(800) 853-2651
SHOP NOW

MF or an International ??

C

Case580c

New User
I am looking for a tractor to do either plow and disc with and or use with a properly sized rotovator
This tractor will be used on only about 1 to 5 acres depending on how much fun I am having. Also planing to get a Farmall Super A or 140 to do the cultivating for me.
I am considering a MF 135 or MF 165 or a International 560 with a 3pt am conserned because of the TA. Would appreciate you thoughts

Thanks Bill
 
Case580c
I bought a Massey 135 diesel because several people here raved about them, parts are plentiful and cheap.Bought a Case 580c extendahoe for the same reason easy to find parts and repair which is important for an old machine.
What part of the country are you in?I have seen a couple old MF go for cheap in Ohio recently.
 
Case580c
I bought a Massey 135 diesel because several people here raved about them, parts are plentiful and cheap.Bought a Case 580c extendahoe for the same reason easy to find parts and repair which is important for an old machine.
What part of the country are you in?I have seen a couple old MF go for cheap in Ohio recently.
 
I use a 5 foot Howard Rotovator on a 40 HP tractor and it works great in my sandy potato soil, however I can see that heavier soils will require more HP. The downside of more HP is that you can end up with more broken parts because the tractor will not stall out in heavy conditions. Although I've never stalled out on my 40 HP tractor I think that a 45 to 60 HP tractor would be a perfect fit. I concur that parts availability is important, and the reputation of the MF 165 could make it the perfect fit for you.
For me I would consider the Oliver or Cockshutt lines (because of robust PTOs), possibly the 770 or the 560.
Good luck
 
Personally I think the MF is a better all around tractor. Very reliable and versitle. Don't get me wrong, the 560 is a really good tractor. As far as the T/A goes if it has a new one and is properly used they will last a long time. 90% of T/A faliure is abuse.
 
I'm an IH guy but the Massey 165 would be great for what you have in mind. The differance will be the price. 560s are cheap - 165s and 135s will easily be double the asking price of a 560 in similar condition.
 
Lots of great tractors to choose from don't limit your search spend some time looking around your area for a deal.Watch Craigslist, Ebay go to your county fair ask around and kick some tires.once you find something you like ask questions in the forum here dedicated to the brand your looking at,
 
Thanks for the replys,
Sorry I forgot to include I am in California 3rd generation of dairymen /farmers in a small town north of San Francisco. Area has changed as many have from agriculture to Yuppie housing. I have been watching Craigslist most tractors are 3 hrs away. Appears many I find are way east of me. I found a nice Ford Jubilee but with fuel prices as high as it is I would rather go with diesel and be close to 40hp. I have time to wait at least till spring
 
I don't know much about the 560, but there were lots of 135's and 165's around here. We never owned one, but I never saw anything in either one that was worth writing home about...
I'd take a T/A ahead of Massey's Multi-Power. I'm not fond of the over-running feature of the multi-power.
Otherwise, I think the cheaper of the bunch for given condition would be the better one.
I'd suggest a Ford 4000 or 5000 as it would be more tractor than any of them, but ya buy whatever turns yer crank.

Rod
 
More often than not, negatives on the 100 series Massey Fergusons come from people who've never owned one. In most cases, people who've owned one will give a glowing recommendation. Count me as one of those.

The 135, 150, and 165 MF's are well balanced, easy to operate, simple to maintain, stone reliable, economic to operate, and parts are plentiful (along with being relatively inexpensive)

IMHO, the Perkins 3-cylinder diesel (135/150) is the best engine ever in its class.

Some people don't like the MultiPower option. Over 70% of 100 series tractors were built without it. Just buy one without if it isn't your cup of tea.

I've owned all sorts of tractors of all sorts of brands. My 1971 150 diesel/8-speed is by far my all time favorite. Here it is right after a recent clean up and paint job. Still an every day worker.
Jan1dogs045.jpg
 
I can attest that the MF 135 and 165 are decent smaller tractors, since we have both. I like the 165 better than the 135. The 165 is as easy to manuever as the smaller 135 and also sips diesel, but has more -ss and can handle a round baler and rides better under work loads. For the MFs I'd look for 4-speed (8 with hi-lo), non-Multipower and square axle. Can't comment on the 560. If you have a few more bucks consider a MF 255 or 265, better hydraulics and with wet brakes. Our family also has had good luck with Ford diesel 4000 and 5000 series - they're also good but a bit pricey around here though. Good Luck.
 
MF Poor, Thats a really nice looking tractor. I recall reading about MF 130 being made in the UK. What the story on the MF 150
 
550Doug, I was not aware the Olivers had a better PTO design. I have always liked the Olivers Just don't see them much any more I have an old Oli 80 std rusting in peace I bought it in Oregon and used it for farming near Bend in the early 70's liked it so much I hauled it home to Calif. But the coastal salt air is taking its toll.
 
I have multi-power on my 1965 UK 135. Other than not being able to tow start it, I've never had any problems and I think it's a great option. When the tractor was apart for new clutches, they put new sealing rings? or something in the multi-power since the tractor was split anyways. That was 20 or so years ago and have had no problems at all with it, even under some very heavy working conditions. Almost all of the MF 100 series or 200 series are excellent tractors. The one that is not so desirable is the 130. Very rare and hard to get parts for. 235's had some problems with the power steering. I agree that the 3 cylinder Perkins is without equal. The 4 cylinders are excellent as well. For 3 pt. hitch work you can't beat an MF! Once you figure out how the draft control works, you'll love it. A lot of people have MF tractors but don't even bother with the draft control. It's worth experimenting with because it will let you do a job that otherwise couldn't be done. I use it for the scarifiers on my box blade. Trying to use the position control just doesn't work in very hard packed soil. The draft control allows me to set how much load I put on the tractor without tearing it apart or sitting and spinning. Dave
 
In 1956, as Massey Harris and Ferguson were merging. MH dealers wanted a version of the TO series Fergusons. A new model was introduced using the power train of the new TO35. A heavier front axle was added, along with much improved steering, a steering bolster that incorporated mounting points for front loaders or mid mounted cultivators. New sheet metal allowed a much larger fuel tank. Many of the options available on the TO35 were now standard equipment on the MH50. Ferguson dealers wanted their version of the same tractor. So they got the Ferguson F40. These tractors were available in 1956 and 1957. In late 1957, as the company name and policy changed, the Massey Ferguson 50 was introduced and remained in the line up until 1964.

At that point, the "DX" series was born. (100 series) The MF50 became the MF150. All the improvements of the 100 sries were incorporated along with a larger cooling system.

The heavier straight axle and heavier steering bolster give the 150 more front weight and roughly 7" longer wheel base. That makes it more stable with heavy rear mounted implements. The longer wheel base also makes it respond well to wider track settings.

The MH50/F40/MF50/MF150 was available as a high clearance row crop version also. (High Arch) They came with choice of wide front or narrow front w/ single or dual wheels.

150's were standard with MOST of the options available on the 135.

When parked side-by-side, you'll see a striking resemblance beween the 150 and the 165. The front ends are ALMOST the same. I always tell people the 150 is essentially a 135 on steriods. They were sold originally ONLY in the North American market.

I owned a couple 135, and a couple 3000 Fords. The 150 is a more capable tractor than the 135's and would literally work circles around the 3000's. The Ford 4000 matched up more directly with the MF 165. Ford, as Massey's most direct competition at the time, really had no tractor that matched up directly with the 150.
 
There you go... I'm more familiar with the later ones that don't.
Another good reason why I'd stick with the blue one.
The Ford can also actually pull something on the drawbar unlike the Massey which can only hurry up and spin.
That's the main thing I don't like about them... otherwise they're a pretty decent little tractor.

Rod
 
Pure BS.... Just another "My color is better than your color" story. I've heard your "reason why you THINK Masseys "spin faster" because of a different concept in final drives. Simply no truth to that story.

I've owned several Fords and several Masseys (Ford 3000 gas, Ford 3000 diesel, Ford 4620 diesel, Ford 5000 diesel, MF135 diesel, MF150 diesel, MF255 diesel, MF583 diesel) The closest side by side comparison would be the 135 or 150 against the 3000's with a plow. 135 vs 3000, darn near equal except the MF ran on quite a bit less fuel. 150 vs 3000, the 3000 would appear as if it was down a cylinder. 150 would clean its clock and on half the fuel! No "spin faster".

Had both of 'em, compared 'em, sold the Fords, Kept the Masseys.
 
It's got nothing to do with 'color' in my mind, but mabey it does in yours. I've seen countless Masseys around here, and god knows there were a lot of them... from 135's, 150's, 165's, 230's and 250's to name but a few. Without fail, every single one I've ever laid eyes on had a big problem with traction, to the point that it was painful to watch. That's also true of every single Ford BELOW the 4000. They lack weight. The style of reduction in the final drive is irrelevant until you get to the point that you add enough weight to the wheels to make it work. Then you end up with axle failures which is why by the late 70's Ford was moving towards the planetary axles on all of it's basildon derived tractors... and if you think I'm wrong about that, you should question why nearly every single major axle component on the market today on any machine above a compact tractor uses planetary reduction. It's simply a more reliable design.
I don't care if Massey made the single reduction axle or Ford made it, the result will be the same. It's useless on anything other than a light utility tractor performing the lightest of drawbar jobs or PTO work.
I think the 3000 and 135 are very comparable tractors and I never said the 3000 was worth a damn either. For drawbar work, it isn't.
You're full of crap about the engine though. Both the 3 cylinder Perkins and the 3 cylinder Ford are plenty good engines. The Ford 201 fitted to the 4000 being just about bulletproof.
Fuel efficiency, statistically speaking (actual proven fact) goes to the 135 over the 3000 by a slight margin... according to the test, it amounts to between 2.-.3 gph less on the 135, but it also had slightly less power so it should burn less fuel. The 135 does have a slight advantage in efficinecy on a Hp-hr/gal basis.
As far as drawbar pull is concerned, the 3000 wins that hands down, by a considerable margin, again, related to dead weight that the 135 doesn't have.
Google the tests for both if you don't believe me unless you'd rather argue about paint instead of facts.

I don't need to own a Massey to know that the Fords I've got will outwork them. I've watched enough neighbours suffer with 135's. I've spent enough time suffering along on an old Ford 860 myself. They're all about the same class of tractor and all equally useless for anything I'm doing on a tractor.
I don't have any practical use for any of them, including the 3000 for that matter... but if you do, that's great.

Rod
 
MF Poor has owned both and you haven't. Shouldn't that make him more qualified to judge them? 135's are the most sought after tractor. Ask the dealers and auctioneers. How do you know if all tractors are outfitted the same? Do they all have fluid in the tires? For many years an MF 150 held the fuel economy record with the 3 cylinder Perkins with the 135 very close behind. The 3 cylinder Perkins is the most popular tractor engine ever made. The Perkins has sleeves and the Ford doesn't. If something went really wrong in the Ford, you'd have to get a new block if it was beyond what could be bored out. Perkins parts are cheaper as well. 135's were the most popular tractor in the world in their time. If you don't have lots of acreage, it doesn't make sense to have a great big tractor. Any tractor will suffer if it's hooked to too large an implement. If the Masseys are no good, why did they sell so many of them? From what I can figure, over 500,000 135's were sold and they are still in high demand over 40 years after they were introduced. Must be something good about them. Dave
 
So you "just know" huh? No real facts to back up your bogus claims. No real experience other than MORE bogus claims?

Like I said, I've owned BOTH. The Fords were "good" tractors, but in all the cases where I've owned similar models, the Masseys worked circles around the Fords, did so on far less fuel, lasted longer, and were simply better tractors. No issues with traction.

The 3000's were decent barnyard tractors, but the 135's and 150's will have them for lunch when hooked to a plow.

After reading your latest nonsense, I've got to wonder if you've ever even SEEN a tractor, muchless been around one!

You don't need to own a Massey alright. Stay with your play toys in the sandbox.
 
'MF Poor has owned both and you haven't. Shouldn't that make him more qualified to judge them?'

Why?? Why own one? I've seen many. Been around many. Know several people with them and I know how they're outfitted and they are ballasted. I've operated a few of them too... The 135 is no different than any other light tractor in it's class. Fine for what it is.

As far as sleeved vs parent bore engine is concerned, you could argue that till the end of time. Most engines today are parent bore like the Ford, so mabey that says something about which design is prefered. If something major did happen you could still pop a sleeve in the Ford block. It just took more time to do the overhaul because of the machining.
I don't see that parts are cheap for anything today, but I've got to admit, I havent' bought any Massey parts. No plans to either.

'Any tractor will suffer if it's hooked to too large an implement.'

Yes... and most impliments today are too large for the 135. As previously stated, that's why it's of no use to me.

Why were so many sold??

The same reason as why there were so many 'N' Ford's sold. They were cheaper than the competition at the time. If you had a need for a tractor of that size, you got better value for your money that probably any other tractor... if you actually had a use for a tractor that size.
I can think of several 100 series Massey's that are around this area sitting in the weeds or in a junk row somewhere because their owners have absolutely no use for them whatsoever.
The only 135's that are still working around here anymore are not on operating farms, but hobby farms and weekend warriors that want a tractor. They work fine for what they're being used for, but I can think of some owners that would be happy to have more tractor for what they're trying to do with them. Even the weekend warriors that love their 135 would prefer to have a bigger tractor. I know a few of them...
They seem to run a snowblower well and drag a bushhog around, and that's what most of them doa round here with the 135. Fine if you need it for that, but useless to me. I couldn't even drag a wagon with one.

Rod
 
How many pages of links would you like me to post with actual facts rather than your BS? I'd probably run out of bandwidth.

Rod
 
I've always taken specs and numbers for what they're worth, and based my opinions on what happens when you actually take a tractor to the field and put it to work. Theory and speculation are great debating points, but when push comes to shove, it's all about getting a job done.

Sales numbers, Nebraska test results, HP ratings, and coffee shop gossip don't hold a candle to side by side comparisons. My experience with the MF135 and 150 vs the 3000 Fords tells me that the Massey had a decided advantage in just about every area. I don't use either as a primary tractor these days, but through the 70's and early 80's I did.

Fuel economy. No comparison. The Perkins diesels are far more efficient. They last longer. Rated hp was LESS on the MF, yet they would perform BETTER under a load.

Drawbar loads? An equally ballasted 135 will plow all day long right along side of a 3000. Not any difference as far as I could see. Line up a 3000 against an MF150 and you'll wonder if the 3000 is down a cylinder or just getting tired. The 150 has the exact same engine and drive train as the 135. Simply a case of a better balanced tractor using its power more efficiently. NEITHER of the 3 tractors would have any "spin faster" issues.

I purchased the 150 new in 1971. I bought a new 3000 just a year later. Both were relatively close in price. (Paid more for the 3000) I bought the Ford primarily because a new Ford dealer opened up just a mile from home. MF dealer was 40 miles away. The 150 is still on the job. The 3000 was parted out several years ago. The engine flat wore out, front end and steering was so sloppy it was almost unuseable, even the sheet metal was toast. The 150 got a coat of paint and is here for another 37 years if I last that long.

Until just recently, I kept one of my 3000's for use on a mowing crew. (I operate a commercial mowing business) I still use that 150. Side by side, using IDENTICAL 6' Bush Hog 286 mowers, the MF 150 would consistantly run a gear higher than the 3000 is the exact same conditions. In an 8 hour day, the Massey would do quite a bit more work, and again, do that on far less fuel.

I won't stoop to ridiculous lines that I hear at the feed mill, or jokes that an owner of one color has about another. I'll stick with what I've seen and experienced.

Maybe there really IS a reason why Massey Ferguson was the #1 selling brand WORLD WIDE during the time when the 100 series was a new tractor.
 
Rather defensive aren't we? You can post all the "facts" (read your skewed opinion) you want. Those of us who've actually used BOTH brands KNOW the facts.
 
"Sales numbers, Nebraska test results, HP ratings, and coffee shop gossip don't hold a candle to side by side comparisons"

What more can I say... If an empirical, side by side engineering analysis such as the UNL test doesn't pass your muster, none of my lies will help you.

Did by any chance, just an off chance did it occour to you that your Massey dealer wound out the torque screw in your 150's fuel pump? It certainly wouldn't be the first old tractor that was turned up to make it look better than the competition and the owner never knew the difference.

Rod
 
I don't know about that. Grandpa ran a 165 diesel with a 3-16" 3pt. John Deere plow and didn't have problems with it. Our soil isn't exactly light here. With a 135 or 3000 Ford, yes you better have a bigger tractor for drawbar work. Its not bad with all work. You just shouldn't bale hay or pick corn or haul full hay wagons with a 135. Grandpa had one that handled planting and raking just fine.

Honestly I wouldn't touch any Ford with a 20 ft. pole except a 860. I know I'm biased on that, probably because my neighbor had a 4000 that I swear was a lemon and my uncle had a 9600 that was nothing but trouble. I think the 860s are good though. Grandpa had one for over 25 years and it was tougher than nails.

Back to the subject, I wouldn't want either. I would go for a International 656 or a 1650 Oliver or a Case 730.
 
Every tractor with the 3-152 Perkins after the 135 is still basically an upgraded 135. If you have a 1/4 section, you'd probably want a bigger tractor. If you only had 10 or 20 acres, you don't need 100 H.P.. 135's, 150's etc. are mostly designed for 3 pt. implements. That's why a 1964/65 MF 100 series tractor has a superior 3 pt. hitch system to most every other tractor on the market, even today. In comparing engines, look at larger engines. All the better engines use sleeves. A DT 466 is a good example. Yes sleeves are made that can be put in non sleeve engines but it costs a lot more. The engine has to be bored first and then sleeved. Nowadays it's all about making a cheaper, more affordable tractor. Look at the JD's that are made in India. Do you think they would sell as cheap if they were made in the US? Seems odd to me that sales figures don't matter. Early Ford Mustangs set sales records. Like MF 100 series they are still highly sought after. How can you have a model in production for 11 years and set sales records without it being an outstanding machine? Obviously a lot of people have a need for a smaller tractor. You can't compare a 40 H.P. tractor to a 100 H.P. or more tractor for a main farm tractor. There are zillions of 3 pt. implements of all sizes that can be matched to the H.P. of any tractor. It seems a waste to me to use a high H.P. tractor for a grain auger, mower or other chore that doesn't need it. Most people can't afford to pull a 15 ft. mower to cut the grass. If you check in the archives on here, any time someone has asked what would be a good tractor for smaller acreage, 135/s, 150/s etc., are the tractors of choice. They in fact do cost more than other tractors and really good ones demand a premium price. Why? Because they are the time tested standard and have been proven to live up to their reputation as being very reliable and efficient to operate. Dave
 
Massey has been the world wide sales leader since 1962(before the 100 series) and still is. In the 90's they sold over 25% more than second place, which I think was Ford, but not sure. I remember seeing a poster in a dealer that said MF sells a tractor every 3 minutes, or something like that, 24 hours a day. There are several companies around the world that build an MF clone tractor under an agreement with MF as well. I can't understand why some people won't accept that MF has made some outstanding tractors, especially the 100 series. What's even more puzzling is just like you say; people who have never owned one are usually the ones knocking them the most. Dave
 
If ANY of "your" testing was actually side by side field testing, then there MIGHT be some merit to it. But, The "test data" youseem to believe is the "above all end all" answer ISN'T actually real work and it sure isn't "side by side". How often do you drag a dyno around a concrete track? In all my years of farming I never did. Put 'em in the field with indetical sized equipment, and run 'em like they're meant to be ran. THAT is a side by side test. THAT is how the 3000 fell short of the Masseys.

Nebraska test data is for comparison. It has it's value. REAL WORLD USE has MORE value. Some people are actually smart enough to know the difference. Obviously you don't.

How do I know the Massey dealer didn't turn up the smoke screw? Because (A) I have a decent dealer who doesn't need to do things like that. (B) Since the tractor has been with me from the day it was new, and it still has the factory seal on the injector pump, it ain't been messed with.
 
I think you're incredibly naive if you think YOUR dealer, or any other dealer didn't or wouldn't turn a tractor up.
I can think of a couple local dealers (one green and one massey) that routinely tested every new tractor on their dyno and adjusted as necessary... and then they installed new seals on the pump when they were done so the buyer wouldn't know the difference. When they were taking one of the 'others' on trade, they'd make damn sure the new one outpulled it by a wide margin, and the pump was the guarntee for that. The same guy that worked at both of those dealers at one time also noted that the Massey's would make 5-10 hp more than they were rated for, right out of the box... something that is not obvious on their official test, so it's not impossible that Massey was sloppy (perhaps intentionally so) in their pump calibrations. He remarked that Kubota's were always spot on with their power, so I'd doubt if their dyno was out of whack.

As far as your 'real world' is concerned, the fact around here is that I've hauled loads with a 45 hp Ford 3930 that scare the owners of Ford 3000's and Massey 135's.
You know, real world, 10 metric tonne loads on 4 wheel wagons. 25-30 bales of silage kind of loads. Across fields, up and down hills, chewing and clawing in third gear. A normally ballasted 3000 or 135 would move about 20% of that on a wagon. Mabey they'd move more if their owners tried, but they were scared to go with more... so I'd take it they knew what they could handle.
I take UNL test data as being more representative of what the tractors can do because they take the time to properly ballast the tractors, or not ballast them, record exactly what they pulled, the conditions they did it in etc. Working on a concrete test track gives a repeatable result every time, so it's the only 'true' same condition comparison. Field testing one tractor with a monkeyed pump pulling a plow in a sand vein while the tractor next to it is bone stock and hauling a plow 2 inches deeper in a run of clay is hardly an 'even' comparison.
What you do in the field is merly the application of the theory that's evident on that concrete test track. Most people are generally less than successful at the application of that theroy too.

The fact remains that if you have a need for a light utility tractor for mostly PTO work (like you say you did) (bishhog, sickle bar mower, small tedder/rake, small baler etc) the 135 is a great little tractor. So is the 3000. I still don't draw any significant distinction between them... but if you need a tractor to do just about anything more than that, you need MORE tractor. Most operating farms today need more tractor than that.
nuff said.

Rod
 
I've got an 860. It hasn't been used in over 15 years because there isn't a damn thing it can do any more.
Aside from the copious amount of gas it burns to do next to nothing, and the incessant hydraulic problems it's had since day one, it wasn't a bad tractor...
It's not a model that I particularly recomend to anyone.
The 3 cylinder 4000 puts it to shame in many ways, reliability included.
I still have the 860, and it's not for sale for sentimental reasons... but I don't think for a second it was Ford's best tractor.

Rod
 
Yes, the basic 135 is still on the market. YEs, there's still a market out ther for it, but I'd think it pretty limited actually.

I don't go to a lot of auctions but I never see those tractors bring any kind of price more than anything else there, good bad or indifferent. I can also think of a few that were in running order that are parked in the weeds or the corner of a shed doing nothing... so I don't think their value is too great to anyone in this area.

I also don't know of any equipment manufacturer, Ford included that didn't try to construe themselves as the world leader in some form or another. Ford led the UK market for the better half of the last century and I beleive NH still holds that title today, not that it really matters. I've never bought a tractor because I though everyone else was buying them.
Dealer support and the quality/ability of the machine are more important to me. In terms of gross revenue, Deere & Company is the world leader today and has been for some time, and by a wide margin. That's obviously a larger product line than just tractors, but the fact stands.

Back to the sleeve issue... I will say again, that it can be argued until the end of time. If you go into any shop you can find pitted sleeves from any wet sleeve engine (Perkins, Detroit, IH...DT's, Cummins, Cat etc that are there for no reason other than that they were pitted and required replacement. Parent bore blocks are not immune to cavitation (Ford's certainly weren't), but they generally don't leak to the extend that wet sleeve engines do... which is the main claim to fame for a parent bore block. I think in reality they are very little cheaper to produce.
It also seems to me that the last time I had one bored, the cost was not all that great, and that involved the installation of 2 sleeves. Seems for 2 holes it was something like 300 bucks. A wet sleve set wouldn't come any cheaper than that at the time.
The biggest factor is the time it takes to overhaul a parent bore engine. You've got to sit and wait for the machining work to be done wheras the wet sleeve engine can be hauled apart and reassembled in a short period of time with little worry for error on the sleeves.
I've got some of both type. I don't worry about it one way or the other. An engine overhaul on most tracors today is a once in a lifetime thing if it's ever done. There's lots of 'B' series Cummins running up to 15000 hours without anything other than regular maintenance. By the time the machine has done that kind of work it generally ready for china anyway. You can rebuild them, but you're rebuilding a money pit.
That's largely why engines are parent bore today. Use it up and throw it away...

Rod
 
I didn't say NO dealer would turn up a tractor. What I did say, and you apparently don't have sufficient reading skills to comprehend is, MY dealer didn't turn up THIS tractor. It still has a sealed injector pump some 37 years after it originally sold new, and it still dyno's "stock" hp.

I'm more than certain you can drag in any number of larger, newer, more powerfull tractors and outperform a smaller, less powerful, (and coincidentally) older one. What's that prove? Exactly NOTHING. Point is, the 135 and 150 Massey's would work circles around a 3000 Ford, do so on less fuel, and in most cases, OUTLAST the Ford.

You keep going off on a tangent about farms not needing a small tractor, ect,..... That isn't the subject of this thread. The subject WAS a question by the OP about what tractor suited HIS needs, not about your disjointed concept of reality.

The fact remains, MANY smaller farms, and quite a few larger farms for that matter, still have use for smaller utility tractors. Anyone looking for one, regardless of who or for what purpose would be well served with a 100 series Massey. Still a viable tractor for it's size. Your critisisms of it are totally without merit and just don't hold up to the findings of hundreds of thousands of owners, both past and present.
 
You insist on making up your "facts" as you go along don't you?

The FACT is, during the years when the 135 was in production, 1 out of every 4 new tractors (in ALL sizes) sold in the UK was a 135 Massey. Ford NEVER touched Massey's stranglehold on the market in that size class. Not even CLOSE.

The FACT is, 135's on average command a higher price than ANY tractor from ANY brand in the same age group and size.

The Perkins AD3-152 is by far in a way the cheapest engine of its size to completely rebuild. Parts kits can still be had for under $500. Try to find a rebuild kit for a 3-cylinder Ford for that number.
 
Depending on the condition of the TA I would rather have a 560. It is a lot more bang per buck than the Massey imo.

Get a gas burner, with your small of area you would barely get a diesel warmed up before it would be time to shut it off again... they don't like that. Not to mention you could do all the work yourself if you are inclined. Sure it will drink a little more, but will last longer and will be cheaper to fix if it gives you problems... and if you ever need to go bigger (kids decide they want a horse, need to feed round bales...) you already have the equipment.

There are tons of 560's out there, and everybody has either had one or knows someone that had one if you need help with one. Parts availablity is another biggie, I know the nearest Massey dealer is a great long aways away from me, but the IH dealer is only 20 miles...
 
I’m from the UK, and farming during the 70’s and 80’s in the area that I was in, blue tractors out numbered red ones by a long way.

“1 out of every 4 new tractors (in ALL sizes) sold in the UK was a 135 Massey”. Where do you get that piece of info from????

In answer to the original post, for 1 – 5 acres of fun farming, a 135, 560 or 3000 would all do the job. Just buy a diesel, in best shape you can find locally, a have a dealer reasonably close. Try em and see which one you feel comfortable with.

Chris
 
We have a 240, basically a newer version of a 135.

It is used on a small full time farm, though not main tractor. I like it lots, but would not prefer as the only tractor for the farm, wouldn't make a good loader tractor in my opinion plus limited standard hydraulics

Perfect tractor for the light work, tedding, raking, mowing plus it is strong enough for the small harrows we have. Very easy on diesel. Fast on the road for hauling wagons.

Ours does not have calcium or other weights, It is very light, hardly sinks in wet ground, but lighter means limited 3pt capacity, any "heavy" 3pt work is done by our 495, I doubt the 240 would handle the small 3x12 3pt plow we have, front end would lift up, where the CIH doesn't flinch. Yes I could get a rack of weights, but that is pointless considering the other tractor handles the "heavy" loads fine.

I would buy another one like it for what it is used for.
 
I can think of a couple local dealers (one green and one massey) that routinely tested every new tractor on their dyno and adjusted as necessary... a
As far as your 'real world' is concerned, the fact around here is that I've hauled loads with a 45 hp Ford 3930 that scare the owners of Ford 3000's and Massey 135's.
Y
Click to expand...

What dealers? Carmichaels for green? who was the MF dealer in Cape Breton anyways? I can remember being into Carmichaels once YEARS ago. After eastern industrial got out no more true ag dealers in CB?

I ran a 5030 fwa..sure seemed like you could handle a load with that series of tractors. A fwa 3930 with the 8X8 would make a nice little loader tractor, personally would want an alo quicke loader, I didn't care too much for the 7310 bucket QA.
 
The dealers I was refering to were more in the 'central' region if you get my drift... If you've dealt with them both in the last 10-12 years you may know the guy I'm refering to. He's a pretty good guy too. I went to AC with his son.
Carmichaels were the only Deere dealer down here and I believe Midway Motors was the last Massey dealer... and that's some time ago. There were various others around over the years. I'm baling some hay for one of the former dealers tomorrow. Now there's a guy that sold them and won't own one... He was born an IH man and he'll die an IH man, but he made money selling Massey's for a time.
I wouldn't consider anyone left in the tractor game to be a true AG dealer anymore. S.J. MacRae & Son is still there selling CaseIH parts and Cub Cadet. I understand that he does keep a bunch of parts on hand, but I don't deal with him as I don't have any case gear... but he did put a bunch of tractors out there over the years.
Belmac Henderson is really the only dealer left selling tractors anymore with a Kubota line. They're getting into it more heavily and moving quite a bunch of stuff, but as far as I can tell it's mostly homeowner type stuff. They have captured some business from the local hort guys but I wonder where that's going to lead when they need something... because they don't seem to keep much stock, don't keep much in the way of even basic generic AG parts and don't seem to know a whole lot about it when you ask. A lot of guys here do like to try and support local business, but that only goes so far.
I've gotten to dealing just about exclusively with MacLeods and Bremner's for the simple reasont that they have some very good counter guys who know their stuff fairly well and are easy to deal with.
Their lines pretty well cover everything I've got anyway so it works out.

I'd sooner the Quicke loader too but the 7410 is what I've got. It's nothing to write home about either...

Rod
 
Actually, the point of my original post was that for the purposes of functionality, and for the sake of having a tractor capeable of handling a wider spectrum of semi-modern impliments, one might want to consider a larger tractor such as the 4000. The late 4000 is well able to bull around with heavy modern gear that is within it's power range. The 135 is not. As a prime example, I have a 14' Kuhn gyro rake that is fully mounted. My 3930 at 45 hp plays with it. The 135 could power it but ti wouldn't lift it. My 4000 struggles to lift it because the hydraulics are... not what they were 7000 hours ago, but if the little one went down, the 4000 would step up. THAT WAS MY POINT.
YOU seem to have missed that point.

Rod
 
"The FACT is, during the years when the 135 was in production, 1 out of every 4 new tractors (in ALL sizes) sold in the UK was a 135 Massey. Ford NEVER touched Massey's stranglehold on the market in that size class. Not even CLOSE"

Fact?? Sounds like you pulled that one out of thin air.
It may indeed be that Massey was the market leader in the UK in the late 60's, but the CITED FACT, here, from 'The Ford Tractor Story: Part Two; Basildon to NewHolland 1964 to 1999' quite clearly states in the preface that FORD became the market leader in the UK in 1973, a fact that NH still held that position in 1999 at the time of that book's publishing. I don't doubt that NH holds that title today either.
That was also coming on the end of both the 135's run and the thousand series run, but it would suggest to me more the success of the thousand series that they overtook Massey at that point aftern having some early problems with those tractors after their introduction.

Your claim that the 135 represented 25% of the UK market on it's own is absolutely absurd. Massey might, and I say might have had 25% share as an organization, and Ford another 25% or so, but no one tractor would represent 25% of the tractors sold in one country. Really, think about that...
I'm sure that if I did some more reading in that book I could turn out a page reference where Fordson was the market leader from perhaps the early-mid 50's up until the end of Dagenham production in 1964. So, by my arithmetic, that equates to the better part of the last half century...


"The FACT is, 135's on average command a higher price than ANY tractor from ANY brand in the same age group and size"

Mabey where you're from... but the auctions I see, they're no different than anything else. If anything, I'd give the pricing edge to the Ford's for the simple fact that you've got to pry them from someone's cold dead hands. There were plenty of the Massey's around, and plenty of them to go around yet. Supply and demand... and there's more supply than demand.
I can think of a few where the weeds and thorns have a pretty good stranglehold on them though.


"The Perkins AD3-152 is by far in a way the cheapest engine of its size to completely rebuild. Parts kits can still be had for under $500. Try to find a rebuild kit for a 3-cylinder Ford for that number."

Far and away?? I priced a Ford 201 kit for said 3930 a few months ago. Right in around the 500 mark. Mabey more than your ADE kit, but not by much. Course, that depends on whether you're talking a major kit or inframe kit or a ring and bearing kit... There's a lot of complete kits out there.
Had enough yet?

Rod
 
If Massey was making up claims of being the world market leader and putting up posters advertising it, that weren't true, I think there would be serious legal problems for them. I just recently saw a poster in the MF dealership that had a chronological order for MF tractor sales. World sales leader since 1962! In the early 90's, MF sold over 25% more tractors world wide than 2nd place. It has been stated many times that 1 out of 4 tractors sold in the UK was a 135. I've seen many brochures for implements with a 135 on them. The Howard model P rotavator was practically made for the 135. It stated in the brochure, along with a 135 in the pictures, that it is designed for tractors up to 37.5 PTO H.P.(exactly the power of a 135). If you look at old brochures for the 135, they even advertise it as the worlds most popular tractor. Maybe not of all time but certainly during its production. How can you do an inframe on a Ford if it has to be bored out? The Perkins is a dry sleeve engine. JD is the market leader in tractors in the US and only the US. World wide, they are number 4 or 5. JD may have the highest sales in terms of dollars but what is covered in their figures? JD out sources more equipment than any other manufacturer. They are very good at marketing but they have many different products as well. MF is part of Agco, should all of Agco be included in MF numbers? In that regard, I don't think anyone comes close to total sales. Comparing a tractor that is decades newer is not a fair comparison. The 35 is the most copied tractor in the world and the 135 is just an updated version. No other tractor can make that claim. If they didn't have such a great reputation, why would they be so copied and why would other countries still be producing a version of them under license? UK 135's were in production from 1965 till 1979 and newer models were basically the same thing for many years later as well. How many other modern tractors can make that claim? There are other good tractors but for the same period of the MF 100 series tractors, they were the market leaders. They did exactly what they claimed to do and did it with outstanding reliability and even better economy. If some people have them sitting in the weeds, they must not know that they could easily sell them to anyone looking for a good reliable lower H.P. tractor. The dealers putting every new tractor on the dyno and turning it up is the most absurd thing I've ever heard. Maybe they just wanted to do more warrantee work? I don't think so. With well over 500,000 135's, 150's and larger 100 series, that's a lot of pumps to turn up. Dave
 
Got all your "facts" (read BS) from a Ford book huh? Try an impartial listing of actual sales numbers. You'll find that the 135 did outsell ANYTHING Ford had to offer at that time. "TRACTOR & MACHINERY" magazine (published in England) recently published an article on the 135, and gave numbers. MF135 sold 1/4th of the total new tractor sales in England during it's run.

"Maybe where I'm from".... Yep.... Here in THE REAL WORLD the 100 series far outsells anything similar. I guess on whatever remote planet you're on, things are different.


"Right around 500"....Yep.... closer to 600, with PErkins kit UNDER 500. for COMPLETE kit at that.

No, I haven't "had enough". Keep me laughing. Keep on posting your nonsense.
 
They published an article?? Ohhh
I'd take a carefully researched book to be of more value than an 'article'. I think I'll take the word of an independant author and a carefully researched book over an 'article', by a magazine no less.
Mabey they could do an 'article' on the book.
Your claim, whether you read it on a sales poster or an article that fully 25% of the tractors sold in the UK were 135's is pure, absolute BUNK.
This, from a time and market where Massey, Ford, David Brown, Leyland, Deere and International were all major players and probably a more minor role from Fiat, Fendt, Renault, Volvo BM, Zetor and a slate of others I've never seen or perhaps even heard of. Massey, Ford, IH and Brown would all have been within a relatively close distance of each other in sales terms I'm sure... and you're giving 25% market to the 135 alone. It must have been the only tractor they sold in the UK at that rate and the rest of the 'real work' was done by the Ford 4000, 5000 and 7000.


Engine kits... ahh, no. Closer 500 for an A&I kit. Ford kit prices have dropped a lot in price over the last few years.

Rod
 
I don't do inframes on Ford's, period. Ever. Changing the rear seal requires a split, so you simply split it and do it rather than suffer trying to do an inframe. It adds a total of about 2 hours to the job to remove the block and reinstall the block in the tractor. Throwing it up on an engine stand where you can see what you're doing saves a good portion of that time.

As far as variants of the 135 still being in production... that's quite true. There are also variants of the Ford 3000/3600 still in production today, or were up until Farmtrac ceased operations late last year.
Obviously, the 3000 never had the sales numbers of the 135, but the basic design is still out there. Most Ford buyers from that era bought 4000's and 5000's because they were more usefull tractors for what they were doing.

If you think dealers don't dyno tractors and adjust pumps, you've not been around the dealer shop too much, or mabey they don't tell the patriots like you two how they operate.
Most dealers with Dyno's will check every new tractor to verify that it's up to spec before it leaves the yard.
Some special cases get a twist of the screw to make it look better than the old one, either because they've taken someone elses paint on trade or because a finicky customer needs to believe that the new model (that was same as the old model) has to be that much better than the old tractor. That was called 'marketing'. Both of you seem like ideal canidates for 'marketing' as well.
I don't see why on earth they'd do more warranty work as a result of that. Turning the screw 5-10% isn't going to hurt any tractor if it was any good to start with. That would be well within the cooling system capacity of most.
There were lots of tractors, especially turbo engines, that were cranked up anywhere from 10-30+%.
I've got a Ford 7710 that's cranked up 20% itself. Lots of them were (perhaps most of them), because they would take it. Beyond 20% on the 7710 and you'd quickly start running into cooling problems and extreme EGT's, but up to that point and a mild amount of common sense and they last a long time.

Rod
 
(quoted from post at 16:10:26 09/22/08)
Rod
Click to expand...


Didn't know MacRae was still selling parts, haven't been into Baddeck in a while. Now that I think about it, IIRC, I remember seeing midway motors dealer stickers with Dodge Plymouth Massey Ferguson on them. Interestingly my grandfather sold Massey Harris in Sydney in the 1940's.

Belmac was hawking Deere a few years back, understood they had an "arrangement" with MacLeods on stock as Deere wouldn't given them a full dealership. Have a relative that bought a small kubota with mower/blower from them.

Been into Bremners in Moncton since Tractors Plus closed. Only have one NH piece though so it's not a bother. Deal very little with Central, and don't have any green, so no MacLeod's dealings, went to AC myself (late 90's) with one of their salesmen.

I've ran three 7310 loaders....all of them were junk in the bucket QA,twisted, broken and misaligned, all of them were either next to new or brand new, didn't take much to tear them up.
 
(quoted from post at 19:28:00 09/22/08) A The late 4000 is well able to bull around with heavy modern gear that is within it's power range. The 135 is not. As a prime example, I have a 14' Kuhn gyro rake that is fully mounted. My 3930 at 45 hp plays with it. The 135 could power it but ti wouldn't lift it. M

Rod
Click to expand...

amen...I've tried to use a 3pt 4501 gyrorake on an MF 250, too light in the front! Needed a full set of weights to even lift it, and even then you were still too low to clear the windrow without having the PTO max angled. More than enough power...just not enough tractor.
 
And I suppose that Massey paid off an impartial magazine to make these claims? The book you claim was written about Ford tractors. The magazine is about all tractors. If was doing a "carefully researched" book on Ford tractors, I'd most likely do my research on Ford tractors and not so much on other brands as in the case of 135's and the rest of the 100 series Massey's, because when it comes to sales figures, nothing is even close! Why would someone write a book about Ford tractors and mention that MF tractors far outsold them? It doesn't make any sense does it? You are guessing about your sales figures. MF sold over 25,000 135's in 1965, over 30,000 in 1966 and over 25,000 again in 1967. In fact early model UK 135's sold 179,400 in the period from 1965 to 1971! and later UK model 135's sold another 90,713 in the period from 1971 to 1979 for a total of 270,113 tractors. These numbers are only for the UK made tractors and don't include the US, French, or other foreign made tractors which would add significant numbers to overall sales figures. UK production couldn't keep up with demand for 135's. A spacer was put in later 135's and they were renumbered a 148 model. A few companies even made 4 wheel drive conversions for 135's. Since you don't want to believe the 1 out of 4 claim, lets see some sales numbers for Fords and the other makes you mentioned. Actual numbers would hold a little more weight than your being sure that other makes would be relatively close in sales numbers. 135's are legendary tractors and have been, and still are, in great demand for anyone wanting a proven lower H.P. tractor. There are companies in the UK that find 135's to restore for resale because of the huge demand for them. The restored ones are not cheap to buy and usually have a buyer before they are even finished. Ford made a decent tractor but it certainly didn't sell anywhere near the numbers of the MF 100 series tractors, especially the 135. If you want to check out a good book on MF tractors, A World Wide Guide to MF 100 and 1000 tractors by John Farnworth would be a good start. For the sales figures I quoted, look under Puddingsworld web site and then go into Jarle's MF site. Dave
 
If a dealer is working on a tractor or the injection pump, they might dyno it or adjust it. Tractors come from the factory ready to go to work. They might need some final assembly but not with the engine. When I had my 1965 135 in the shop about 20 years ago, I asked them to dyno it. I was standing right there and it put out exactly what it said it should according to published H.P. and what the service manual said it should be. It had the factory seal on it. Turning up a pump reduces the life of the engine and also increases fuel consumption. In the time when 135's were selling in record numbers, I'd think the dealers were pretty busy just getting them out to customers. Usually when someone wants a new tractor, it's because they want to upgrade for what ever reason, not because they have money burning a hole in their pocket. With the price of fuel today, I would think that people want as efficient of tractor as possible. The Perkins engines of 40 years ago are still some of the most fuel efficient engines ever made. You're trying to dispute the sales and reputation of a tractor you've never owned. Are you going to say that all your neighbors that seem to have all these 135's laying in the weeds are all wrong because they bought them in the first place? You are grasping at straws in your argument. 100 series Massey's sold in huge numbers because they were outstanding tractors! They are still highly sought after and recommended to people. How can you dispute that? Dave
 
(quoted from post at 14:52:08 09/23/08) What year???

'98 Eng tech
3rd floor fraser...
Click to expand...

'99 Bus tech (Chapman)

Think I found you in my 1998 Agricola(pg57), recognize you from campus, we probably took same courses but at different semesters, I'm 5th from left in the class photo (pg 34).
 
I don't have sales numbers and I'm not going looking for them, but the 25% figure is simply not logical to me.
There were still a lot of manufacturers on the go in those days and it would have been odd for any one of them to carry that kind of market share as a company, let alone as a model. If that figure was true, I'd expect that is was about the only model that Massey sold much of in the UK... which is perhaps possible. The 4000 and 5000 were Ford's major models at the time; certainly not the 2000 or 3000.

As far as the 'book' is concerned, I take Stuart Gibbard's work to be fairly serious rather than simply a fan book. 1. because it contains a large amount of information on Ford, provided by Ford, and
2. Although he claims to be quite partial to Ford, it's not the only comprehensive history he's written. I forget now without looking, but his other works are listed, and there were several. Massey may have been among them...
So I'd think he has a wealth of historical information, sales data and such on many brands. I'd not expect that depth of research from a magazine, but I'm not familiar with the one cited.

So, are we letting this one to the archives yet? It's on page 7 as I write....

Rod
 
You dispute a claim but have no solid evidence to support it. UK 165 production was 182,251 tractors and again this doesn't include US or other countries of manufacture. Until I see some sales figures for other manufacturers, I'll stand by what has been stated. The 135 filled a world wide need for a tractor of its type. Averaging over 25,500 tractors a year for the first 7 years of production(just in the UK) is a lot of tractors for a new model! The UK isn't that big. I guess we can put it to rest. You probably wouldn't believe that when MF owned Perkins, it was the largest diesel engine producer either. The Super Dexta even used a 3 cylinder Perkins. Dave
 
I dispute it simply because it doesn't make sense to me in what was at that time a diverse tractor market. I won't argue that the 135 was without a doubt the best selling tractor in it's class.

I did know that the Dexta used a version of the Perkins. There were several around here and well liked too.

It wouldn't surprise me if Perkins was the largest engine supplier at one time either. The engines were, and are used in a wide variety of equipment other than Massey's.
I think if you actually look at he claimed sales leaders today though, you'd probably find that Mercedes is #1(including Detroit Diesel), Cat is #2 (including Perkins) and Cummins is a quite distant third.
That would be speaking to the north american market specifically, and most likely the world market... and Cat is probably not a very distant second.

Rod
 
You dispute it because it doesn't make sense to you. The numbers speak for themselfs. Cat was the largest diesel engine producer in the heavy duty range and Perkins was the largest in the lower H.P. class. I would think that since Cat now owns Perkins, they would be the largest by a pretty good margin. When Massey bought Perkins in 1959, they decided right from the start to operate Perkins as is own seperate division and supply engines to other OEM's, including their competition. Perkins has helped many other engine manufacturers with R & D. Dave
 
Actually, before their respective mergers in the late 90's Mercedes was the largest. Perhaps not a well known fact since Cat would be larger in North America, but worldwide, Mercedes is larger. Don't forget, that includes boatloads of diesel powered cars in Europe, a prime market to generate unit numbers.
With Detroit added to that I'm sure they still hold an edge. Either way, both that and Cat are large organizations...

Rod
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

I
Questions about fabrication of MF 135 Diesel lines
Replies
8
Views
1K
jtxn
J
P
Mf 135 water in engine oil.
Replies
14
Views
1K
peanut pete
P
F
Massey Ferguson 135 Z145 Continental 4 cylinder gas
Replies
0
Views
509
Floydferguson
F
J
Opinions on a MF 670 4WD with loader
Replies
4
Views
827
JimB2
J
B
Talk me out of an MF 65...
2
Replies
29
Views
1K
Paul from MI
P
Tractor Parts Tractor Manuals

We sell tractor parts! We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today.

Copyright © 1997-2024 Yesterday's Tractor Co.

All Rights Reserved. Reproduction of any part of this website, including design and content, without written permission is strictly prohibited. Trade Marks and Trade Names contained and used in this Website are those of others, and are used in this Website in a descriptive sense to refer to the products of others. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER: Tradenames and Trademarks referred to within Yesterday's Tractor Co. products and within the Yesterday's Tractor Co. websites are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Yesterday's Tractor Co., our products, or our website nor are we sponsored by them. John Deere and its logos are the registered trademarks of the John Deere Corporation. Agco, Agco Allis, White, Massey Ferguson and their logos are the registered trademarks of AGCO Corporation. Case, Case-IH, Farmall, International Harvester, New Holland and their logos are registered trademarks of CNH Global N.V.

Yesterday's Tractors - Antique Tractor Headquarters
Website Accessibility Policy

Back
Top