New Tractor

[multi power]

They can't be

They are

 

[cfr1964]

They are

Oh I don't know we used to have a 995 and I used to like falling over all the random levers scattered around the cab
Still the broken crankshaft put a stop to that

 

[multi power]

Oh I don't know we used to have a 995 and I used to like falling over all the random levers scattered around the cab
Still the broken crankshaft put a stop to that

Dad has a 1394, I only drive it in emergencies, I don't have enough arms to change gear

 

[cfr1964]

Dad has a 1394, I only drive it in emergencies, I don't have enough arms to change gear

It was the hydraulic controls that did it for me ,as my uncle used to say "you'd need to be a Philadelphia lawyer to figure them out "

 

[Mrs Brown]

And a plumber to fix them.

 

[blackbob]

Masseys are just better than Fords. End of story.

Hey you. Stop speaking . They each have their good points, and faults. So equal.



I think it's time we had a Ford on this mainly MF thread... so...

Photo from maybe 1978/9, my Saturday/holiday job as a student. Tractor was 'L' reg iirc, so 1972/3?
Couldn't have been long after I took this photo, I was coming back from the local quarry with 3t of sand and the engine went bang, a piston had broken up. Replaced by a Q-cab 6600 - luxury!
Loader tractor on the farm was a 135, with manual steering

 

[multi power]

Hey you. Stop speaking . They each have their good points, and faults. So equal.



I think it's time we had a Ford on this mainly MF thread... so...

View attachment 222350

Photo from maybe 1978/9, my Saturday/holiday job as a student. Tractor was 'L' reg iirc, so 1972/3?
Couldn't have been long after I took this photo, I was coming back from the local quarry with 3t of sand and the engine went bang, a piston had broken up. Replaced by a Q-cab 6600 - luxury!
Loader tractor on the farm was a 135, with manual steering

Is that a 4000? They are an excellent tractor, almost as good as a 165

 

[blackbob]

Is that a 4000? They are an excellent tractor, almost as good as a 165

Yes, the equivalent to a 165. Noisy 3-cylinder engine,and never Dual/Multi-Power - but wet brakes and independent pto right from the start, and more comfortable to drive. Why did Massey fit shorter gear levers on the 165 than the 65, so you have to have your face on the steering-wheel to use them??

 

[cfr1964]

Yes, the equivalent to a 165. Noisy 3-cylinder engine,and never Dual/Multi-Power - but wet brakes and independent pto right from the start, and more comfortable to drive. Why did Massey fit shorter gear levers on the 165 than the 65, so you have to have your face on the steering-wheel to use them??

Having driven both at different times I always felt the 4000 was more gutsy although it did assault your eardrums
It pains me to say it.but the IH 574 was probably better than either of them

 

[multi power]

Having driven both at different times I always felt the 4000 was more gutsy although it did assault your eardrums
It pains me to say it.but the IH 574 was probably better than either of them

Yes, the equivalent to a 165. Noisy 3-cylinder engine,and never Dual/Multi-Power - but wet brakes and independent pto right from the start, and more comfortable to drive. Why did Massey fit shorter gear levers on the 165 than the 65, so you have to have your face on the steering-wheel to use them??

I buckraked on a 4000 for a couple of weeks the year I left school. It was a bit disappointing when the clutch burnt out and I had to use a 165, whilst the 165 was the nicer and more refined of them the Ford had better gears for the job, particularly reverse. As for short gear levers that's a stupid idea. I seem to remember a Ford I think it was where the gear levers had been extended, that was a good thing

 

[Cowabunga]

The Ford 4000 was the better tractor when compared to the 165. Despite being 3 cylinder, most 4000 engines pulled consistently well, which is more than can be said for their four cylinder tractors. It had eight gears compared to the 165's six and it had wet brakes from the start and hydraulic IPTO.
The adventurous could even buy it with Selecto-Speed ten speed powershift.
The standard Ford constant mesh gearbox was also tougher and easier shifting than the MF's sliding spur-gear box where the selector had to physically shift large coarse-toothed cogs into mesh.

 

[cfr1964]

The Ford 4000 was the better tractor when compared to the 165. Despite being 3 cylinder, most 4000 engines pulled consistently well, which is more than can be said for their four cylinder tractors. It had eight gears compared to the 165's six and it had wet brakes from the start and hydraulic IPTO.
The adventurous could even buy it with Selecto-Speed ten speed powershift.
The standard Ford constant mesh gearbox was also tougher and easier shifting than the MF's sliding spur-gear box where the selector had to physically shift large coarse-toothed cogs into mesh.

My late uncle had a 4600 and a 5600 ,the 4600 pulled far better

 

[Cowabunga]

My late uncle had a 4600 and a 5600 ,the 4600 pulled far better

Yes, that is my experience too. A 4000 or 4600 could certainly better an early Ford 6600, which was a smokey, noisy, thirsty slug of a thing. There were plenty of good 5000's about, but they were a bit of a lottery, but I never did find a good early 6600, with or without a Q cab.

 

[Flat 10]

Yes, that is my experience too. A 4000 or 4600 could certainly better an early Ford 6600, which was a smokey, noisy, thirsty slug of a thing. There were plenty of good 5000's about, but they were a bit of a lottery, but I never did find a good early 6600, with or without a Q cab.

Why was that do you think? I agree with you in my limited experience if my 4600 had same size wheels and DP it would have equalled neighbours 6600.

 

[Cowabunga]

I wondered about this back in the day and still think about it from time to time.
The design didn't help. Oversquare short stroke engines lacked torque and torque reserve and resulted in high fuel consumption and noise and smoke, but it doesn't explain why the four cylinder engines had a very high proportion of dogs while the three and six cylinders were so much more consistent and competitive.
Part of the reason must be down to quality control. Ford injector pumps were always set to have a very soft governor, where from a reference no-load speed they would shut down about 400 revs when the slightest load was applied, but the three cylinders seemed much tighter and lively and subjectively always impressed. I would say that over half of 5000 and nearly all early 6600 were underperforming dogs.

Back in the very early 1980's the local ADAS had a mechanisation specialist who built his own dynamometer . He was very meticulous with measurements, even taking account of fuel and air temperature, air pressure and humidity. He took it to Lampeter to an advertised mass testing day, where there was a Ford dealer, and found that well over half, I don't remember the exact proportion, of Ford 5000 and 6600 tractors were performing below their claimed power and torque. Some up to 40% underperforming. There was a huge fuss about it at the time locally and the Ford dealer objected strongly about the testing. They and Ford would not get away with it today.

 

[cfr1964]

I wondered about this back in the day and still think about it from time to time.
The design didn't help. Oversquare short stroke engines lacked torque and torque reserve and resulted in high fuel consumption and noise and smoke, but it doesn't explain why the four cylinder engines had a very high proportion of dogs while the three and six cylinders were so much more consistent and competitive.
Part of the reason must be down to quality control. Ford injector pumps were always set to have a very soft governor, where from a reference no-load speed they would shut down about 400 revs when the slightest load was applied, but the three cylinders seemed much tighter and lively and subjectively always impressed. I would say that over half of 5000 and nearly all early 6600 were underperforming dogs.

Back in the very early 1980's the local ADAS had a mechanisation specialist who built his own dynamometer . He was very meticulous with measurements, even taking account of fuel and air temperature, air pressure and humidity. He took it to Lampeter to an advertised mass testing day, where there was a Ford dealer, and found that well over half, I don't remember the exact proportion, of Ford 5000 and 6600 tractors were performing below their claimed power and torque. Some up to 40% underperforming. There was a huge fuss about it at the time locally and the Ford dealer objected strongly about the testing. They and Ford would not get away with it today.

We had a 6610 which was pretty dire too,it's funny how the addition of a turbo completely changed the 4 cylinder engine ,very few of them were gutless
On the subject of turbos ,I had a relative who had a 4610 T what a machine that was

 

[Cowabunga]

We had a 6610 which was pretty dire too,it's funny how the addition of a turbo completely changed the 4 cylinder engine ,very few of them were gutless
On the subject of turbos ,I had a relative who had a 4610 T what a machine that was

Probably because whoever fits the turbo has a dynamometer and opens the tractor out to a 'sensible' power. No such luck with factory fitted four cylinder turbo tractors though.

To be fair they improved quality control and consistency as the years went by. The Lampeter debacle and adverse publicity helped, as did the increasing availability of dynamometers at dealers and more awareness on the part of customers who found performance wanting compared to rival models. Also if you happened to have a good one and changed it for one that couldn't pull the skin off a rice pudding, you would not be happy.
They were saved by a very good transmission and the problems with other brands at the time. Basically to some degree or other, tractors were probably worse built and designed back then than they are today. MF had only six gears on some models, MPower that didn't hold back in low and appalling reliability on high spec models. DB had engines that sounded like a long fart but were economical, and their cabs needed a contortionist, as did changing ranges on the Q cab models and quantum physics is simpler than changing their gears in proper sequence. JD were expensive and light at the front and 'foreign'. Fiat and Same were equally 'foreign' and had panels that rusted into a heap of oxide in very little time.

 

[Somerset Farmer]

thought you must be round there, I use to drive for Robert Criddle, use to do a farms in Stogumber, Raleghs cross and at willett tipped it over at Brompton Ralph

Was talking to my contractor tday he remembers you spreading lime but what tractor were you driving a 590 or 575

 

[Flat 10]

Probably because whoever fits the turbo has a dynamometer and opens the tractor out to a 'sensible' power. No such luck with factory fitted four cylinder turbo tractors though.

To be fair they improved quality control and consistency as the years went by. The Lampeter debacle and adverse publicity helped, as did the increasing availability of dynamometers at dealers and more awareness on the part of customers who found performance wanting compared to rival models. Also if you happened to have a good one and changed it for one that couldn't pull the skin off a rice pudding, you would not be happy.
They were saved by a very good transmission and the problems with other brands at the time. Basically to some degree or other, tractors were probably worse built and designed back then than they are today. MF had only six gears on some models, MPower that didn't hold back in low and appalling reliability on high spec models. DB had engines that sounded like a long fart but were economical, and their cabs needed a contortionist, as did changing ranges on the Q cab models and quantum physics is simpler than changing their gears in proper sequence. JD were expensive and light at the front and 'foreign'. Fiat and Same were equally 'foreign' and had panels that rusted into a heap of oxide in very little time.

Although I am jumping on about 5 years I always think that my old IH 885xl was a good bus in its day- streets ahead of a 6600 IMO apart from crappy TA, dual power much better and poor gear selection but good engine, better lift and nice cab.

 

[Henarar]

Was talking to my contractor tday he remembers you spreading lime but what tractor were you driving a 590 or 575

had a 290 after I squashed the cab we put a 590 cab on it, it looked good like that to had a more sloping bonnet put a turbo on it to