Whats Better - Massey Ferguson or Ford

[Howard And Sons]

Dear Tractor world -
I would just like veryones opinion on if ford is better than Massey Ferguson - specificaly ford 3000,4000 versus Massey Ferguson 290/165..

[Brian]

Strange question on a FORD and FORDSON board! [/b]

[Frans]

Whats the meaning of this just see the website imo its more like advertising

[Steven B]

Let me see now, eerrrrr, Ford!!! There, that was easy.

[Gman]

I agree, why would you ask such of a question on this site? I guess we need an answer from this side of the water. Fordson, no question, Go Blue.

[JohnnyBoy]

Dear Tractor world -
I would just like veryones opinion on if ford is better than Massey Ferguson - specificaly ford 3000,4000 versus Massey Ferguson 290/165..

Well here’s my 2-penny worth.

I have a 1951 Ferguson TED-20 Petrol/TVO and a 1957 Fordson Major Diesel.

The Fergie can do everything I want it to do except lift the large hay bales on the 3-point linkage.

The FMD does everything with ease, but then again it is a cat 2 tractor whereas the Fergie is a cat 1

The Fergie is a pleasure to drive and I often take her out just for a drive.

The FMD is heavy on the steering although I’ve not yet been able to take him out on the road yet.

I’ve been driving them both today and wouldn’t like to pick between them.

[essex pete]

That question would be better posted on here:

http://farmingforum.co.uk/forums/index.php

No doubt it will mostly be down to peoples personal experiences sometimes viewed thro' slightly rose tints.

Would have thought you would compare the 4000 with 165 and 3000 with 135.

I drove both the MF models as student and only drove an old pre force 4000 round a dairy farm yard and a similar model on an arable farm used for odds and sods. The 4000 was more nimble than the 165 although neither had p/s like the 165 that I drove. I prefered the 165, it seemed more substantial and quieter.
I am sure that the Perkins engines lasted better.
I have never driven the 3000 but I seriously doubt it was better than a good 135 which seemed to me to punch well above its weight.

Now i'll duck!

[woodseaves]

Here's your answer:-


http://www.howardandsons.co.uk

[The Swanndri Guy]

I have a headache, how can you ask a question like that??? Having used both mf's and FORDS, heres my answer. The 4000 is a better tractor than a 165.From my experience, the engine in the 4000, will work longer and harder than that of the 165, probably more economical too.As for 3000 vs 135, I would pick the 3000 as the better tractor.135 compares better to a Super Dexta, to which the Super Dexta is the better of the two. TSG.

[john.n]

i would say having looked into buying an mf35 initially the parts are cheaper slightly. inital cost of purchase was higher when i looked.
i settled on a dexta in the end. inital cost was lower but tin work can cost more, eg mudguards. the engine has more HP due to a better pump. but the block is more prone to crack due to lack of anti freeze.

btw you have to be a member of the friends of ferguson to use their forum....

[Bensdexta]

i would say having looked into buying an mf35 .......

Which engine did you consider, the 4 cyl Standard or 3 cyl Perkins? The concensus seems to be that the Perkins is alot better.

[john.n]

the fordson 3 cyl has more hp than the perkins very similar engine tho. the standard 4cly has more hp than the perkins but has a bad reputation for starting. i think the 3cyl will cost you more aswell.

can i ask what you want the tractor for? work or showing?