Combines Gleaner F 292 vs 262

I read in a book I have that the 262 AC engine was only put in the F in the first two years of production. The 292 will probably be the most common. I think they are comparable power wise and neither are probably the best on fuel economy. I f I had to choose I would go with the GM engine powered F's, you would end up with a newer machine with a more common engine to find parts for. I worked for a farm with a 292 powered F and it did great for many years, and a guy I work with had an F diesel and he said that did real good on fuel, hope all this helps.

Thanks a lot, Kaye 2. That does help and I plan to go take a look at the F this afternoon. Hope the guy has it running. It comes w_another F for parts, if I decide to buy it. Really hoping to find an E, but scarce as hen's teeth around here (So. Ill). Any clue if the 301 diesel would fit in place of the 292, in case a guy wanted to change in the futureIJ

I run one for 17 yrs. and had excellent service out of the 292 in a 74 model F as far as fuel usage I could cut 30-40 acres of beans on a tank full, my father-in-law had a F-2 with the 4 cly, diesel and I wouldburn a little more gas in a day than his would both combines ran same size heads I also thought that my 292 had a little more snort than his did,as far as putting a 301 on one it would take alot to change it over unless you had a donor machine sitting right there to change parts off of,this is my 2cents

Thanks for all the info, guys. I've looked at the old F's and these 2 are better left to the junkyard, in my opinion. Even the "good" one has been left to sit outside for a number of years and has parts missing off of it. I did notice that the fellow selling it was wrong (either intentionally or accidentally, not sure). This F has the 262 A-C engine, meaning it can't be a '73, if I'm not mistaken. It's a shame this isn't in better shape, because it does have a hydrostatic drive... Oh well, guess I'll keep looking for the E I wanted in the first place. Happy Harvesting.