The following document was generated using Google Gemini

The Compounding Costs of Hubris and Flawed Engineering: Financial and Strategic Displacement Following the Ford Select-O-Speed Failure

I. Executive Summary: The Compounding Cost of Hubris and Flawed Engineering

The history of the Ford Tractor Division in the early 1960s provides a crucial case study in the devastating consequences of flawed product development, institutional hubris, and catastrophic talent management. The introduction and subsequent failure of the Select-O-Speed powershift transmission, particularly within the flagship Model 6000 tractor, marked a historical pivot point in agricultural machinery manufacturing. This internal quality control failure directly generated severe external competitive consequences that fundamentally reshaped the American farm equipment landscape for the subsequent decade.

The proximate financial cost to Ford was significant, necessitating an unprecedented corporate response. The Select-O-Speed failure, spearheaded by the flawed Model 6000, required an “unheard-of” full recall and comprehensive rebuilding of all units.¹ This massive remedial effort required an estimated 18-month cessation of factory operations, resulting in millions of dollars in absorbed fixed costs and lost production capacity.³

However, the more profound cost was strategic. The refusal of Ford management to heed the validated warnings of Chief Engineer Harold Brock regarding the transmission’s readiness led directly to his termination and immediate transfer to rival John Deere in 1959.⁴ Brock, a veteran engineer instrumental in previous Ford successes, then led the design team that developed the highly successful John Deere 4020 tractor.³ This reliable machine, equipped with a superior Power Shift transmission, went on to sell over 184,000 units ⁵, representing the critical high-horsepower market share Ford had been positioned to capture but instead ceded.

The core conclusion of this analysis is that the managerial decision to fire Brock transformed a high-cost quality control issue into a generational strategic defeat. By alienating its most experienced engineering talent and simultaneously launching a defective flagship product, Ford directly fueled the competitive superiority and market dominance of John Deere in the critical high-horsepower tractor segment throughout the 1960s.

II. The Strategic Landscape of Early 1960s Agricultural Machinery: Innovation Pressure and Market Risk

A. Ford’s Market Position and Pressure for Innovation

By the late 1950s, the once-unrivaled glory years and high sales volumes of Ford’s N-series tractors, such as the famous 8N, had begun to fade.² The company was facing an intense need for technological modernization, particularly in the critical horsepower segment. Ford’s largest machines delivered less than 50 horsepower, while main competitors were actively introducing new models in the 60- to 80-horsepower range.² Ford was losing market share in the rapidly expanding agricultural machinery market.

This technological lag was coupled with intense internal financial pressure. Following the company’s decision to go public in 1956, the performance of the Tractor Division was closely scrutinized by over 350,000 stockholders.² This environment mandated an immediate, aggressive strategy to reassert Ford as a major farm manufacturer. The company responded by restructuring and merging its separate US and British operations in 1961, creating the consolidated Ford Tractor Division.² This merger signaled a strategic commitment to catching up in the horsepower race and developing market-leading features.

B. The Dawn of Powershift Technology

The agricultural industry recognized that the next major efficiency leap would come from improved transmission technology. Full powershift transmissions, which allowed the operator to shift seamlessly between gears “on-the-go” without clutching or stopping the tractor, were identified as the future.⁶ Ford was technically an industry trailblazer, attempting to lead this revolution. The company introduced its pioneering Select-O-Speed transmission—a full powershift system offering ten forward speeds and two reverse speeds—as early as 1959 on its smaller 601, 701, 801, and 901 series tractors.⁶ This engineering move, utilizing hydraulic clutch packs, bands, and planetary gears, was conceptually brilliant and showcased Ford’s capacity for advanced innovation.⁸

The promotional material for the Select-O-Speed emphasized seamless shifting, extraordinary control, versatility, and Ford’s commitment to reliability and simplified maintenance.⁷ If successful, this technology would have secured Ford a commanding early lead in a decade-defining feature.

C. The Model 6000: Ford’s Flagship Leapfrog Attempt (1961)

The Select-O-Speed transmission became the cornerstone feature of the all-new Model 6000 tractor, proudly introduced by Ford in 1961.¹ This high-styled machine was intended to be Ford’s entry into the critical higher-horsepower segment, featuring a beefy 242-cubic-inch six-cylinder diesel engine.² The 6000 incorporated multiple advancements, including an innovative accumulator hydraulic system designed to store pressure (up to 1500 psi) to supplement the pump during peak demand, disk brakes, and a Category II three-point hitch.²

The rapid development and launch of the Model 6000 demonstrated that the strategic imperative to enter the 60-80 hp market segment and appease stockholders was overriding engineering due diligence. The company’s focus on gaining an immediate market presence with a technologically advanced, high-horsepower machine was immense.² This pressure for an immediate “high-horsepower” market presence was ultimately prioritized above the long-term integrity of the product and the counsel of its chief engineering staff, setting the stage for a critical institutional risk failure.

III. Analysis of the Select-O-Speed Failure: Direct and Proximate Financial Cost Attribution

A. Technical Root Causes and Operational Disasters

The ambition of the Select-O-Speed system was matched only by its unreliability in the field. The transmission, which relied on the precise engagement and release of hydraulic clutch packs and bands, proved incapable of maintaining reliable performance under typical agricultural strain.⁸ Early models introduced in 1959 already had faults, which were partially addressed under warranty, but the widespread issues persisted.¹⁰

The detailed technical reports of malfunction indicate a fundamental design or manufacturing flaw related to hydraulics and precision componentry.¹¹ Common failures included low fluid pressure, bands not releasing (Band 1, 2, or 3) or not applying correctly, defective servo return springs, stuck spool valves, and scoring or burring of the servo mechanisms.¹¹ The system was not robust enough for heavy farm work.

The serviceability of the transmission compounded the issue, driving up warranty costs astronomically. When the complex hydraulic and mechanical systems failed, the resulting internal damage—often described as shrapnel—spread throughout the transmission.⁹ Repair required the specialized replacement of each separate clutch pack, and the installation of complex valve systems made the process difficult and time-consuming for dealers and mechanics.⁹ The catastrophic nature of the component failure contrasted sharply with the promotional claims of simplified maintenance.⁷

B. The Cost of the Mandatory Recall and Warranty Claims

The severity and widespread nature of the mechanical failures, particularly in the flagship Model 6000, quickly led to a crisis. Ford was forced to take the “unheard-of move” of initiating a full mandatory recall of every 6000 tractor sold.¹

Recalls require the manufacturer to conduct the designated repairs or replacements at absolutely no cost to the owner.¹² This involved a full re-engineering and rebuilding of the tractors to fix systemic issues that plagued not just the transmission but also the engine, hydraulic system, and final drive of the 6000.² The sheer scale of internal component replacement (complex clutch packs, bands, servos, hydraulic system parts) across all recalled units constituted a massive, non-recoverable warranty expense. This expense was magnified by the serviceability issues, as each repair represented a highly technical, total overhaul.⁹ The compounding impact of customer frustration, significant downtime for farmers, and the logistical nightmare of collecting, repairing, and re-delivering every unit damaged Ford’s relationship with its user base and eroded market confidence.¹

C. The 18-Month Factory Shutdown Proxy

A staggering indicator of the depth of the engineering crisis is the necessary cessation of production. Following his departure, the chief engineer Harold Brock noted that Ford was compelled to “shut down the factory for eighteen months” in order to address and correct the profound, systemic design flaws.³

An 18-month halt to production for an entire tractor line constitutes a catastrophic financial event. This stoppage forced the Ford Tractor Division to absorb all fixed overhead costs—including facility maintenance, utilities, and specialized labor—without any corresponding revenue generation from the flagship product line.¹³ Furthermore, the cessation of production represented 18 months of lost sales capacity for the Model 6000, creating a critical product availability gap precisely when Ford needed to compete aggressively in the growing high-horsepower market segment.² The organizational acknowledgment of the failure was further demonstrated by the subsequent firing of the divisional manager Merritt Hill and chief engineer Ray Miller, the personnel responsible for overriding Brock’s warnings and pushing the product to market.³

D. Reputational Cost and Rebranding

The extensive rebuilding process took time, and the tractors were eventually re-released in 1963. To signal this shift and attempt to formally dissociate the new product from the failed original, Ford implemented two key changes: a new paint scheme (blue and light gray, abandoning the original red and cream livery) and a new designation: the 6000 Commander.¹ This extensive rebranding exercise was a direct consequence of the catastrophic loss of brand equity suffered by the original 6000 model.¹

Even with technical upgrades, the damage was irreversible. The initial transmission failure confirmed that Ford had difficulties producing reliable, durable, high-horsepower equipment.² Though later Select-O-Speed versions were upgraded and more durable, the initial widespread failures generated a pervasive “bad reputation” that hampered future sales and market acceptance.¹⁰ The technical ambition of the Select-O-Speed, combined with its fragility, resulted in immense financial damage that was only amplified by the poor serviceability of the complex components, ensuring that every warranty claim was a costly, complex overhaul. The resultant 18-month product gap provided competitors with a perfect window to launch reliable alternatives.

Table 1: Key Indicators of Select-O-Speed Failure and Direct Costs

Failure Mechanism/Cost Proxy	Affected Models/Timeline	Proximate Financial Impact	Source/Reference
Engineering Defect (Technical)	1959 Select-O-Speed (100 Series) & Model 6000 (1961)	High warranty claims, complex and costly unit repairs due to catastrophic internal damage	9
Production Disruption	Ford Model 6000 (c. 1961-1963)	Factory shutdown estimated at 18 months, resulting in absorbed fixed overhead costs and immense lost revenue	3
Quality Mandate (Recall)	All Model 6000 tractors	Costs of full rebuilds, re-engineering (Commander series), and associated materials and labor (covered by Ford)	1
Executive Consequence	Ford Tractor Division (1960s)	Firing of division manager Merritt Hill and chief engineer Ray Miller, expense of organizational restructuring	3

IV. The Cost of Firing Harold Brock: Strategic and Opportunity Cost Analysis

A. Brock’s Institutional Value and Legacy

Harold L. Brock was arguably the single most important individual in Ford’s tractor engineering history. His career at Ford began in 1929 when he enrolled in Henry Ford’s Trade and Apprentice School at the age of 15.³ Brock worked directly alongside American industrial legends, including Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, and George Washington Carver.¹⁵ He was a foundational figure, instrumental in designing the landmark Ford-Ferguson 9N tractor and later leading the design of the highly successful N-series models, such as the 8N, and the 600-900 series.³ Brock was promoted to Chief Engineer of tractor design and represented the intellectual heritage of Ford’s most iconic machinery successes.

B. The Warning Ignored: A Failure of Corporate Governance

Brock’s departure stemmed directly from a core failure of corporate governance regarding product integrity and risk management. As Chief Engineer, Brock recognized that the Select-O-Speed transmission, despite its technological ambition, was flawed and failing stress tests.¹⁹ He firmly opposed its premature introduction into mass production, advising management that the unit “wouldn’t work”.⁴

Under immense pressure to launch the high-horsepower Model 6000, Ford management dismissed Brock’s technical risk assessment. When management insisted on putting the flawed transmission into production, Brock delivered an ultimatum: “you better get yourself a new chief engineer”.¹⁹ He was subsequently fired, confirming management’s preference for aggressive market timing over established engineering integrity.⁴ This decision to disregard the validated technical warning of the Chief Engineer was the fundamental organizational error.

C. Immediate Competitive Shift: Brock’s Transfer to John Deere (1959)

The consequence of this managerial dismissal was instantaneous and devastating to Ford’s competitive position. In 1959, the year Brock departed Ford, he was immediately contacted and hired by Bill Hewitt, the CEO of Deere & Co..⁴ Brock joined John Deere’s Tractor Works in Waterloo, taking on powerful roles first as director of Tractor Research and later as the firm’s first worldwide manager of Product Engineering.³

At the time, Deere management was concerned they would be competitively disadvantaged by Ford’s announced Select-O-Speed, feeling pressure to develop their own powershift solution.⁴ Brock immediately provided Deere with crucial proprietary failure insight and strategic reassurance. He told the Deere team not to worry, stating confidently that the Select-O-Speed “won’t work” and that Deere could instead focus resources on designing a superior system, which they named the Power Shift.⁴

Ford not only lost a visionary, highly specialized engineer but, through Brock, inadvertently provided its primary competitor with a perfect defensive strategy. Brock’s assurance minimized Deere’s defensive R&D risk, saved them time and expense on competitive analysis, and allowed them to focus resources entirely on developing a robust and reliable product, thereby accelerating the technological leap Ford had intended to make. This transfer of key talent was equivalent to subsidizing the R&D of the primary competitor.

D. The Talent Loss as an Inverse R&D Investment

The cost of losing Harold Brock—a multi-generational talent with institutional memory and technical design mastery—far exceeded the immediate technical recall costs. The Select-O-Speed failure was a high-dollar maintenance problem, but Brock’s firing was a strategic competitive subsidy. His departure directly translated into enabling John Deere to achieve a $Y competitive advantage, where $Y is the total revenue and market share captured by the successful John Deere 4020 over the next decade.

The scale of Ford’s organizational failure was underscored years later when management, having realized the extent of the failure and having fired the managers responsible for the original dismissal (Hill and Miller), attempted to persuade Brock to return to Ford.³ Brock declined the offer.³ This failed attempt to reacquire the talent indicated a profound, late-stage realization of the error, confirming that the initial decision to override the engineer’s judgment resulted in an irreparable breakdown of institutional trust and loyalty.

V. Competitive Displacement Modeling: The Cost of Ceding the Powershift Market

A. The Competitive Launch Timeline

The critical period for market dominance in the high-horsepower segment coincided perfectly with Ford’s product crisis. Ford’s timeline was disastrously executed:

• 1959: Select-O-Speed introduced on small tractors.⁶ Harold Brock fired and hired by John Deere.⁴
• 1961: Ford launches flagship Model 6000.¹ Widespread failures commence.²
• 1961–1963: Ford engages in the crisis period, including the 18-month factory shutdown and planning the full recall.³
• 1963: Ford re-releases the redesigned 6000 Commander.¹ John Deere launches the Harold Brock-designed 4020.³

The 18-month production gap suffered by Ford provided Deere with two years of reduced competition, ensuring that the launch of their successful new line was not challenged by Ford’s intended flagship product. This timing maximized the strategic damage to Ford and the benefit to Deere.

B. The John Deere 4020: Brock’s Retaliatory Masterpiece

The John Deere 4020, launched in 1963, was an immediate and overwhelming success. Designed by the team Brock led, the 4020 is remembered as one of the most influential and important tractors in U.S. history.¹⁷ Its defining competitive advantage was its transmission: the John Deere 4020 featured the “first successful full powershift transmission” (the Power Shift), which offered the same functional advantage Ford had sought, but with proven reliability.³

The success of the 4020 confirmed the validity of Brock’s assessment. While Ford paid the R&D costs and bore the reputation cost of introducing the powershift concept, Deere reaped the revenue benefit by delivering the reliable, production-ready version. The 4020 remained in the Deere lineup for an extended run, influencing tractor design long after its introduction, and many units continue to be utilized today.³

C. Opportunity Cost Quantification: Production Volume Analysis

The most direct and quantitative measure of Ford’s strategic loss is the production disparity between the flawed Ford 6000 and the highly reliable JD 4020 over the decade that followed the failure.

The total production of the John Deere 4020 between its launch in 1963 and the end of its run in 1972 was staggering, with estimates ranging from over 177,000 ²² to approximately 200,000 units ²³, and specific data citing 184,879 total units manufactured.⁵

This volume established decisive competitive dominance. The 4020’s production volume eclipsed that of its primary rival, International Harvester (IH). During the equivalent competitive period, IH’s collective sales of competitive models (706, 806, 1206, etc.) totaled only around 150,000 units.²³ The failure and recall of the Ford 6000 effectively removed a major competitor from the field during the critical launch and growth years of the 4020, granting Deere an uncontested market lead in the lucrative high-horsepower category.

Conversely, Ford’s 6000 production was severely limited and interrupted by the 18-month factory shutdown and mandatory recall.¹ The sales volume that Ford achieved with the 6000/6000 Commander was negligible in comparison to the nearly 185,000 units sold by the John Deere 4020. This volume disparity represents the lost market share and revenue Ford effectively transferred to John Deere.

Table 2: Estimated Production and Market Impact: Ford 6000 vs. John Deere 4020 (1961-1972)

Metric	Ford 6000/6000 Commander	John Deere 4020 (Brock Design)	Opportunity Cost Proxy (Units Lost by Ford)
Primary Production Years	1961–c. 1967 (Interrupted by 18-month Shutdown)	1963–1972	Loss of sales during crucial high-horsepower segment growth
Transmission System	Select-O-Speed (Flawed Powershift)	Power Shift (Reliable, Market-Defining Powershift)	Technological lag and reputation damage
Estimated Total Production	Highly Limited (Low Sales before/after Recall)	184,879 – 200,000+ units	Represents the market share Ford failed to capture in their own target segment 5
Key Designer	Post-Brock team	Harold Brock (Hired 1959)	Ceding competitive R&D leadership 4

D. Market Share Erosion and Long-Term Credibility Loss

The prolonged success of the 4020 under Brock’s design leadership permanently shifted market dominance. The reliability of the 4020 cemented John Deere’s reputation as the unequivocal leader in reliable, high-tech farm machinery.²⁴ Meanwhile, the Select-O-Speed disaster solidified the perception that Ford, despite its innovation attempts, struggled to produce reliable equipment in the higher-horsepower categories following the N-series era.² Ford’s inability to deliver a high-quality product in this crucial segment for years after 1961 meant a permanent erosion of market share and long-term customer trust, directly enabling John Deere’s rise to competitive supremacy in the 1960s.

VI. Conclusion and Recommendations: Modeling Comprehensive Cost and Lessons in Risk Management

A. Synthesis of the Dual Cost Structure

The comprehensive cost incurred by Ford due to the Select-O-Speed debacle and the concurrent loss of Harold Brock is fundamentally dual-natured:

1. Direct Failure Cost: This is modeled by the quantifiable manufacturing disruption, including the staggering fixed costs absorbed during the estimated 18-month factory shutdown ³, the materials and labor required for the mandatory full recall and rebuild (Model 6000 to 6000 Commander), and associated management replacement.¹⁴ This cost stream represents high-dollar expense and operational inefficiency.
2. Strategic Opportunity Cost: This non-recoverable cost is quantified by the lost market share and revenue, explicitly modeled by the sales volume of the highly successful John Deere 4020 (approximately 185,000 units over nine years).⁵ This strategic damage was directly activated by the firing of Harold Brock in 1959, which equipped Ford’s primary competitor with superior engineering talent and crucial proprietary insight into Ford’s product flaws.⁴

The organizational failure was the disregard of the Chief Engineer’s validated warnings in favor of aggressive market timing.¹⁹ This management decision illustrates the devastating financial consequences that arise when corporate hubris and time-to-market pressures undermine established, expert technical risk assessment. The Select-O-Speed failure serves as a corporate warning that a technical mistake, while costly, is recoverable, but the deliberate alienation and transfer of core intellectual talent can lead to generational competitive displacement.

Table 3: Ford’s Cost Attribution Model for the Select-O-Speed Failure and Brock’s Departure

Cost Category	Direct/Proximate Cost (Select-O-Speed Failure)	Opportunity/Strategic Cost (Harold Brock Departure)	Long-Term Qualitative Impact
Financial & Manufacturing	Cost of 18-month shutdown, comprehensive recall expenses, warranty burden, wasted R&D	Lost market share revenue defined by 4020 dominance (c. 185,000 units)	Negative brand equity, delayed powershift adoption and leadership
Talent & Personnel	Expense of management replacement and internal organizational friction, poor morale	Loss of proven, visionary leadership (designer of 9N) who subsequently empowered the main competitor	Institutional decline in expertise and strategic continuity
Competitive Position	Ceding the powershift technological lead (despite being first to market in 1959)	Enabling John Deere to establish a market-defining product (4020) and a reputation for superior reliability	Cementing John Deere’s leadership in the high-horsepower segment for over a decade 5

B. Recommendations for Modern Industrial Corporations (Lessons from 1960s Ford)

Based on the analysis of this strategic failure, the following recommendations are critical for large industrial corporations operating in highly competitive, capital-intensive R&D fields:

1. Establish Strict Technical Veto Authority:

Governance structures must ensure that senior technical staff, particularly Chief Engineers responsible for core system integrity, maintain explicit and unassailable veto power over product launches that fail critical quality or stress testing thresholds. This mechanism isolates engineering due diligence from short-term executive or shareholder pressure for time-to-market performance. The Select-O-Speed failure demonstrates that rushing a product to market against technical advice guarantees a catastrophic strategic outcome.

2. Model and Value Core Talent Portability:

Senior management must recognize that highly specialized, long-tenured talent with institutional knowledge (such as Brock, who understood Ford’s systems intimately) represents an immense competitive risk if alienated. Strategic planning must incorporate models that quantify the negative transfer of intellectual capital if a key designer defects to a competitor. Talent retention strategies should be prioritized over short-term production expediency, as the transfer of talent can fundamentally reconfigure competitive advantage, turning a rival’s uncertainty into confirmed certainty and accelerating their development timeline.4

3. Prioritize Reliability over Time-to-Market:

The Select-O-Speed case definitively proves that being first to market with a flawed, high-cost product yields minimal long-term strategic benefit. In the capital goods industry, reliability defines generational brand equity. John Deere’s approach—being slightly later to market with the robust and reliable Power Shift—allowed them to capture nearly 200,000 sales in a decade, securing a leadership position that persisted for years. Product integrity should be the defining metric for launch approval, as reputation damage from mechanical failure far outweighs the cost of a temporary delay.

Works cited

1. An Innovative Flop: Remembering the Ford 6000 Tractor – Grainews, accessed November 23, 2025, https://www.grainews.ca/machinery/an-innovative-flop-remembering-the-ford-6000-tractor/
2. The Rise, Fall, and Reinvention of Ford Tractors – Successful Farming, accessed November 23, 2025, https://www.agriculture.com/the-rise-fall-and-reinvention-of-ford-tractors-7545362
3. Tractor pioneer remembered for his legacy – Farm and Dairy, accessed November 23, 2025, https://www.farmanddairy.com/columns/21291/21291.html
4. weekly farm newspaper source for ag news … – Farm World, accessed November 23, 2025, http://www.farmworldonline.com/news/ArchiveArticle.asp?newsid=11986
5. John Deere 4020 – Wikipedia, accessed November 23, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Deere_4020
6. Tractor Trendsetters: Ford Select-O-Speed Transmission – AgWeb, accessed November 23, 2025, https://www.agweb.com/opinion/tractor-trendsetters-ford-select-o-speed-transmission
7. Ford Select-o-Speed Promotional Film – YouTube, accessed November 23, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z24vxZ9kzDM
8. Tractor Identification and Model History – Ford Fordson Collectors Association, accessed November 23, 2025, https://fordtractorcollectors.com/identify-my-tractor/tractor-id-history/
9. The Ford 6000 Commander | Farms.com, accessed November 23, 2025, https://m.farms.com/ag-industry-news/the-ford-6000-commander-456.aspx
10. Ford Select o Speed Transmission Differences – YouTube, accessed November 23, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8g25sfg4CeQ
11. Select-o-Speed Trans Problems – Ford Fordson Collectors Association, accessed November 23, 2025, https://fordtractorcollectors.com/select-o-speed-trans-problems/
12. Will I be charged for my recall repair? – Ford, accessed November 23, 2025, https://www.ford.com/support/how-tos/recall/recalls-and-faqs/will-i-be-charged-for-my-recall-repair/
13. Used Ford 4000 Tractors for Sale – 17 Listings – Machinery Pete, accessed November 23, 2025, https://www.machinerypete.com/tractors/40-99-hp/ford/4000
14. Ford 901 Select-O-Speed Tractor – Prezi, accessed November 23, 2025, https://prezi.com/nucxziqmgl_n/ford-901-select-o-speed-tractor/?fallback=1
15. The Man Who Made Ford 9N & JD 4020 Tractors: Harold Brock Interview Part 1 – YouTube, accessed November 23, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsRUGZFVC5c
16. The Man Who Made Ford 9N & John Deere 4020 Tractors – Apple Podcasts, accessed November 23, 2025, https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-man-who-made-ford-9n-john-deere-4020-tractors/id1473619391?i=1000455508059
17. “The Man Who Built the 4020 – The Harold Brock Story” – YouTube, accessed November 23, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPmHB_JQdTM
18. Legendary Tractor Designer – Farmweek – August 16, 2013 – YouTube, accessed November 23, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NRQowoDnis
19. Ford Select O Speed – General Chat – Red Power Magazine, accessed November 23, 2025, https://www.redpowermagazine.com/forums/topic/94833-ford-select-o-speed/
20. Warning! Select-o-Speed Transmission on Ford Tractors, Be Careful of This Feature, accessed November 23, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Onqx_Uvz-7Q
21. John Deere 4020 Tractor – Felthorpe Lawn Mowers, accessed November 23, 2025, https://www.felthorpelawnmowers.co.uk/john-deere-4020-tractor/
22. John Deere 4020 Tractor Auction Results | MachineFinder, accessed November 23, 2025, https://blog.machinefinder.com/2402/nicest-john-deere-4020
23. 806 vs 4020 production #’s – General Chat – Red Power Magazine, accessed November 23, 2025, https://www.redpowermagazine.com/forums/topic/104918-806-vs-4020-production-s/
24. A Piece of History Slips Away: Harold Brock Remembered | N-News, accessed November 23, 2025, https://n-news.com/2013/03/a-piece-of-history-slips-away-harold-brock-remembered/