one for the MF die hards

[holywell farmer]

Any news about this?

https://www.facebook.com/143304664984/photos/a.10152663178509985/10159899095724985

No model numbers on the bonnet?

 

[tractor_lover]

It's just a rendering of a 9S based on 8700s.
The future top series of the MF range.

 

[daveydiesel1]

Any news about this?

https://www.facebook.com/143304664984/photos/a.10152663178509985/10159899095724985

Sure what will really be different about it over the current model. With exception to the 8s Mf jd and cnh seem to be stuck in a rut the last while with no real new ideas just facelifts and emmissions targets being met

 

[Cowabunga]

Sure what will really be different about it over the current model. With exception to the 8s Mf jd and cnh seem to be stuck in a rut the last while with no real new ideas just facelifts and emmissions targets being met

MF did that for around 50 years with the ‘Coventry’ chassis tractors. Continual evolution based on the same basic chassis design and dimensions from the 65 to the 4355. The same could be said for the Beauvais chassis which has continually evolved since its 1986 launch. John Deere since its 1992 launch of its full chassis 6000 series.

Not often is there a fundamental redesign of a tractor range. It’s a once in a working lifetime event.

 

[daveydiesel1]

MF did that for around 50 years with the ‘Coventry’ chassis tractors. Continual evolution based on the same basic chassis design and dimensions from the 65 to the 4355. The same could be said for the Beauvais chassis which has continually evolved since its 1986 launch. John Deere since its 1992 launch of its full chassis 6000 series.

Not often is there a fundamental redesign of a tractor range. It’s a once in a working lifetime event.

At least the coventry built stuff was dead reliable as a general rule, sure there was the odd questionable model and some teething problems with new add ons like the early hydralic pto clutches and the beauvais stuff wasnt bad with the exception of early 61 series but it seemed to go down hill since the introduction of dyna6 which still leaves alot to be desired

 

[Cowabunga]

At least the coventry built stuff was dead reliable as a general rule, sure there was the odd questionable model and some teething problems with new add ons like the early hydralic pto clutches and the beauvais stuff wasnt bad with the exception of early 61 series but it seemed to go down hill since the introduction of dyna6 which still leaves alot to be desired

I disagree. They have become better and more reliable with the years and the Beauvais tractors from the 62** series on have been superb on average. Same as Deere with their 6000 series with Power Quad. A complete redesign that was very reliable from the start but which seemed to undergo some bad periods along the way, nevertheless they are very productive machines.

I’d go as far as to say that today’s tractors and implements are playing in a different and higher league than legacy designs for the mid 20thC to the very early 21stC. Another example is the NH range with Powerstar engines and Fiat chassis, introduced with the 60 series and evolved into the TM series and then into the Iveco powered current range. They are country miles better machines than the old TW series tractors and the later Versatile built Genesis models with the Funk transmission.

 

[daveydiesel1]

I disagree. They have become better and more reliable with the years and the Beauvais tractors from the 62** series on have been superb on average. Same as Deere with their 6000 series with Power Quad. A complete redesign that was very reliable from the start but which seemed to undergo some bad periods along the way, nevertheless they are very productive machines.

I’d go as far as to say that today’s tractors and implements are playing in a different and higher league than legacy designs for the mid 20thC to the very early 21stC. Another example is the NH range with Powerstar engines and Fiat chassis, introduced with the 60 series and evolved into the TM series and then into the Iveco powered current range. They are country miles better machines than the old TW series tractors and the later Versatile built Genesis models with the Funk transmission.

We will just have to agree to disagree as my stance on mf is i wouldnt want anything newer than a 64 series dynashift ( and i was brought up a massey man and thought there was nothin like a massey), im not a cnh fan so my opinion could be constrewed as biased so il say no more about them atm. I must admit the deere is a darn good tractor but im not a major fan of thier command pro joystick as it doesnt sit to the hand the way others do and the autopower isnt as nice as the agco vario

 

[DeeGee]

We will just have to agree to disagree as my stance on mf is i wouldnt want anything newer than a 64 series dynashift ( and i was brought up a massey man and thought there was nothin like a massey), im not a cnh fan so my opinion could be constrewed as biased so il say no more about them atm. I must admit the deere is a darn good tractor but im not a major fan of thier command pro joystick as it doesnt sit to the hand the way others do and the autopower isnt as nice as the agco vario

I do not like Dyna 6!
Nothing but a cost cutting move by MF.
How on earth can 24 gears be an advancement on 32?!

Have loved Masseys for over half a century, but my latest 6480 Dyna 6 is a huge disappointment compared to the 62, 61 and 3000 series.

Give me a 6280 or 90 Dynashift any day.

 

[Cowabunga]

I do not like Dyna 6!
Nothing but a cost cutting move by MF.
How on earth can 24 gears be an advancement on 32?!

Have loved Masseys for over half a century, but my latest 6480 Dyna 6 is a huge disappointment compared to the 62, 61 and 3000 series.

Give me a 6280 or 90 Dynashift any day.

Because it is sequential with no need for overlaps between ranges and that it doesn’t need physical gear shifting by the driver.
I agree though that the Dyna6 is not liked by everyone and the auto drive feature is beyond the comprehension of many drivers, particularly casual labour or those that only drive the tractor for short periods during the year. There is a steep learning curve involved and a significant proportion of drivers have no interest in riding that curve. However, those that do, are rewarded by one of the most potentially productive transmissions available.

 

[daveydiesel1]

I do not like Dyna 6!
Nothing but a cost cutting move by MF.
How on earth can 24 gears be an advancement on 32?!

Have loved Masseys for over half a century, but my latest 6480 Dyna 6 is a huge disappointment compared to the 62, 61 and 3000 series.

Give me a 6280 or 90 Dynashift any day.

I found in road work theres too much gear changing compared to say a nh range command which any tit could drive. Round here massey used to rule the roost but theres only a handful of massey men left buyin new mf tractors, the majority of the rest has went jd

 

[DeeGee]

Because it is sequential with no need for overlaps between ranges and that it doesn’t need physical gear shifting by the driver.
I agree though that the Dyna6 is not liked by everyone and the auto drive feature is beyond the comprehension of many drivers, particularly casual labour or those that only drive the tractor for short periods during the year. There is a steep learning curve involved and a significant proportion of drivers have no interest in riding that curve. However, those that do, are rewarded by one of the most potentially productive transmissions available.

The AutoDrive seemingly only operates between 1700 and 2100 erpm.
The Sisu diesel in the 6480 seems absolutely gutless below 1500 erpm.

Most of my work needs to be between 1200 and 1600 erpm, thus rendering AutoDrive redundant.

With the 50kph box all the gears in range 4 are way too high for ‘poodling’ work; when changing down to range 3 for loaded start off it seems to default to 3b or 3c, thus being far too slow for practical purposes.

I may be u familiar with the finer workings of Dyna 6, but so far I really do detest it with a passion. Give me the earlier 8x4 Dynashift any day.

 

[daveydiesel1]

The AutoDrive seemingly only operates between 1700 and 2100 erpm.
The Sisu diesel in the 6480 seems absolutely gutless below 1500 erpm.

Most of my work needs to be between 1200 and 1600 erpm, thus rendering AutoDrive redundant.

With the 50kph box all the gears in range 4 are way too high for ‘poodling’ work; when changing down to range 3 for loaded start off it seems to default to 3b or 3c, thus being far too slow for practical purposes.

I may be u familiar with the finer workings of Dyna 6, but so far I really do detest it with a passion. Give me the earlier 8x4 Dynashift any day.

I think this is the problem, some1 at mf had the bright idea to add all these features to make it more efficient, but in reality the average operator doesnt understand it with how to set up start off gears and such like. At least the dynashift u knew what gear u were in at the end of the road without havin to look at the screen, same with jd powerquad and nh range command which defaults to c1. All of which is much simpler than mfs design which may be better as u can set it up but if your an occasional driver or a stock man going for a load of round bales its just not the answer as neither is wantin to "learn" how to operate it correctly

 

[Cowabunga]

The AutoDrive seemingly only operates between 1700 and 2100 erpm.
The Sisu diesel in the 6480 seems absolutely gutless below 1500 erpm.

Most of my work needs to be between 1200 and 1600 erpm, thus rendering AutoDrive redundant.

With the 50kph box all the gears in range 4 are way too high for ‘poodling’ work; when changing down to range 3 for loaded start off it seems to default to 3b or 3c, thus being far too slow for practical purposes.

I may be u familiar with the finer workings of Dyna 6, but so far I really do detest it with a passion. Give me the earlier 8x4 Dynashift any day.

I have not heard that the T3 Citius engine fitted to 6480’s have a steeply declining torque curve below 1500rpm. Perhaps there is something wrong with yours? In my opinion you lose very little, if any advantage for most jobs, by losing auto drive, especially at low revs.

If it helps, you can easily set a different start-off gear than 3b by using your clutch pedal and power-control plus your right hand shifter together to pulse through the optional gears. You can also choose different start-off gears for forward and reverse. Or my preferred option is to select the gear option below 1a, which is shown as ‘Of’ on the screen, meaning ‘Off’. This switches the preselected start-off ratio system off and the tractor will then start off in the same ratio as when it stopped moving unless another ratio is selected by the driver.
If you know all this, please excuse me and ignore it. A whole lot of drivers don’t and that is my [negative] point about this transmission’s steep learning curve.

 

[Cowabunga]

I think this is the problem, some1 at mf had the bright idea to add all these features to make it more efficient, but in reality the average operator doesnt understand it with how to set up start off gears and such like. At least the dynashift u knew what gear u were in at the end of the road without havin to look at the screen, same with jd powerquad and nh range command which defaults to c1. All of which is much simpler than mfs design which may be better as u can set it up but if your an occasional driver or a stock man going for a load of round bales its just not the answer as neither is wantin to "learn" how to operate it correctly

Oh I agree with that completely. It is too complex for the casual user and it gets many of them highly frustrated and hence has a bad name.
Those that do use the tractor full time and make the reasonably small effort to learn, will find a superbly customisable transmission system.

 

[DeeGee]

According to a respected MF mechanic, when changing down from range 4 to range 3 the tractor will go down to 3b rather than 3E or F in order to protect the gearbox from damage!

How can a drop from 4c to 3b be better then one from say 4c to 3f ?!

I admit that I am a total zero when it comes to technology, but common sense says that changing down a range should involve as little shock to the transmission as possible.

Also, with AutoDrive, why are rev ranges set between 1700 and 2100 erpm when common opinion suggests that in the interests of fuel economy engine revs should always be kept as low as possible?

Modern coaches are set to motorway cruise at 1200/1300 erpm, yet Massey set their AutoDrive between 1700 and 2100!

 

[Farmer_Joe]

Dyna 6 auto speed shifts to match gears so will go from 3f to 4c,

I agree with duck it kind of to advanced for std operators if you can understand it it’s a nice transmission,

You can go with no clutch from 1a to 4f speed matched, what’s wrong with that?

It’s just not idiot proof like say the jd power quad, however having used both I prefer dyna 6, if I was not an owner operator I would prob go power quad as it more pleb proof

But you have to operate a gearstick and clutch between the main ranges which there are more of…

 

[Cowabunga]

According to a respected MF mechanic, when changing down from range 4 to range 3 the tractor will go down to 3b rather than 3E or F in order to protect the gearbox from damage!

How can a drop from 4c to 3b be better then one from say 4c to 3f ?!

I admit that I am a total zero when it comes to technology, but common sense says that changing down a range should involve as little shock to the transmission as possible.

Also, with AutoDrive, why are rev ranges set between 1700 and 2100 erpm when common opinion suggests that in the interests of fuel economy engine revs should always be kept as low as possible?

Modern coaches are set to motorway cruise at 1200/1300 erpm, yet Massey set their AutoDrive between 1700 and 2100!

The transmission will actually speed-match the appropriate ratio to engine revs.

It assumes that you use auto drive for heavy loads that pull the engine down. It’s not for light loads and low revs where it is mostly the driver’s decision to change ratios according to conditions, not load. A tractor has a far more variable work cycle than a bus on a motorway.

 

[Tarw Coch]

Dyna 6 auto speed shifts to match gears so will go from 3f to 4c,

I agree with duck it kind of to advanced for std operators if you can understand it it’s a nice transmission,

You can go with no clutch from 1a to 4f speed matched, what’s wrong with that?

It’s just not idiot proof like say the jd power quad, however having used both I prefer dyna 6, if I was not an owner operator I would prob go power quad as it more pleb proof

But you have to operate a gearstick and clutch between the main ranges which there are more of…

20 years ago I thought dynashift was a better gearbox than power quad...........still do.

 

[Half Pipe]

According to a respected MF mechanic, when changing down from range 4 to range 3 the tractor will go down to 3b rather than 3E or F in order to protect the gearbox from damage!

How can a drop from 4c to 3b be better then one from say 4c to 3f ?!

I admit that I am a total zero when it comes to technology, but common sense says that changing down a range should involve as little shock to the transmission as possible.

Also, with AutoDrive, why are rev ranges set between 1700 and 2100 erpm when common opinion suggests that in the interests of fuel economy engine revs should always be kept as low as possible?

Modern coaches are set to motorway cruise at 1200/1300 erpm, yet Massey set their AutoDrive between 1700 and 2100!

Coaches have ran 400+ hp engines for years. Which for mostly 2 axles vehicles makes it easy work.

 

[Farma Parma]

20 years ago I thought dynashift was a better gearbox than power quad...........still do.

Streets ahead