The older masseys

The multi power wasn't a great job IMO,it wasn't as good as dual power,the lack of engine braking in low,and the fact that the gearbox locked up in high,if facing up a hill ,were the main downfalls.
Before my spannering days,the multi power pump and the main lift pump were joined together to help speed up the loader.

Knock it into low, or push the clutch to the floor, not the end of the world :001_huh:
The engine braking was a bigger drawback alright, had a few hairy moments over the years and I was well used to it.
 
Knock it into low, or push the clutch to the floor, not the end of the world :001_huh:
The engine braking was a bigger drawback alright, had a few hairy moments over the years and I was well used to it.

Must have been something a miss with ours,if you dropped the clutch to the floor it would hold on a hill ,and you wouldn't move the lever until it was put into low,I was under the impression that they were all that way.
It was a fair rough tractor before my time driving it,and all I can say is you would appreciate a nice tractor after years of working it.
 
Must have been something a miss with ours,if you dropped the clutch to the floor it would hold on a hill ,and you wouldn't move the lever until it was put into low,I was under the impression that they were all that way.
It was a fair rough tractor before my time driving it,and all I can say is you would appreciate a nice tractor after years of working it.

Jaysus now that you say it I can't rightly remember, I always knocked her into low to take her out of gear out of habit, I thought she'd come out if you pressed the second stage on the clutch but it's so long since I did it I couldn't be sure :confused:
 
Jaysus now that you say it I can't rightly remember, I always knocked her into low to take her out of gear out of habit, I thought she'd come out if you pressed the second stage on the clutch but it's so long since I did it I couldn't be sure :confused:
Snap. I was keeping my trap shut no sure either now but stopping the pto wouldnae stop the multi power pump I think:confused:
 
Didn't those multi powers burn themselves out if you worked to long in one of the ranges?.

Never heard of that one it was oil pressure put them into hi ,pressure of into lo hence no engine braking in lo .Is it an 8 speed box in your168? Keep checking donedeal in case LSY810 turns up went to kesh tractors in 1975
 
Last edited:
Ones with multi power had the extra pump and aux hydraulics, couldn't get either on the standard version, perhaps that is why John B's one was done like that.

I don't think clutch position did anything with multi power but then what do I know.
 
Ones with multi power had the extra pump and aux hydraulics, couldn't get either on the standard version, perhaps that is why John B's one was done like that.

I don't think clutch position did anything with multi power but then what do I know.

my 168 got the multi power pump fitted in 1986 no need now to move the 3way valve under the seat:thumbup:
 
As good a topic as any ;)

Anybody care to share the various variants of the 100 series and the difference between them?

There are quite a few and even sure the 165 was not a bog standard no change tractor either.

Then there was the 135 and 133. I always assumed that they were basically the same tractor, the only difference being that the 133 had a single plate clutch as opposed to the 135's dual clutch. It was only in recent years that I learned they were basically two very different tractors altogether, with the 133 being built in France and fitted with a smaller engine, which delivered less power. Something like 38hp I think, as opposed to the 135's 45. The 133 was common enough around here in it's day. They were all fitted with a Lambourne cab which had a narrow front windscreen and a green canvas roof. I don't know if this was the only cab ever to be fitted to the 133, but it was the only one I ever saw. Many of them were later fitted with a dual clutch during their lives, and the proud owner then believed that he owned a 135... :thumbup: :whistle:
 
Then there was the 135 and 133. I always assumed that they were basically the same tractor, the only difference being that the 133 had a single plate clutch as opposed to the 135's dual clutch. It was only in recent years that I learned they were basically two very different tractors altogether, with the 133 being built in France and fitted with a smaller engine, which delivered less power. Something like 38hp I think, as opposed to the 135's 45. The 133 was common enough around here in it's day. They were all fitted with a Lambourne cab which had a narrow front windscreen and a green canvas roof. I don't know if this was the only cab ever to be fitted to the 133, but it was the only one I ever saw. Many of them were later fitted with a dual clutch during their lives, and the proud owner then believed that he owned a 135... :thumbup: :whistle:

Remember the 133, at the time it was a sort of poor mans 135, westland cab it was called as if it was aimed at the west of Ireland, France was the scource of the miserable 130.
 
Interesting article in Classic Tractor this month on the 8 range and the comment yet again was the 168 was the pick of the bunch.
 
Then there was the 135 and 133. I always assumed that they were basically the same tractor, the only difference being that the 133 had a single plate clutch as opposed to the 135's dual clutch. It was only in recent years that I learned they were basically two very different tractors altogether, with the 133 being built in France and fitted with a smaller engine, which delivered less power. Something like 38hp I think, as opposed to the 135's 45. The 133 was common enough around here in it's day. They were all fitted with a Lambourne cab which had a narrow front windscreen and a green canvas roof. I don't know if this was the only cab ever to be fitted to the 133, but it was the only one I ever saw. Many of them were later fitted with a dual clutch during their lives, and the proud owner then believed that he owned a 135... :thumbup: :whistle:

wasn't it massey 178 that could hit 30 miles and hour :ohmy:
 
Don't think you,d get 30 mph out of a 178 without having it screaming its head off normally they were about 21 mph with 16.9x34s@2350 revs

I remember one guy who used to depress the clutch his 178 while going downhill.. I don't know what sort of speed he achieved though.... :whistle:
 
Back
Top