Massey Ferguson 500 series hydraulics

[TC85336]

I am coming to the end of sorting out the hydraulics on my own 590. I have found these boards and those elsewhere, along with videos, highly informative but jeepers it has been a long slog with many false leads and blind alleys. I have the official workshop manual, parts list and operator instruction book and these are very informative, in the main.

My own adult employment history started in Coventry in the early 70's, as these tractors were being developed, and it centred on manufacturing engineering and product design. Whilst I never worked at MF and the only individual I know who worked in their design office at the time has now passed away, therefore I cannot bring any first hand knowledge of why features were designed as they were, I have plenty of similar experiences to perhaps give background that will aid the diagnosis and repair of the hydraulic system. When I see the strip and rebuild process not correctly recorded in the workshop manual or faults in the parts lists, e.g. multiple items featuring the same ID number in the diagram and items in the listing with a diagram ID number but the diagram not showing that ID, I can empathise. Mistakes are made. I have spent a lot of my working life sorting out other peoples mistakes.

I come at this as a newbie tractor owner. I have never had a tractor before and never worked on one. Here I will attempt to record my progress and reveal my errors such that others can understand and progress their repairs more efficiently. Others far more experienced in the repair of these vehicles can add both their expert knowledge and fill in areas I am unable to cover or perhaps cover incorrectly.

Shortly after I purchased my tractor, I picked up a copy of Classic Tractor or one of those titles. In it was a guide to Massey tractors with a view steering the reader as to which MF models to buy with which features. There was virtually no comment on the 500 series. Elsewhere on these boards one can read posts were experienced hands describe that the 500 series was one of the main reasons MF lost their primacy in the market and maintenance issues with the hydraulics were a big contributor to this. Are the hydraulics that bad? Will I be splitting the tractor apart again within the year to effect similar repairs?

Well understanding what is there, why it is there and what it is meant to be able to do if it is working properly has to be a starting point for diagnosis.

For myself, I was immediately aware that the lift arms were weak; they could not pick up a 750kg implement. When I hitched up a 400kg device which also stayed attached to the ground as if secrured with a giant groundspike, I knew I had work to do. My tractor came with a loader. That could muster a lift of about 300kg with the engine at 2000 RPM. In my ignorance I thought that once I cleaned years of oiled mud off the side of the gearbox and back axle housing I would find the mounting bolts of an oil pump I could remove and change along with an externally mounted full flow oil filter. A couple of days and I would be done.

Gradually, I learnt that there was:
(1) A linkage pump that had four separate pistons and cylinders - which had been increased in volume and output several times during its life to this point of production;
(2) An auxiliary pump added to provide lower pressure (c. 200psi) hydraulics to internal tractor services;
(3) A two stage auxiliary pump to replace the auxiliary pump with one stage at c 200 psi and another, separate stage, to provide a greater volume of fluid at a higher pressure for external hydraulic services such as the loader;
I was left baffled.

Three entirely separate hydraulic systems living in the same space, using the same oil, using the same shaft to drive them! All capable of failing separately or together.

And then to add to the bafflement my tractor came with the optional hydraulic selector valve about which the MF operator instruction book states this "The output of the Ferguson lift pump and the auxiliary hydraulic pump can be combined , by use of the Selector Valve..." Somebody has signed off the drawings for production of a system wither three separate hydraulic systems along with a special valve to enable their output to be combined! Why? And why can't I get to the most modest feature of any one of them without what amounts to open heart surgery on the lot?

Well it was still all fairly irrelevant to me a few months ago. OK I had a tractor with a loader that could not lift very much at all and the rear lift arms could not raise any implement that was going to do anything useful but at least I could drive it. Until.....

Until the day I got some more electrics working. On purchase, the sum total of operating any and all of the switches that might cause any lights to come on was a single side light offering a weak glimmer and one indicator bulb flashing and that was in the opposite sense to that selected at the turn switch! Well time working on the electrics produced results and soon, along with external lights, the warning lights were working.


Hmm when warm and with multipower high selected, a warning light came on at idle. Operator Instruction Book again "If the light comes on with the engine running, stop the engine and investigate immediately." Well I did stop and I did investigate but my options were somewhat limited.

If I did not start the tractor the warning light stayed off, which was good but was akin to my new tractor's "lift arms" which were most certainly arms but could not lift anything. More usefully I could drive the tractor and not engage multipower high and then, also, the warning light would not shine. Even better was to only select and deselect multipower when above 1000 rpm, again the light would not show. This was a bit like using the loader to lift all manner of stuff, as long as it was not heavy and difficult to lift.

With high hopes I removed the concrete hardened birds nest that had been constructed with both beauty and precision, exactly on the selector valve to ensure it could not select. Now surely something would work or at the very least, that light would go off once I combined all these different systems into one?

Not a chance. No difference at all apart from a slight change of the types of noise generated as the tractor resisted all urgings to lift things.

With so many different pressure relief and hydraulic control systems, surely easy diagnosis would be designed in? In this I was pleased to see I, the tractor newbie, was not alone in being baffled. Even basic diagnosis had been rendered a task only for the determined or well paid. Diagnosis - let's start with the low pressure - IPTO hydraulic pressure should be 200-250 psi - is that ok? Well Workshop Service Manual Auxiliary hydraulics section 8B-18-12 describes it fully.

IPTO Pressure test
1) Remove plug from the pto side cover.
2) Fit MF810-6 to the inlet hose of 840.
3) Fit MF810-6 to the side cover.
4) Start the tractor engine.
5) At 2000 rev.min the pressure should read:- with the leaver OFF - zero, with the lever ON 200-250 lbf/in^2

There we go, all as the good book says. A gauge an adapter and I should be able to find out what is going on.

Only the good book is wrong. Well not all wrong everywhere but very wrong there. In another section written by another MF employee, in total ignorance of what has been written in section 8B-18-12 by a different MF employee, there is a section titled Power Take Off. There, at section 6B-18 is a section with a slightly different title. This one is called IPTO Hydraulic Test. Now to access that same port one has to remove the fuel tank and having taken off the fuel tank, which has its own sections involving jacks and supports and all sorts of other things, one then has to "fit a slave tank". Great, exactly how I want to spend my time. I get to spend ages removing the fuel tank and then at the very next step, I get to both craft and fit another slave tank because I have just removed the first tank. Why design the access port for a simple diagnostic to be so inaccessible? An elbow and a short length of tube would suffice. And even if the efficacy of that modest product cost is beyond the wit of those within management entrusted with sign off on the modification; management please - at the very least, get someone capable to do the proof reading of the service manual.

As I wrote, it has been a long journey, but as one who experienced first hand both the direct and the more indirect negative consequences of the "Red Robbo - strike often - strike hard" lifestyle choices and their impact on quality, I find the whole thing like a journey down memory lane from 50 years ago.

Over the next few weeks I will describe my journey. I will split posts up into two types of post.

One will be simply facts relating to what I took apart, why and if I replaced and how to do it. This will hopefully be a guide that enables time efficient diagnosis and repair.

The other will be a reflective on design and management processes. Inertia that restricts design teams. The mismatch between "as designed" "as used" and "as serviced" as well as product planning, intent and execution. This will be set against the backdrop of 1970s Coventry and the industrial unrest and the havoc which went with it. I think that background will enable a perspective of the 500 series which will help people understand its place in MF history.

IF MF Andy, Cowbunga and various others can add in their expert knowledge, hopefully this will be an entertaining and comprehensive thread for 500 series owners and those tasked with repair of their hydraulic systems.

 

[TC85336]

OK so what is my tractor
MF 590 12 speed multipower
IPTO
Mk3 Ferguson lift pump with integral pressure control valve
Auxiliary pump with (not Auxiliary pump multipower) with three. Two, common, low pressure ports and one high pressure high volume output
Selector valve.
3 Kontak Auxiliary hydraulic spool valves.
1 trailer tipper hose output with Dowty type coupling

At this stage your tractor might differ in having have no auxiliary pump at all, a multipower pump, just providing 200-250 psi output to service both the IPTO clutch and brake and the multipower clutch and oil filter.cooling circuit.
You may/may not have Kontak valves or the Dowty trailer connnection, mutipower or live PTO rather than IPTO..

If there are more hydraulic model options, then please chime in with what they are.

I will deal with the selector valve and its 4 ports in a separate post.

 

[Nearly]

@masseybreaker ?

 

[TC85336]

Having recovered from the shock that the tractor had three separate/integrated hydraulic systems and virtually no worthwhile interventions could be done on any of these three systems without removing the pumps, aka splitting the tractor, the decision was made. They had to come out. OK so first of all I see people on forums posting that they unsure of how to get to things. If it is a tractor fitted with just the Ferguson lift pump, then that can be removed without splitting the tractor. The top cover has to come off and then it is all easy to follow. There are any number of videos out there describing how to do this with older versions of MF tractors.
If it has multipower or the IPTO clutch then the tractor must be split. this is because the IPTO pump or auxiliary two stage pump are both mounted on a twin plate bracket that is secured to the front of the Ferguson lift pump and now the whole assembly is so big it cannot be manoeuvred to disengage from the PTO shaft that runs underneath the drive shaft to the back axle.

In respect of splitting the tractor the workshop manual states "Split the tractor between the spacer housing and the centre housing" (the name for the casting under the top or lift cover). The cab stays with the engine and is all static; the wheels and centre casing move backwards. Which is all good, only in the MF workshop manual, section 3 - splitting the tractor, there was no description of this process for the 590! However there were such sections for the 565, 575 and 560 so I just followed those and all went well. I have seen videos where people talk about lifting the cab off. That is not necessary. I will do another detailed post about splitting but the headline was, that I, on my own, having never split a tractor before, and dealing with a number of rusted bolts and nuts that delayed me quite a lot, managed to get the pumps out after about five hours, from taking the first spanner out of the tool box. Doing it again with experience and not a single seized nut or bolt and I would be less than half that. I would also add on about two hours for a proper cleaning job with a good power washer - probably doing it all twice or three times so it is all nearly grease/mud free under there. I thought I had done a good job with the power washer spending about 30 minutes on it all, I certainly got very wet myself. My efforts on the tractor were inadequate. All the visible, easy to get at, bits were free from goo, but, sadly, all the important areas were still covered in oily mud. Particularly under the floor of the cab and the top of the tractor castings underneath the floor are difficult to get at and warranted more effort. I think removing all the sheet metal work at the back and whilst it was still drive-able, doing a second clean then, would have paid dividends.

I think the driver for "lift off the cab" as a solution, is the extensive list of special threaded stands - MF365s - along with special adapters for them 1 - plates, 4 long support bars, 6 bar pins, 7 tommy bar, 8 stands. It all looks like a lot of kit and that is just for jacking up the back of the cab by 4 inches. The trouble is that the footprint vertically below the lifting points for the cab is constrained by the tyres and the splitting rails and the jack dolly. Any standard fixed base axle stands have footprints that were too big to use. I purchased a pair of 2500 lb pipe stands with adjustable leg splay and threaded lifter section and cut my own plates to extend into the narrow gap under the cab to lift. I do not have welding equipment so I simply drilled and bolted the plates to the V support brackets such that I had a horizontal lifting surface. I was able to adjust the footprint of the three legs so that they just abutted the tyres and splitting rails. I will add some pictures.
I have a large, high lift 2 ton trolley jack that would easily have dealt with supporting the centre housing as it moved backwards and I could have purchased a standard adjustable axle stand to support the engine and gearbox in its static position. However, I am no spring chicken, a hard shove today is not what it once was, and I have experience of very tiny stones on the ground disturbing the very best lined up gearbox drive shaft as it headed for the centre of the clutch - many times, so I thought - buy a tractor splitting kit and keep it, I might need to do the clutch in the future! I was well impressed with the Sparex kit. Too heavy for the delivery man to lift off the van on his own but we shifted it onto the drive and then he drove off and I looked at it for a few weeks! But a good floor, one heavy duty, adjustable, axle stand under the, well chocked, front and and a couple of younger guys shoving that back end of the tractor, keeping it going where it is meant to be headed and my tractor splitting kit would be seen as an expensive indulgence. I saw some videos with electric hoist on runways in the workshop roof moving around up there or giant frames, far bigger than the tractor, all mounted on giant castor wheels with hoists hanging from the top. I had a hacksaw, drill and some nuts and bolts to modify the pipe stands and the kit I have described above and it was all safe and I never had a single "exciting" moment.

 

[Cowabunga]

You have discovered why I was never impressed with the 500 series. I was a student on job placement when they were introduced in 1975 and from the off it was obvious that although there were huge advances over the mechanically similar 100 series, not enough thought and investment had gone into the total design. The mechanical internals were stuffed into a chassis originally designed for the MF 65 but in the 590’s case a six inch spacer added behind the gear lever and a two inch spacer between the engine and front bolster on 2wd versions. The spacer was not new, having been introduced in 1972 on the 148, 168 and 188 models, along with the options of iPTO and the full hydraulic suite.

The clutch linkage design was mechanical and horrendous to adjust, unreliable and in my opinion unsafe, certainly until 1980 when redesigned rods were introduced joining the bell cranks. The iPTO was optional along with the auxiliary pump and both were poorly designed and a nightmare to repair. The exhaust was high mounted and vibrated to bits. The radiator cap similarly.

They had initial reliability issues with their separate power steering pumps and although hydrostatic steering was used, they still kept the horrendously complex and wear-prone mechanical steering linkages and bushes up front. The four wheel drive, even the second generation cast axles had a very poor lock but needed about five turns lock to lock and completely lacked power to turn the steering when the engine was at idle. 1979 saw widespread strikes in the UK including a steel strike which saw many parts from Poland and the Balkans being fitted and very poor quality control even from Perkins engines. The engine on my 590 4wd was supplied with head bolts that were hardly more than hand tight and which the dealer was meant to retorque at the 50 hour service and check-up, which they never did of course. Also some blocks had porosity issues at the time and leaks were common from casting flaws and oil following stud threads to the outside.

They still retained the reverse gears where low was painfully slow and high was impractically fast, even with multi-power or a later synchro12 box fitted. The various fuel and oil pipes that criss-crossed each other externally were poorly routed and insufficiently supported, resulting in leaks now and again. The rear linkage chains, both internal check chains and external stabiliser chains were not up to the job of handling implements the tractor could easily lift and they variously stretched and stripped threads etc. The auto hitch lever was external and too far away from the driver to easily reach and the hook was way under the belly of the back axle making hooking up trailers a frustrating guessing game and severely restricting the available steering lock before the rear wheels fouled trailers.

I visited the GKN factory at Telford where the 500 series cab was built side by side with the Ford *600 series bubble top cab for their new disastrous models with the Rubik’s cube column mounted gear shift. It was notable that the MF cab had less than half the individual steel sheets needed to be welded together as the Ford. In practice though, the Ford had many curved surfaces and a curved windscreen which eliminated the severe resonance from flat surfaces and glass fitted to the MF. Both were made using fabricated closed boxes of sheet steel for major structural safety frames that were prone to severe rust over the years. Modern cabs are not built this way. Indeed modern tractors are not built this way and the demise of the Coventry style chassis in 2004 was way overdue. The writing was on the wall ever since the introduction in 1986 of the vastly superior design for the future that was the 3000 series and it was remarkable that Coventry survived with popular sales as long as it did. It is a crying shame that the strikes and Government policies and financial/industrial policies of the mid and late 1970’s persuaded MF, which was in financial difficulties, to locate the new generation 3000 series production in France exclusively rather than at Coventry, but that continues to be the trend of the UK policies to this day and AGCO must be very satisfied with their choice ever since. Not so sure whether their Chinese investments are such a good idea though and perhaps India or Vietnam might have been a better, less risky location.

The first generation Q cab models from all brands were far from perfect and with some, like Renault, being an absolute bad joke. Indeed the later first generation 290 cab was only plonked on top of a 188 platform complete with ridiculous high mounted and rear pivoting clutch pedal and front pivoting brake pedals as seen on most models since the MF 65. The later 290 with the GKN cab was an even worse horror with the driver virtually sitting on the floor with the driver looking as a high bonnet and massive-looking dashboard. The earlier 590 cab was heaven for the driver in comparison. With the demise of the 500 series, which only lasted from about early 1976 [in any number] to 1982 when the really high 600 series and lower spec 200 series took over. The 600 was exclusively made in France while most 200 were Coventry tractors. The 600 was nice to drive but not easy to access and rotted badly with its Italian made cab probably made from rusty recycled Italian thin pressed steel. At least the 200 series cab was more like it was the work of a blacksmith for all its ergonomic failings. The 200 series are still working on some farms. Less so the 500 and 600 series which have largely disappeared from active service.

Having described these tractors, warts and all, they have given long service to farmers worldwide for many decades and were as good as their competitors at the time and were a massive advance in their European specification fitted with the then new Quiet cabs compared to the literally deafening, dirty, dusty nasty predecessors with just ROPS uninsulated or isolated cabs that were mandatory from the late 1960’s until 1975/76.

The first 500 series was the 595, a development Q cab model based on the thoroughly dreadful and unreliable French MF1080. Unfortunately it carried the appalling unreliability forward to the new model, including probably the worse Perkins tractor engine ever made, the AD4 318. The 2wd had steering that was so sensitive that a slight sneeze would have you off the road and into a hedge or traffic. Poor synchromesh. Weak gears on the nice shifting early crash box multi-power versions, totally inadequate auto hitch and PTO speed selection and puny weak check chains and chain anchor points on the drawbar frame. Auxiliary pumps, iPTO drives, clutch covers and head gaskets that failed for a laugh. This model, throughout its production and into the MkII model, must rank as one of the most unreliable rubbish tractors ever made by any brand, and every brand has their candidates I can assure you.

 

[oakleaf]

Having recovered from the shock that the tractor had three separate/integrated hydraulic systems and virtually no worthwhile interventions could be done without removing the pumps, the decision was made. They had to come out. OK so first of all I see people on forums posting that they unsure of how to get to things. If it is a tractor fitted with just the Ferguson lift pump, then that can be removed without splitting the tractor. The top cover has to come off and then it is all easy to follow. There are any number of videos out there describing how to do this with older versions of MF tractors.
If it has multipower or the IPTO clutch then the tractor must be split. this is because the IPTO pump or auxiliary two stage pump are both mounted on a twin plate bracket that is secured to the front of the Ferguson lift pump and now the whole assembly is so big it cannot be manoeuvred to disengage from the PTO shaft that runs underneath the drive shaft to the back axle.

In respect of splitting the tractor the workshop manual states "Split the tractor between the spacer housing and the centre housing" (the name for the casting under the top or lift cover). The cab stays with the engine and is all static; the wheels and centre casing move backwards. Which is all good, only in the MF workshop manual, section 3 - splitting the tractor, there was no description of this process for the 590! However there were such sections for the 565, 575 and 560 so I just followed those and all went well. I have seen videos where people talk about lifting the cab off. That is not necessary. I will do another detailed post about splitting but the headline was, that I, on my own, having never split a tractor before, and dealing with a number of rusted bolts and nuts that delayed me quite a lot, managed to get the pumps out after about five hours, from taking the first spanner out of the tool box. Doing it again with experience and not a single seized nut or bolt and I would be less than half that. I would also add on about two hours for a proper cleaning job with a good power washer - probably doing it all twice or three times so it is all nearly grease/mud free under there. I thought I had done a good job with the power washer spending about 30 minutes on it all, I certainly got very wet myself. My efforts on the tractor were inadequate. All the visible, easy to get at, bits were free from goo, but, sadly, all the important areas were still covered in oily mud. Particularly under the floor of the cab and the top of the tractor castings underneath the floor are difficult to get at and warranted more effort. I think removing all the sheet metal work at the back and whilst it was still drive-able, doing a second clean then, would have paid dividends.

I think the driver for "lift off the cab" as a solution, is the extensive list of special threaded stands - MF365s - along with special adapters for them 1 - plates, 4 long support bars, 6 bar pins, 7 tommy bar, 8 stands. It all looks like a lot of kit and that is just for jacking up the back of the cab by 4 inches. The trouble is that the footprint vertically below the lifting points for the cab is constrained by the tyres and the splitting rails and the jack dolly. Any standard fixed base axle stands had footprints that were too big to use. I purchased a pair of 2500 lb pipe stands with adjustable leg splay and threaded lifter section and cut my own plates to extend into the narrow gap under the cab to lift. I do not have welding equipment so I simply drilled and bolted the plates to the V support brackets such that I had a horizontal lifting surface. I was able to adjust the footprint of the three legs so that they just abutted the tyres and splitting rails. I will add some pictures.
I have a large, high lift 2 ton trolley jack that would easily have dealt with supporting the centre housing as it moved backwards and I could have purchased a standard adjustable axle stand to support the engine and gearbox in its static position. However, I am no spring chicken, a hard shoove today is not what it once was, and I have experience of very tiny stones on the ground disturbing the very best lined up gearbox drive shaft as it headed for the centre of the clutch - many times, so I thought - buy a tractor splitting kit and keep it, I might need to do the clutch in the future! I was well impressed with the Sparex kit. Too heavy for the delivery man to lift off the van on his own but we shifted it onto the drive and then he drove off and I looked at it for a few weeks! But a good floor, one heavy duty, adjustable, axle stand under the, well chocked, front and and a couple of younger guys shoving that back end of the tractor, keeping it going where it is meant to be headed and my tractor splitting kit would be seen as an expensive indulgence. I saw some videos with electric hoist on runways in the workshop roof moving around up there or giant frames, far bigger than the tractor, all mounted on giant castor wheels with hoists hanging from the top. I had a hacksaw, drill and some nuts and bolts to modify the pipe stands and the kit I have described above and it was all safe and I never had a single "exciting" moment.

You do write a detailed and very informative post but I would suggest that you use paragraphs a lot more as it would make your posts a lot easier to read.
I have a lot of respect for anyone who goes delving deep into tractors, humans or animals.

Just hit the return button a bit more (even twice in a row).

Thank you, and keep posting your progress.

 

[oakleaf]

You have discovered why I was never impressed with the 500 series. I was a student on job placement when they were introduced in 1975 and from the off it was obvious that although there were huge advances over the mechanically similar 100 series, not enough thought and investment had gone into the total design. The mechanical internals were stuffed into a chassis originally designed for the MF 65 but in the 590’s case a six inch spacer added behind the gear lever and a two inch spacer between the engine and front bolster on 2wd versions. The spacer was not new, having been introduced in 1972 on the 148, 168 and 188 models, along with the options of iPTO and the full hydraulic suite.

The clutch linkage design was mechanical and horrendous to adjust, unreliable and in my opinion unsafe, certainly until 1980 when redesigned rods were introduced joining the bell cranks. The iPTO was optional along with the auxiliary pump and both were poorly designed and a nightmare to repair. The exhaust was high mounted and vibrated to bits. The radiator cap similarly.

They had initial reliability issues with their separate power steering pumps and although hydrostatic steering was used, they still kept the horrendously complex and wear-prone mechanical steering linkages and bushes up front. The four wheel drive, even the second generation cast axles had a very poor lock but needed about five turns lock to lock and completely lacked power to turn the steering when the engine was at idle. 1979 saw widespread strikes in the UK including a steel strike which saw many parts from Poland and the Balkans being fitted and very poor quality control even from Perkins engines. The engine on my 590 4wd was supplied with head bolts that were hardly more than hand tight and which the dealer was meant to retorque at the 50 hour service and check-up, which they never did of course. Also some blocks had porosity issues at the time and leaks were common from casting flaws and oil following stud threads to the outside.

They still retained the reverse gears where low was painfully slow and high was impractically fast, even with multi-power or a later synchro12 box fitted. The various fuel and oil pipes that criss-crossed each other externally were poorly routed and insufficiently supported, resulting in leaks now and again. The rear linkage chains, both internal check chains and external stabiliser chains were not up to the job of handling implements the tractor could easily lift and they variously stretched and stripped threads etc. The auto hitch lever was external and too far away from the driver to easily reach and the hook was way under the belly of the back axle making hooking up trailers a frustrating guessing game and severely restricting the available steering lock before the rear wheels fouled trailers.

I visited the GKN factory at Telford where the 500 series cab was built side by side with the Ford *600 series bubble top cab for their new disastrous models with the Rubik’s cube column mounted gear shift. It was notable that the MF cab had less than half the individual steel sheets needed to be welded together as the Ford. In practice though, the Ford had many curved surfaces and a curved windscreen which eliminated the severe resonance from flat surfaces and glass fitted to the MF. Both were made using fabricated closed boxes of sheet steel for major structural safety frames that were prone to severe rust over the years. Modern cabs are not built this way. Indeed modern tractors are not built this way and the demise of the Coventry style chassis in 2004 was way overdue. The writing was on the wall ever since the introduction in 1986 of the vastly superior design for the future that was the 3000 series and it was remarkable that Coventry survived with popular sales as long as it did. It is a crying shame that the strikes and Government policies and financial/industrial policies of the mid and late 1970’s persuaded MF, which was in financial difficulties, to locate the new generation 3000 series production in France exclusively rather than at Coventry, but that continues to be the trend of the UK policies to this day and AGCO must be very satisfied with their choice ever since. Not so sure whether their Chinese investments are such a good idea though and perhaps India or Vietnam might have been a better, less risky location.

The first generation Q cab models from all brands were far from perfect and with some, like Renault, being an absolute bad joke. Indeed the later first generation 290 cab was only plonked on top of a 188 platform complete with ridiculous high mounted and rear pivoting clutch pedal and front pivoting brake pedals as seen on most models since the MF 65. The later 290 with the GKN cab was an even worse horror with the driver virtually sitting on the floor with the driver looking as a high bonnet and massive-looking dashboard. The earlier 590 cab was heaven for the driver in comparison. With the demise of the 500 series, which only lasted from about early 1976 [in any number] to 1982 when the really high 600 series and lower spec 200 series took over. The 600 was exclusively made in France while most 200 were Coventry tractors. The 600 was nice to drive but not easy to access and rotted badly with its Italian made cab probably made from rusty recycled Italian thin pressed steel. At least the 200 series cab was more like it was the work of a blacksmith for all its ergonomic failings. The 200 series are still working on some farms. Less so the 500 and 600 series which have largely disappeared from active service.

Having described these tractors, warts and all, they have given long service to farmers worldwide for many decades and were as good as their competitors at the time and were a massive advance in their European specification fitted with the then new Quiet cabs compared to the literally deafening, dirty, dusty nasty predecessors with just ROPS uninsulated or isolated cabs that were mandatory from the late 1960’s until 1975/76.

The first 500 series was the 595, a development Q cab model based on the thoroughly dreadful and unreliable French MF1080. Unfortunately it carried the appalling unreliability forward to the new model, including probably the worse Perkins tractor engine ever made, the AD4 318. The 2wd had steering that was so sensitive that a slight sneeze would have you off the road and into a hedge or traffic. Poor synchromesh. Weak gears on the nice shifting early crash box multi-power versions, totally inadequate auto hitch and PTO speed selection and puny weak check chains and chain anchor points on the drawbar frame. Auxiliary pumps, iPTO drives, clutch covers and head gaskets that failed for a laugh. This model, throughout its production and into the MkII model, must rank as one of the most unreliable rubbish tractors ever made by any brand, and every brand has their candidates I can assure you.

Wow, thanks for all that detail.
Having read it, it really is no surprise that John Deere made such inroads during the eighties.

As a driver, I was delighted to get a 550 instead of 135 when my turn came.
It was the height of luxury previously unknown to have a heater, a radio and silence to hear it.

 

[Cowabunga]

Wow, thanks for all that detail.
Having read it, it really is no surprise that John Deere made such inroads during the eighties.

As a driver, I was delighted to get a 550 instead of 135 when my turn came.
It was the height of luxury previously unknown to have a heater, a radio and silence to hear it.

In the 80’s JD really got it together with the 40 series with SG2 cab. Before that though, they had the 30 series with choice of awful Duncan or Secura cabs plonked on top of the non-Q cab chassis, complete with steering box at the base of the column, similar to early Ford thousand600 tractors. Deere has an equally wear prone mechanical steering linkage which soon introduced ridiculous slop into the system. Series 40 undoubtedly improved the reliability and design of Deere tractors greatly, with their superior PowerSynchron [dual power type] synchronised transmission which was miles better than anything the other brands offered. However, MF hydraulics, when supplied with the auxiliary pump and spool valves, were way way ahead of Deere’s front mounted closed centre piston pump which lacked total flow rate, versatility and the ability to supply remote services and large tipping trailers with a constant flow for long enough before cavitation set in. Deere also had sway blocks to check total rear link movement and chain stabiliser chains externally which were as prone to thread damage as MF ones. The spool valve QR couplings on series 40 Deere were also tucked in under the cab and extremely stiff and difficult to use. The hi-lift versions were better. The SG2 cab was also mounted very far back and prone to fouling with implements and rear window breakage. While the SG2 was quieter than average for the time, access was difficult through the half round door and around the dashboard, while visibility was hampered forward by the exhaust pipe and door shut A pillar lining up.

Back to the plus side, the instruments and electrics were good.

Unfortunately the Deere SG2 was extremely uncomfortable on rough ground due to the driver sitting above or slightly behind the back axle, compared to the MF 500 series where the driver sat between the axles, halving the rough up and down motion. Access to the 500 series cab was, and still is, best in class but the early [pre Synchro12] gear levers were far too short and required the driver to bend down from the hip to operate. Although a very very nice crash box, a crash box it was and even when a French sourced synchro eight speed was fitted, there was only synchro on third and fourth, seventh and eighth. The eight speed synchro was not reliable on early models either and should have been modified in a recall campaign. A campaign that my local dealer never did, any more than it did the clutch linkage mods until part were broken when they could charge the customer for the job outside warranty when they had already been paid once by MF.

All in all you can tell that although I loved to drive the 500 series, the practicality of running them was a horrendous and expensive business and put me off MF for several decades. I decided after the second 500 series, never to buy a legacy chassis MF tractor again, so I missed out on some immensely improved and very popular, well liked models such as the 300 series, 4200 and 4300. Despite their popularity, their gearboxes never impressed me, with the 40kph 12X12 being a particular no-no for me with its three ranges, one gear lever operation and a high-first that was far too high geared to start off a load at a junction. Many people love them though. Each to their own.

The Deere and Same and Ford that replaced the MF cost a tiny fraction in spares and even less in work lost due to stoppages. It wasn’t until the 5400 series that I felt confident enough to buy MF again and I have not been disappointed. I’m sure the 3000 series were great but the 500 and its then dealer put me off from 1980 until 2004 and in between I had four Deere, three Ford/NH and three Same tractors. None were perfect but near enough, including a fairly early Deere 6200. My current fleet consists of a Same, NH and two MF. All fairly reliable and well built but getting on a bit now.

People like to disparage modern tractors but I have found them to be at least as reliable as older, simpler tractors from days gone by. They also tend to work harder and longer these days and are far more productive if well matched with modern implements.

 

[TC85336]

Well that was epic. I wrote at the top of the thread that I was coming to the end of fixing the hydraulics; I should not have tempted fate. Several months on and it is saga which stands as the most eloquent witness to 1970s industrial chaos in the UK.

Before I write about what delayed me so much, let me write about what not to do.

I thought I would put in a new auxiliary pump, new lift pump, many new parts in the IPTO, new lift cylinder, new rings and lift piston and lots of other new things and everything would work out fine. I based that on reading the workshop manual and watching lots of You tube videos. When all that was completed, all correctly installed, as I so carefully did, the lift arms still did not perform and the auxiliary pump performance was well away from where it was meant to be. Careful testing and diagnosis took me to the solution and now all is good, or mostly good – the new auxiliary pump is still well off the pace, but I will get to that.

What I should have done is invest far more time before taking anything apart to do a full diagnosis. Then I may well have found my way through the many problems without having to generate pointless stripping and assembly of good work, for myself, when I needlessly doubted my own work, steered to that false conclusion by subsequent tests.

Now the problem is that for diagnosis, the workshop manual simply refers to lots of special tools or testing kit that is not available and then states what the “satisfactory” parameters are. It makes little attempt to steer the reader about what to do if the results do not match specification.

So what to do? The solution of sourcing proprietary parts and a few special items was quite cost effective but the research on what to do and what to find out was very time consuming. Conducting the tests themselves was trivial by comparison to all the preparation work.

So what to test?

For the three systems I bought two pressure gauges.

A 0-400psi gauge for the IPTO/Multipower/cooler/pressure maintaining valve circuits

A 0-4000 psi gauge for everything else.

I will detail each section with a separate post.

 

[yellowbelly]

Just seen this thread.

Boy, there's some looonng posts.

As someone who spent a lot of hours driving and maintaining tractors in the era when the 500 series was spawned, I have a shorter 3 word explaination......

Add On Engineering.

These tractors were 'rushed out' to try and keep hold of market share at a time when demand for tractor performance was changing a lot more rapidly than it had done since the end of the horse drawn era.

Bigger implements (mainly the switch to reversible ploughs) needed more lift capacity - hence multiple hydraulic pumps (Ford did the same with their flywheel driven auxiliary pump).

More spool valves were needed as implements became more complex - rather than a complete new design pipes and controls were 'draped' around existing features as best they could.

Couple this with the arrival of noise legislation, then Q cabs had to be hurriedly thrown into the mix.

No completely new design (there wasn't time, manufacturers were caught on the hop). Cabs were plonked on top of existing skid units, diesel tanks had to be relocated and tinwork was rejigged so that the tractors looked like new models.

I remember the launch of the 500 series at P&B, Brigg (our local dealer). IIRC, MF had beaten everybody else in the race to have a Q cab range out first.

We'd all been driving dusty, noisy tractors in all weathers for years - this was a revelation, and they sold like hot cakes. Farming was just coming into it's heyday and there was plenty of money to spend (there'd just been two very good 'potato years' in this area).

Touble was, the cabs and the rest of the 'add on engineering' made working on these tractors a right pain in the ar$e.
Whatever needed doing instead of being a simple job, was hindered by the new cab, or a load of pipes, that hadn't been there before. Splitting 590's for clutches or gearbox problems became a nightmare compared to it's cabless 188 predecessor.

Fords were just the same.
Here's a shining example...

The 6610 back end oil filler plug had been in the same place since pre- Force 5000's - easy to get at, behind the seat.
When the Q cabs came out, you needed a funnel with a long pipe to fill it.
By sometime in the 1980's , Ford realised it was a problem and drilled another hole in the back of the casting and finally fitted on that was accessible.
The very next year they redesigned the spool vaves and the new quick fit couplings went directly over the new filler, meaning you needed a funnel with a long pipe again

Sorry, my post has turned out to be as long as everybody else's

 

[Cowabunga]

Just seen this thread.

Boy, there's some looonng posts.

As someone who spent a lot of hours driving and maintaining tractors in the era when the 500 series was spawned, I have a shorter 3 word explaination......

Add On Engineering.

These tractors were 'rushed out' to try and keep hold of market share at a time when demand for tractor performance was changing a lot more rapidly than it had done since the end of the horse drawn era.

Bigger implements (mainly the switch to reversible ploughs) needed more lift capacity - hence multiple hydraulic pumps (Ford did the same with their flywheel driven auxiliary pump).

More spool valves were needed as implements became more complex - rather than a complete new design pipes and controls were 'draped' around existing features as best they could.

Couple this with the arrival of noise legislation, then Q cabs had to be hurriedly thrown into the mix.

No completely new design (there wasn't time, manufacturers were caught on the hop). Cabs were plonked on top of existing skid units, diesel tanks had to be relocated and tinwork was rejigged so that the tractors looked like new models.

I remember the launch of the 500 series at P&B, Brigg (our local dealer). IIRC, MF had beaten everybody else in the race to have a Q cab range out first.

We'd all been driving dusty, noisy tractors in all weathers for years - this was a revelation, and they sold like hot cakes. Farming was just coming into it's heyday and there was plenty of money to spend (there'd just been two very good 'potato years' in this area).

Touble was, the cabs and the rest of the 'add on engineering' made working on these tractors a right pain in the ar$e.
Whatever needed doing instead of being a simple job, was hindered by the new cab, or a load of pipes, that hadn't been there before. Splitting 590's for clutches or gearbox problems became a nightmare compared to it's cabless 188 predecessor.

Fords were just the same.
Here's a shining example...

The 6610 back end oil filler plug had been in the same place since pre- Force 5000's - easy to get at, behind the seat.
When the Q cabs came out, you needed a funnel with a long pipe to fill it.
By sometime in the 1980's , Ford realised it was a problem and drilled another hole in the back of the casting and finally fitted on that was accessible.
The very next year they redesigned the spool vaves and the new quick fit couplings went directly over the new filler, meaning you needed a funnel with a long pipe again

Sorry, my post has turned out to be as long as everybody else's

Great and accurate description of the developments at the time.
One small point though, although the 595 might well have been announced a year or two earlier than most others, including the rest of the 500 series, certainly Coventry build, International had a Q cab very early on and before MF generally and I’m fairly sure so did David Brown.
While a fan of MF tractors generally, I’m not keen on the 500 series which, as said above were a first generation of modern sophisticated comfortable and quiet tractors but were quite poorly engineered with too little development. Lots of pipes and linkages poorly designed with little regard to routing or pipe security, vibration or ease of access for servicing and repairs. Even adjusting the clutch became a pain in the arse on these tractors and the linkage was prone to break on one of two bell-cranks. Also much of the mechanical components, such as the PTO and both linkage and auxiliary hydraulics were legacy and inaccessible without stripping the back end down. The dead simple versions with dual clutch and mechanical PTO, no auxiliary pump or spool valves were more reliable but unsophisticated and not what the market increasingly wanted at that time. Basic things like the large areas of flat glass that resonated at some speeds were missed during design, as were the extended height exhaust and radiator that vibrated themselves to an early death.
To top it all MF were very strapped for cash at that time, to say the least, and were very soon subject to strikes at MF and supplier’s factories, including by metalworkers/steelwoks. This impacted the quality of components and the supply of parts for production and warranty, especially during 1978/79 and early 1980.
By 1982 or 3 or so they had dumped the 500 series, which had already gained the synchro12 transmission, for the 200 and 600 series which were far better tractors in my opinion, but there was far more competition in the market by then and JD were rapidly gaining share as well as Fiat, Same and others taking a bite of the cherry. These Italian tractors gained a significant share due to their 4wd system with straight driveshafts and centre pivot axles which were introduced far earlier than factory MF and Ford models. They also had a superior front axle design which is now almost universally adapted by most brands including CNH and MF.

It has to be remembered that the chassis used by 500 series was developed from the 35 and 65 tractors and although they went through a very rapid development period from the 100 series to the 500 series, it continued to be developed all the way through the very very successful 300 series to the 4200 and 4300 around year 2000. That’s 50 years of production from the original design, with a generally excellent service record and sold and used worldwide. with thousands of even the earlier models still in daily use. The chassis design was generally amazingly successful and continues to popular today and even the 500 series has its loyal fans.

While they did sort many of the more obvious issues with subsequent development of the 500 series and the direct successor models, the future was obviously in the 3000 series which were launched a few years later, which had a brand new chassis and were designed from the start for electronic controls with the majority of major components accessible externally. That chassis continues to be the basis for their current tractors although there has been a natural evolution of continuous development since. That chassis itself is now rapidly approaching its 40th year on 80hp to 180hp tractors.

 

[yellowbelly]

One small point though, although the 595 might well have been announced a year or two earlier than most others, including the rest of the 500 series, certainly Coventry build, International had a Q cab very early on and before MF generally and I’m fairly sure so did David Brown.

Yeah, our 595 was here a good 18mths to 2 years before the 500 series came out.

That’s 50 years of production from the original design, with a generally excellent service record and sold and used worldwide. with thousands of even the earlier models still in daily use. The chassis design was generally amazingly successful and continues to popular today and even the 500 series has its loyal fans.

Just shows how well engineered that chassis was when it first came out - a bit the same with a make I know much more about, the Ford.

The back end castings were pretty much unchanged after they upgraded from the Ford Major to the pre-Force 5000.

Designed for a 70hp tractor in the 60's, it remained unchanged right up to the 180hp TW's well into the next century.

No wonder some of the early built tractor pullers used Ford Major back ends

 

[TC85336]

OK I need to get on with the "help" part of this thread.
No need for a travelling, gantry-mounted, electric powered, hook-from-the-sky in your giant purpose built workshop.
Axles stands about £110 the pair and two plates of mild steel bolted to the top. These come with a variety of top fittings from the manufacturer. I chose to have the "tube cutter support vee" top. So all I added was the flat plate and 3/8 UNF bolt and nut.

 

[TC85336]

Here you can see the need for the stands to be capable of raising the support plate under load. Those 4 cab bushes are meant to be loose on the through bolts so they just slide off. 45 years of rust ensured the metal bonded insert of the bush was never coming off the bolt. A large force was required to lift the cab and bush off the casting bolted to the axle. Later I had to cut the bolts and bushes off the cab.

 

[TC85336]

Here you can see how busy it is under the tractor on the floor. The splitting rail has its own quite large footprint and the tyres restrict space so I had the three legs of each axle stand adjusted in, to just take up what space was left. Axle stands without adjustable legs have a footprint that is too large to go alongside the splitter rail, within the tyres.

 

[TC85336]

Some shots of splitting the tractor and then a couple of it going back together so you get the idea of the space requirements for the whole process.

About to be split.

 

[TC85336]

Split

 

[TC85336]

About to go back together then back together.

 

[TC85336]

Now, during dissembley, I did what others do on you tube and used a mallet and drift on the cross-member at the back of the cab.

Having been assisted by my-far-better-half with the rubbing down and painting I was not about to trash the paint finish by smacking the crossmember back in. So I lashed out another £15 on the very smallest and cheapest 2T hydraulic jack I could find. I used a bit of 1 1/8 dia bar and drilled hole in it for the top of the jack and used another bit of the steel plate I bought for the axle stands and then glued a couple of pieces of old rubber mat on the bottom of the jack and top plate.

 

[TC85336]

Holding it in place while operating the jack is a bit of a handful alone but I did it (3 times eventually)OK. you just need to spring the cab apart by a 1/4" and then the crossmember goes in without scuffing and you can simply slide in some of the bolts to hold it in place.

So that was all the drama taken out of splitting and putting the tractor back together. We did not use a block and tackle or any force to get the two parts back, just gentle shoving by my-far-better-half and myself. We were blessed with having a good flat floor.