(800) 853-2651
SHOP NOW

Talk about tractors?

K

keh

Well-known Member

Ok, let's talk about tractors. What are your opinions about the best 50-65 hp utility type tractor made roughly from 1960 to 1990? Probably the most popular on was the 5000 Ford. I've never used one but I've heard the hydraulics didn't have too much capacity. Comments?

KEH
 
I don't have a tractor in the 50 to 65 hp range made between 1960 and 1990. If you can't talk about what I have I'm gonna take my ball and go home an sulk. Boo hoo hoo. TDF
 
Ehe IHC 574 is an ideal tractor about 52 PTO hp. It is built sturdy and has good hydraulics. It is a bit hard to work on. (ic, brakes are inside the gear case)but gives very little trouble
 
I never had any issues with the hydr.it was a nice tractor for baling,raking and light work very,very easy to get on and off I would recomend it we had a loader on ours too it also had select o speed.
 
The newer, the better tractors have gotten. The 74, and 84 series IH tractors are highly reccomended, but so is the rest of the Case IH utilities such as the 85, and 95 series that followed and beyond. When you get into the 95 series, some of those had shuttle shift on the dash which I believe is also called a reverser, which is absolutly beautiful for loader work.
 
The Ford 5000 is a real nice tractor for the money.The farmer I help with hay has 3 of them.We use them for tedding and pulling wagons.
Vito
 
I always had good luck with the IH 574 utility gasser that I ran for years on the farm. Had excellent hydraulic power, live pto, power steering that you could use with one finger, a darn snappy governer and had enough gears to do anything that you wanted. Four gears in high, four in low and four in reverse. She would crawl in low range and really cook in high going down the road. That tractor was big enough to do a lot of work, but small enough to get into a tight spot or scrape out a barn. Had a really tight turning radius because of the swept back front axle. The only thing that I can think of that ever gave me any trouble is the shift linkage was worn a little bit and it would ever so occasionally get stuck in low and high range at the same time. This was inconvenient, but easy to remedy with a properly placed prybar which was always kept behind the seat of every tractor we had. Sorry to be so long winded. Kippster
 
If you had the chance to operate something new, you wouldn't want to go back to the old stuff for more than a day. A climate controlled cab and 4wd, along with all the other improvements make the new iron far superior to the old equipment.
 
I don't think so, most newer tractors are diesel and the smell of diesel exhaust makes me sick. The old tractors are easier to work on and look better. My Dad grew up with the old machines so we like the old ones. I don't like the looks of new tractors either. I'm not saying newer tractors are bad, I just don't really care for them.
 
Glad to see that I am not the only one that can not handle the diesel exaust. Just following some of the new pickups just about makes me ill. Can't use the same pump aile at the filling station that has the diesel pump because just the spilled diesel makes me sick.
 
I have a 170 and a 6070. Both are very good tractors. However, the 170 is by far a better value in terms of what you have to pay for a tractor in decent condition, and what you get out of them in terms of work ability. A good 170 can be had for $4000, whereas a decent 6070 is $10,000+. Both tractors can do the same workload.
 
I can't speak on the other makes, but for John Deere - in this dairy farming area of New York the 2520 is the most popular and sought after tractor ever made by the company. Not sure if it's truly a utility tractor or not. Deere also have a 2020 with the same basic power and was lower to the ground. We had many looking to buy the 2520s 30 years ago at our dealership - and they were scrace then. Still the same today - I come across more people looking for 2520s then 4020s. I know of four farms locally that have 2520s that were bought new, and they're still using them - and won't sell. Still a few 2510s around also that are almost the same tractors.
 
I like my old tractors but I don't recall that I ever smell diesel while using my newer ones.
 
We have two diesel powershift side console 2520's. One is a wide front the other is a narrow front both purchased new. The narrow front is a really nice yard tractor.
 
It's a toss between the 4000 and 5000 in my opinion, but I'm biased...
Both had rather limited hydraulic flow by today's standards, but they're otherwise quite relevant tractors for a wide range of applications today. Durable is a word that most often comes to my mind with regard to either one.

Rod
 
I think the Massey Ferguson 165 would be the most popular hands down. Over 182,000 made in the UK alone, not counting US and France production, etc. 1960 to 1990 is too big of a gap for a good comparison. Almost all owners of 165's would highly recommend them, just like the other MF 100 series tractors. The 130 would be an exception but they are pretty rare. The 165 had the best fuel economy in it's class as well. Dave
 
That was the other quarter of the UK market I spose, eh?
Doesn't seem like a very big number to me.

Rod
 
Early 5000's weren't much to brag about. Pourous engine block castings and weak steering components were the main weak points. Later model 5000's ('69 and later) were a much better tractor.

The next step down the power ladder would have been between the Massey Ferguson 165 and the 4000 Ford. Early 4-cylinder 4000's weren't the tractor the later model 3-cylinder was. Both the 3 banger 4000 and the 165 were great tractors, but the 165 would do the same work on darn near half the fuel. 165's outsold the 4000 by a huge margin. Hydraulics on tractors in this size/age range were all a little weak by todays standards. A little later in the game, the 4600/5600 Fords and the 255/265/275 Masseys were slightly improved over earlier models. All things being equal, the Perkins (MF's) was much easier on fuel.

IH 574 was a good one, as was the Deere 2030/2440. Good hydraulics.
 
I got to go with Ohio with the 170-175 Allis or 6060-6080 but I would add the D17 series IV. But then again the newer ones are really nice if you can fix them yourself.
 
You folks are confusing me you all are talking high deck tractors versus utility tractors which one is it? there is a world of difference.
 
I don't know what percentage of sales they were. Before you start getting sarcastic, show me some production numbers for other tractors! I would imagine that they sold a lot of US models as they are very popular tractors. 4020 JD's are popular and only 264,000 or so were made. It would be reasonable to believe that US and France 165 production numbers added to UK numbers would easily be more units than 4020's. I don't think Ford 5000 production numbers are anywhere close as was suggested in the post I responded to. I also never said there weren't other good tractors. MF 100 series are hard to beat though. Obviously if you compare them to a 25 year newer tractor, they might be a little behind the technology but in 1964/65 they set the standard and it was very high. The 3pt. control is superior to any other tractor when you learn how to use it to its full potential. Before you start getting on my case for what ever reason, show me some production numbers! Dave
 
Still working on it, cleaned the carb, put in new plugs/wires, has good compression but won't start. 3 valves were stuck, but I got them freed up. I think it still needs some magneto work. Hope to have it going soon.

Thanks,
Andy
 
I heard they (165s) did well overseas. Quite well by that number. I think it is around 90,000 here in the States, so 165 sales not including France would outnumber 4020s. We have 2 in the family, both diesels. Not 100% trouble free but I'd have one over a 4000 Ford anyday.
 
I'm sure they sold well.
However... I've had this silly discussion before. What I was alluding to was that Ford built something like 350000 2/3/4/5/7/8/9000 series tractors in the US, closer 1 million in the UK and probably a figure somewhere between that in Belgium. The largest percentage of those tractors was the 4000, followed by the 5000. I'd hazard a guess that of probably 1.5 million units, fully half were 4000's or 5000's.
I'd give the sales edge to Ford, particularly in the later years of their production.

You're quite welcome to all the 165's you want as far as I'm concerned. I'd take a 4000 any day over 10 165's.

Rod
 
You can make up bogus sales figures all day long and it doesn't change a thing. Including 2000, 3000, 4000, 5000, 7000, 8000, and 9000 Ford production numbers to counter 165 numbers is totally irrelevent.

165's outsold 4000's, 135's outsold 3000's. Both by a lopsided margin. They were ALL good tractors.


And from someone who actually had BOTH, USED both, and knows the difference between the two, Id take the Massey in a heartbeat. Every bit as good in the field, every bit as durable, and FAR better on fuel.

But as you know EVERYTHING (SARCASM...) , no sense in trying to tell you anything.
 
Bull, particularly your fuel efficiency claims. If you let the Ford do the heavy work and the Massey do the light work, it'll burn a lot less fuel than the Ford. That's a fact.
The other fact, if you look at official tests is that they were statistically the same for fuel efficiency at rated power.
I'm not wasting any more time on it.

Rod
 
The fuel consuption numbers aren't even CLOSE. The Massey 100 series held records in Nebraska testing that weren't touched for years. Sure wan't a dorF that eclipsed the recrds either.

The 150 ad 165 were 2 of the most fuel efficient tractors ever built. You'll never hear that about any dorF's. At leat not from anyone capable of elling the truth.
 
Ford didn't have fuel efficiency records?
I guess you missed the test on the 8870 from 1995. It was the most efficient tractor ever tested until it was surpassed by a 30 series Deere a year or two ago, and it remains a very very close second still.
Actually, if you looked, I think you'd find that any Ford (Genesis engine)of that generation would surpass the efficiecy of any Perkins from the same generation.

Rod
 
Well if you're going to add up the 2/3/4/5/6/7/8/9000 Fords we can add up 130, 135, 150, 165, 175 & 180 Fergusons. To me it doesn't really matter how many of what were produced as I'm not in the market for a tractor right now. I'd take a 165 over a 4000 and you'd do the opposite. Thats fine. I'm sure someone would take a 806 over a 4020, and vice-versa.
 
The 100 series MF's came out in 64/65 and you're comparing the engines to, 30 year newer, 1995 engines? An MF 150 held the fuel economy record for a long time and the 165 had the best fuel economy in its class. MF was the largest tractor producer in the world even before the 100 series came out. Without knowing the complete production numbers, it is still fair to claim that the 135 alone sold more units than all the Ford models you listed, put together! Did you have a bad experience with an MF tractor as a kid or something? You're trying to dispute known facts, yet can't provide anything to back it up. As was said, 135's and 165's outsold everything else by a lopsided margin. Fuel economy tests were done under the same conditions on all tractors. The Perkins in my 1965 135 is way more fuel efficient than the Kubota of about the same power in my 1994 skid steer. It also starts a lot easier. Both are good engines though. Nobody said the Ford wasn't a good tractor but it did not sell more than the MF's and was not more fuel efficient. That's the facts! Dave
 
Just a correction. 135's sold more than 350,000 units, probably not more than all the Ford models combined. Dave
 
I was quite clearly comparing fuel efficiency from tractors of the same day in case you missed that... and it was in response to a stupid remark which stated that Ford never held a fuel efficiency record. I can probably find the test number if you want to see it.

I stil don't see either one of you producing references for your production numbers other that stating numbers...

Rod
 
UK production;
MF 135
1965-1971 S/N 101-179501= 179400 units
1971-1979 S/N 400001-90713= 49713 units
total= 270113 units
MF 165
1965-1971 S/N 500001-608557= 108,556 units
1971-1979 S/N 100001-173696=73695 units
total= 182,251
Is this precise enough for you? If not I can break it down to how many were produced each year of manufacture. These numbers came from Jarle's MF web site which was accessed through Puddingsworld web site. It has a very detailed section on MF 100 series tractors. If you wanted to compare all MF 100 and 1000 tractors to all Ford models of the same period, you'd have 100's of models of tractors. There's over a dozen 135 models alone. So Ford had 1 fuel economy record for a 30 year newer higher H.P. tractor. They never had a record in the H.P. range being discussed. I've gave you some actual production numbers. Lets see yours! I highly doubt that you can substantiate your claim that Ford made a combined 1.5 million 4000 and 5000 models. Dave
 
I didn't say they made 1.5 million of the 4000 and 5000's.
I said that the my guestimate was that they built roughly that many thousand series tractors between their three plants... and I say guestimate because I don't know what Antwerp production was.
US production is quite easily verified with the serial number start dates posted on this site. By my arithmetic, that would equate to roughly 375000-390000 units.
My observations on this site over several years tells me that Basildon serial numbers for thousand series production were in the high 900's, so that equates to close to 900000 units. Even modest production at Antwerp would top the 1.5 mil mark.
I don't have indivudual production numbers for those models, but I do know that the 4000 was the most popular followed closely by the 5000. Out of 7 tractors in the series, 3 of them coming much later, I don't think it unfair to assume that those two models comprised 1/3 to 1/2 the series production.
Even if you wanted to compare US production alone for their entire series... from the 135 to the 1155 including all the industrial models, which spans a couple more years than the Ford thousand series run and a slightly larger power range, MF still comes out at under 400000 units. That's based on the starting serial numbers plus a fair assumption of the year's production based on previous years. Obviously not exact. That information comes from the serial number listings for both on this site, accurate or not.
If one added Ford's 1976 production it would easily top that number.

All of that shows nothing really... other than to say that they were quite comparable on sales of their US produced tractors, with the probable edge going to Ford by a small amount.

I'm well aware that Coventry production was FAR above that, but so was Basildon production. Again, I'm sure that for the lot, they were quite comparable.

Rod
 
You're still including all models together. World wide MF is the largest. Period! Back in the day, Ford was second by a good margin(25%). Massey produced many more 100 series models than most people are aware of. They include; 122,125,130,132,133,135,139,140,142,145,147,148,150,152,154,155,157,158,160,164,165,168,174,175,177,178,180,184,185,188,194, then the 1000 series, which has many different models. A lot of models had several different versions as well and several other companies produced them under license. MF had 90 manufacturing plants by 1980 in 30 countries and were represented in 190 countries. Even in 1970, they had 59 factories in 22 countries and were sold in 182 countries. This includes all types of equipment. 100 series were produced in 19 factories in 1970 and that jumped to 35 by 1972, up to a peak of 40 in 1975/76. I'm sorry if you can't accept that MF outsold Ford. Both are global companies, so world wide sales would be the most accurate measure of units sold. JD sells the most in N. America but only in N. America. World wide, I think they're number 4 or used to be. The Banner Lane factory was the largest tractor factory in the world. Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

W
YM 1502D 3P Won't Lower
Replies
0
Views
3K
winston-HT
W
D
You have a new JD convert. I'm gonna need some on-going advice
2 3
Replies
41
Views
2K
Poppy Johnny
Poppy Johnny
B
1972 ford 3400
Replies
4
Views
1K
cdmn
C
B
Pickin' berries with the 6000
Replies
15
Views
2K
Sean in PA
S
S
New to the Family
Replies
7
Views
1K
sweetskillsrk
S
Tractor Parts Tractor Manuals

We sell tractor parts! We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today.

Copyright © 1997-2024 Yesterday's Tractor Co.

All Rights Reserved. Reproduction of any part of this website, including design and content, without written permission is strictly prohibited. Trade Marks and Trade Names contained and used in this Website are those of others, and are used in this Website in a descriptive sense to refer to the products of others. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER: Tradenames and Trademarks referred to within Yesterday's Tractor Co. products and within the Yesterday's Tractor Co. websites are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Yesterday's Tractor Co., our products, or our website nor are we sponsored by them. John Deere and its logos are the registered trademarks of the John Deere Corporation. Agco, Agco Allis, White, Massey Ferguson and their logos are the registered trademarks of AGCO Corporation. Case, Case-IH, Farmall, International Harvester, New Holland and their logos are registered trademarks of CNH Global N.V.

Yesterday's Tractors - Antique Tractor Headquarters
Website Accessibility Policy

Back
Top