Can TM engine fit into MF 1200....

[Henarar]

Yes they were on late production models as optional extras.

And a set of front weights was an option for a 3000 series
So if you are going to have a set of front weights those rooting for the 1200 are going to have a nice brand new set of 16.9-34 radials if you don't mind and we may have them on a set of PAVT wheels but the dury is still out on that one

 

[Cowabunga]

Pretty sure you will find 595 hubs are no larger than 185 hubs, 185 hubs or axles were never fitted to 1200s

Well you are wrong. The epicyclic on the 595 2 and 4wd and 590 4wd are of substantially larger diameter and of a different ratio than that of the 185 and 188. Indeed the 590 4wd rear final drives are different to the 2wd ones which are the same as the 185 ones.

 

[Cowabunga]

And a set of front weights was an option for a 3000 series
So if you are going to have a set of front weights those rooting for the 1200 are going to have a nice brand new set of 16.9-34 radials if you don't mind and we may have them on a set of PAVT wheels but the dury is still out on that one

Well you could also have the 3090 with PAVT and cast centres of course.

 

[Cowabunga]

I didn't say anything about weights on the front I mentioned PAVT's
And I do know a something about 1200's as I have used one, have you ?

Yes.

 

[multi power]

Well you are wrong. The epicyclic on the 595 2 and 4wd and 590 4wd are of substantially larger diameter and of a different ratio than that of the 185 and 188. Indeed the 590 4wd rear final drives are different to the 2wd ones which are the same as the 185 ones.

No I'm not wrong
I never mentioned final drives or epicyclic diameter
I stated the hubs are the same size, the wheels are interchangeable between a 1200 and 1,2,3 or 500 series

 

[Henarar]

Well you could also have the 3090 with PAVT and cast centres of course.

Oh yes, well go ye ahead

 

[Cowabunga]

No I'm not wrong
I never mentioned final drives or epicyclic diameter
I stated the hubs are the same size, the wheels are interchangeable between a 1200 and 1,2,3 or 500 series

The hubs are the epicyclics The centre sandwich of the hub is the ring gear for goodness' sake. What you mean is the drive shaft flange to which the wheel bolts which are the same dimension through the range but are fitted with different studs depending on the wheel fitted. On other designs this would be part of the half-shaft but on these it is part of the short shaft that exits the final drive hub [not flange].

 

[bill and bens dad]

if you read as i previously posted DAVID WALKERS book inside MASSEY FERGUSON,you will see about the axles,he also talks about the grip of the 1200,ref your JD 2140, YOU must of had the only 2140 with torque and traction, there is no way it would outgrip a 595 , but as said above TFF rules say your never WRONG, sorry that i disagree

 

[MF-ANDY]

....and in those days the Mk1 ( of all Massey machines ) was useless, the Mk2 had most of the problems sorted but by then the machine didn’t have a good name and the Mk 3 ( in this case it was the 1250 ) was always the machine they should have made in the first place.

Doesn't always work. They just got the 3000 series sorted then replaced it with the 6100s

 

[2wheels]

No it hasn't but the fronts are not that much narrower. Of course if I had the optional low profile tyres for field work fitted they might well be wider than the 16.9/14-30 or 34 fitted to the 1200. They are wider all round than the 13.6/12-38 tyres some 1200 tractors were fitted with. There was no low profile option at that time and radials were only available late in the 1200's production. Radial tyres make a massive difference to traction for a given size of tyre. The optional tyre sizes available for the 1200 were very limited indeed compared to today consisting of, for most of its life, 12-38, 14-30, 14-34 and 15-30 cross plies. Later on, from around 1978 onwards, radials became more widely available for the performance oriented farmers who were willing to pay the [then] considerable premium for [initially] Kleber and GoodYear radials.

we had a new ford 7600 in 1976 which came on kleber radials as standard.

 

[Cowabunga]

if you read as i previously posted DAVID WALKERS book inside MASSEY FERGUSON,you will see about the axles,he also talks about the grip of the 1200,ref your JD 2140, YOU must of had the only 2140 with torque and traction, there is no way it would outgrip a 595 , but as said above TFF rules say your never WRONG, sorry that i disagree

Good lord, I never said that my 2wd or any 2140 would outperform a 1200. You have misread and misinterpreted what I wrote completely. I only compared the 2140 2wd to a 595 2wd. I hoped that was plain, but obviously not plain enough. However, the different grip and performance between the 595 and 2140 was the difference between night and day. I ran both.

 

[Cowabunga]

we had a new ford 7600 in 1976 which came on kleber radials as standard.

In 1976 Kleber were just about the only tractor radial. Not sure it was standard. They were beginning to be an option certainly. My 595 was fitted with cross plies. Particularly nasty GoodYear deep lug cross plies.

 

[Wellytrack]

The larger 500 series were the broken drain finders here back in the day, out of all the tractors that were common it was a 2wd 500 that was likely to be stuck to the sump whereas the little Fiat’s and Same/lambo that were popular in less favoured areas such as my own literally ran rings round them.

Rightly or wrongly they were seen as being particularly front heavy.

In the same area on similar land DB 1210’s, IH 574, Marshall 802 and Zetor 8111 all outperformed 590s for grip although the Perkins engine and hydraulics were superior.

 

[bill and bens dad]

Well you are wrong. The epicyclic on the 595 2 and 4wd and 590 4wd are of substantially larger diameter and of a different ratio than that of the 185 and 188. Indeed the 590 4wd rear final drives are different to the 2wd ones which are the same as the 185 ones.

Good lord, I never said that my 2wd or any 2140 would outperform a 1200. You have misread and misinterpreted what I wrote completely. I only compared the 2140 2wd to a 595 2wd. I hoped that was plain, but obviously not plain enough. However, the different grip and performance between the 595 and 2140 was the difference between night and day. I ran both.

turn it round why dont you !! please tell me where i said a JD 2140 would outperform a 1200?? just get real admit your wrong mr Cleverclogs

 

[multi power]

The larger 500 series were the broken drain finders here back in the day, out of all the tractors that were common it was a 2wd 500 that was likely to be stuck to the sump whereas the little Fiat’s and Same/lambo that were popular in less favoured areas such as my own literally ran rings round them.

Rightly or wrongly they were seen as being particularly front heavy.

In the same area on similar land DB 1210’s, IH 574, Marshall 802 and Zetor 8111 all outperformed 590s for grip although the Perkins engine and hydraulics were superior.

You are correct, lots of MF were front heavy, maybe not great on wet ground whilst doing light work but essentially for maximum traction when pulling hard

 

[multi power]

The larger 500 series were the broken drain finders here back in the day, out of all the tractors that were common it was a 2wd 500 that was likely to be stuck to the sump whereas the little Fiat’s and Same/lambo that were popular in less favoured areas such as my own literally ran rings round them.

Rightly or wrongly they were seen as being particularly front heavy.

In the same area on similar land DB 1210’s, IH 574, Marshall 802 and Zetor 8111 all outperformed 590s for grip although the Perkins engine and hydraulics were superior.

You are correct, lots of MF were front heavy, maybe not great on wet ground whilst doing light work but essentially for maximum traction when pulling hard

 

[multi power]

The hubs are the epicyclics The centre sandwich of the hub is the ring gear for goodness' sake. What you mean is the drive shaft flange to which the wheel bolts which are the same dimension through the range but are fitted with different studs depending on the wheel fitted. On other designs this would be part of the half-shaft but on these it is part of the short shaft that exits the final drive hub [not flange].

Now I'm confused what we are actually debating here, the epicycles on the 595 are the same as the 1200
They both share the same axles
And to be absolutely clear early 1200 used 1080 axles with dry brakes

 

[Simon Chiles]

Now I'm confused what we are actually debating here, the epicycles on the 595 are the same as the 1200
They both share the same axles
And to be absolutely clear early 1200 used 1080 axles with dry brakes

Only the Mk1 1200 had dry brakes, my one, a Mk2 had wet brakes.

 

[bill and bens dad]

Only the Mk1 1200 had dry brakes, my one, a Mk2 had wet brakes.

was yours r or s reg or even newer?

 

[Simon Chiles]

was yours r or s reg or even newer?

R reg. The number plate was XBT439R.