| December/January 1988

23/12/27 Q. See the two enclosed photos of an Ottawa saw, s/n 17697. As the photos show, it is an upright engine, and is rated at 6 HP. Is this a one-of-a-kind, or did they produce a great many of these? The Ottawa name is cast into the engine base, although the motor looks like a Wisconsin. Robert Hall, jr., 32564 Cable Dr., Dowagiac, MI 49047.

A. Our understanding is that Wisconsin built these engines for Ottawa. We believe your machine also included a buzz saw blade that could be set vertically for bucking up logs, and could be set in a horizontal position for felling. Presumably this machine was intended to replace the earlier drag saw (and in fact, a drag saw attachment may have been available for this outfit), but the introduction of the chain saw quickly rendered these machines obsolete. We have no information as to the number sold.

23/12/28 Joe Gross, 96 National Drive, Grafton, OH 44044 recently acquired a 7 HP Empire engine and would appreciate hearing from other Empire owners so far as restoration, color scheme, etc.

23/12/29 Q. See the photo (below) of our 1942 John Deere LA tractor. The rear rubber is original, and each tire has a 1-inch red rubber 'patch' on the sidewall. (It is visible in the photo.) What was the significance-possibly an identification for wartime rationing?

On our IHC 3 HP 'M' engine with the early type igniter and low tension magneto, there is no nameplate nor does there appear to have been one. Our 1? HP 'M' of similar vintage has a large nameplate on it. Was the 3 HP IHC produced during the IHC struggle with the U.S. government? The serial number lists in your book, 150 Years of International Harvester show prefix letters for all the 'M' engines, although our 1? HP 'M' is 73441 with no prefix letters. Bill Loftus, RR 2, Delhi, Ontario, Canada.

A. Oftentimes, IHC included the prefix letters for the serial number in the original nameplate etching-only the number itself was hand-stamped onto the plate. It's hard to imagine an IHC engine without a nameplate. Somehow or other, they seemed to manage a good-sized nameplate on almost everything they built. We doubt that the matter of the United States vs. International Harvester Company had any bearing on engine production. Initiated shortly after the company was formed, the government case rested primarily on violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, unfair monopoly of the harvesting machine industry, etc. etc. Compared to some other mergers which took place about the same time, the case against IHC now seems preposterous, especially when we look at some of today's mergers!