Anonymous-0
Well-known Member
I just bought a 1965 Ford 2000, gas 3 cyl. A read of the serial numbers on the shroud showed that it was a 1967.
Mechanically, it is in very good condition. I tuned it and a new oil change and it ran like a champion. The only trouble is that one of the rear tires shredded soon after using it to brushog a hillside. The rear tire size on both rears was 13.6x28 (standard is 11.2x28). Every thing I've looked up, doesn't show this size tire/wheel combination as an option on Ford 2000 (It is on the Ford 3000, though).
I noticed a good bargain on some 14.9x28 6ply from Tiretown ($210 vs $235 on the 13.9x28 (4-6ply). I understand that the 14.9x28 are a little over an inch wider, but would the tire's height be much higher? The 28in wheels also have cast iron weights on the inside of the wheels. I have serious hills to climb on my land when brush hogging and need all of the traction I can get. I sure wouldn't like to go back to the original standard size.
Mechanically, it is in very good condition. I tuned it and a new oil change and it ran like a champion. The only trouble is that one of the rear tires shredded soon after using it to brushog a hillside. The rear tire size on both rears was 13.6x28 (standard is 11.2x28). Every thing I've looked up, doesn't show this size tire/wheel combination as an option on Ford 2000 (It is on the Ford 3000, though).
I noticed a good bargain on some 14.9x28 6ply from Tiretown ($210 vs $235 on the 13.9x28 (4-6ply). I understand that the 14.9x28 are a little over an inch wider, but would the tire's height be much higher? The 28in wheels also have cast iron weights on the inside of the wheels. I have serious hills to climb on my land when brush hogging and need all of the traction I can get. I sure wouldn't like to go back to the original standard size.
