Cletrac's Vaunted Crawler Line

  • MODEL W 12-20

    This was the third tractor model made by Cleveland Tractor serving as the successor to the Models R (1916 to 1917) and H (1917 to 1919). But it was the Model W 12-20 that firmly established Cletrac as a farmyard name as over 17,000 of this tractor sold during its 13-year production life.

  • MODEL F 9-16

    The little brother of the Model W, the Cletrac F, was one of the first crawlers designed
    specially to operate in row crops. Selling for a very affordable $595 in 1920, the F was also unique in that it employed a top drive sprocket, marking it as the first crawler to feature this design still in use on some crawlers today.

  • MODEL 20K

    Another popular Cletrac crawler with just over 10,000 built from 1926 to 1932, the Model 20 was sold with the powerful Hercules 4x41/2-inch gas engine. Power was transferred through a three-speed transmission to tracks set on a 40-inch tread width.

  • MODEL 25

    Built from 1932 to 1935, the Model 25 was equipped with a planetary gear system that delivered power to both tracks even when turning, accounting for the crawler’s short 81⁄2-ft. turning radius. The Model 25 sold for $1,850 in 1932, the year it was introduced.

  • MODEL 40-30

    Built from 1928 to 1931, just 323 Model 40-30s were built. Power was supplied by a Hercules six-cylinder engine with a 41/4 by 41/2-inch bore and stroke. Power was transferred to the tracks through a two-speed transmission. Recommended to pull a five-bottom plow, the Model 40-30 was priced to sell at $2,475.

  • MODEL E-62

    When introduced in the late 1930s, the E-62 (62 representing this crawler's tread width) provided farmers with a sleek looking crawler that still could get a lot of work done. Power for the crawler was supplied by a Buda Model 4DT-212, 35/8 by 51/8-inch bore-and-stroke four-cylinder engine paired with a two-speed transmission.

  • MODEL EG orchard

    The EG Orchard version shows off the sleek “stream-lined Cletrac” that Cleveland Tractor adopted for its crawlers in the late 1930s. This crawler was powered by a Hercules Model OOC four-cylinder engine featuring removable sleeves. Power was transferred through a three-speed transmission providing a maximum drawbar horsepower of 201/2 hp. The EG was offered with either 42- or 62-inch tread widths.


    Introduced in 1935, the Model EN was rated to pull a two- to three-bottom plow with power supplied by a Hercules 4x41/2-inch L-head, four-cylinder gas engine. Power was transferred through a two-speed transmission to tracks set at a 56-inch tread width.


    Built from 1939 to 1951, this very popular Cletrac crawler was the tracked version of the General GG wheel-type tractor. Offered in 31-, 42-, 60-, and 68-inch tread widths, roughly 2,000 HGs sold. Power was supplied by a Hercules Model OOC 4x41/4-inch four-cylinder engine.


    Cletrac’s one and only wheel-type tractor, the General GG, was eventually sold under no less than five different brand names. First it was produced by Cleveland Tractor between 1939 to 1942 as the General GG as well as custom built by Cleveland as the Twin Row for sale by Montgomery Wards (the department store) and the Co-op sold by Farmers Union Co-op.


    When Oliver purchased Cleveland Tractor in 1944, it obtained a crawler line that was one of the few serious competitors to Caterpillar. This, the smallest model of the Oliver Cletrac line, the HG, was sold with 6-, 8-, 10-, and 12-inch-wide tracks. In 1945, Oliver offered a rubber-tracked version of the HG, called the HGR.


    The Cleveland Tractor participated in the war effort by constructing this, the M2 High-Speed Tractor in 1942. The rubber-tracked crawler vehicle was used at Army Air Force bases during WW II for moving aircraft and heavy trailers. The Cletrac was particularly effective for moving vehicles or aircraft that had become bogged down in mud.

  • Slide 13

Read more about

Machinery Talk

Most Recent Poll

Will you have enough on-farm storage for harvest?

I just want to see the responses
46% (26 votes)
39% (22 votes)
No, it’s going to be a bin-buster
7% (4 votes)
Maybe, depending on yields
5% (3 votes)
No, I am looking at new bins or temporary storage
4% (2 votes)
Total votes: 57
Thank you for voting.