will try again.
Hi Andy,
Haven't been on for a while, couldn't even remember my login, so had to start over.
Never seen an OC46 in this area, aren't they around 1010 size?  Most I ever see around here are HG/OC3.  Did see a real nice OC6 diesel last summer, but they are still using it, and it can't be bought, oh well.
Lavoy

[Blake Malkamaki]

What I meant was the HG is quick and nimble and will run circles around the old Deeres. They are not the best Cletracs built and they don't have the hydraulics and extras the Deeres have, or the large weight for a small crawler, but they are much further ahead in crawler technology. But then Cletrac had many more years to develop crawler technology.

Now the later John Deeres like the 450 and newer are good machines. They even look pretty good after borrowing the OC-96 appearance.

I would like to have a BO Lindeman though.

[Lavoy]

I am still stumped by what technology you are talking about.  You just admitted that they did not have the options or features, but yet are more advanced?  As far as nimble, I fail to see what makes them more nimble.  If you go down to a 3 roller 40 John Deere, you have about the same weight, and the same size track frame as an HG, but still with stronger finals and trackframes.   If you are basing your comment solely on differential steering, both sides of that issue can be argued until you know what freezes over, but side by side running around, it will not make the HG any faster.
If you want to talk crude, a BO is crude.  Cute as hell, got two of them, but as far as ease of operation, there is no comparison between a BO and any of the later two cylinder crawlers.
Bit of trivia:  Did you know that the first dozen or so GPO Lindemans were differential steer?
Lavoy

[andy b.]

Lavoy,

yeah, i guess the OC-46 is about 1010 size, maybe a bit smaller.  it weighs around 8100 lbs. (this is for the full track loader, not just a bare crawler).  i actually was originally looking for a 40C or 420C only because i have a 40U so i have all the manuals and know something about the basic tractor.  this Oliver came up and i'm glad i got it.  the thing that surprised me about it was that it will turn around in a space almost as wide as the track frame is long (which isn't very long).  for some reason i imagined a 20' turning radius before i had a chance to drive it.

andy b.

[Lavoy]

1010 with a loader and full rack of weights will make over 10,000 easy, so it is a little heavier.  Wonder if 1010 has less power though?  I am sure it has less torque.
You can't beat a crawler for turning radius, they will turn in their own length, but kind of hard on undercarraige if you have grouser pads.
Lavoy

[TIM HOSKINSON]

I have personally pushed dirt at a equipment show side by side me on my 1956 oc3 and the other fellow on his JD420 and I can tell you from experience that the 420 does not have the push power of the oc3. I have nothing against John Deer my brother has been a JD man for years and I like the two cylinder wheel tractors but their crawlers just really didn't do well. The oc3 with the ixb3 governed at 1800 rpm has no problem pushing with and even puling away from a JD420. The proof is in the push and I have been there. I like all the old machines but when it comes to small crawlers CLETRAC IS KING

[Lavoy]

My brother had an OC3, and we have 420's, and I would say that there is no way an OC3 will push with a 420. Isn't an OC3 rated at about 20 hp?  A 420 is rated at 30, and I know full well the 2 cylinder has more torque anywhere in the power band than the 4 cylinder in the 420.  I do not doubt one bit that the 420 you refer to got outpushed, but I would be curious to know what kind of hp it was putting out.  I have had several with bad engines that would not hardly roll themselves empty, but is that a fair comparison.  The OC3 we had was an absolute dog compared to a 40, let alone a 420.
You say the proof is in the push, and I have also been there, so we can basically argue this point until you know what freezes over.
I have stated quite clearly that I like both brands, and that I collect Deere.  My main point of this whole conversation was to point out what I believe was an unfair and inaccurate comparison.  Needlessly and baselessly bashing a competitive brand accomplishes nothing.  All brands have their merits and their drawbacks, usually in a particular model.  
It is kind of funny how a company that produced a complete piece of garbage (Deere) is still in business, and a company that made the most advanced crawler (Oliver/Cletrac) no longer exists.  This whole arguement has gotten silly, I quit.
Lavoy

[Blake Malkamaki]

Did you know that John Deere almost bought Cletrac instead of Oliver? Would that not have been a wonderful combination? And would still be in business today.

Cletrac was a very successful company and would certainly still be in business if not for Oliver's mismanagement. The only reason Cletrac was sold was because the owner King White had stomach cancer and his family was not interested in taking over.

My grandfather was Experimental Engineer at both Cletrac and Oliver Corp for many years and he tested and knew well all the competition. They were all behind as far as crawler technology until after 1961 when the Cleveland plant was closed. Especially John Deere and Case. JD got the late model Oliver OC-4 and OC-9 styling and Cat got the loader linkage from the Olivers after 1961.