The older masseys

I couldn't agree, every tractor has to be judged for it's era.
Fordson 9N's, Fergy 20's, 135, 165, Ford 5000's, 7000's etc, sold like hot cakes because they were so far ahead of what had gone before.
As for the MF 100 series, I have never driven a better sub 50hp tractor than the 135 and that is why so many of them are still going.
Fair enough, if judging within that particular era the MF100 series were great tractors. We had 8 different versions over that time from 135 through to 188 and they served us very well. But advances in technology since then make it very difficult to consider them as the best of all time IMO.
 
Ah lads. Surely ye can’t forget about the Zetors. :tt2:
They started making the Crystal range in 1968. Flat floor safety cabs, one of the quietest cabs of its time (under 85dB), enough room inside to bring the whole family for a spin, they’d pull damn near anything you could hitch onto them, came standard with 2 stage torque converters, hydraulic tractor brakes (and before anyone starts picking on this, the reason they suffered so badly for some people was largely, but not entirely, down to a lack of willingness to bleed them. I know plenty that got on great with them. They reckoned the secret was bleeding them up.), pneumatic trailer brakes, on board air compressors...... need I keep going?
And yes, I know they’d be heavier on diesel than a 135 but probably twice the power. And all the smaller ones had much the same specs bar the torque converters. All very torquey for pulling. The only reason I’m giving the crystals as an example is it’s very hard to pinpoint dates as to when the smaller ones got cabs etc.

The Massey might be classy, but the Zetor was better :fight::lol::2guns:
 
Ah lads. Surely ye can’t forget about the Zetors. :tt2:
They started making the Crystal range in 1968. Flat floor safety cabs, one of the quietest cabs of its time (under 85dB), enough room inside to bring the whole family for a spin, they’d pull damn near anything you could hitch onto them, came standard with 2 stage torque converters, hydraulic tractor brakes (and before anyone starts picking on this, the reason they suffered so badly for some people was largely, but not entirely, down to a lack of willingness to bleed them. I know plenty that got on great with them. They reckoned the secret was bleeding them up.), pneumatic trailer brakes, on board air compressors...... need I keep going?
And yes, I know they’d be heavier on diesel than a 135 but probably twice the power. And all the smaller ones had much the same specs bar the torque converters. All very torquey for pulling. The only reason I’m giving the crystals as an example is it’s very hard to pinpoint dates as to when the smaller ones got cabs etc.

The Massey might be classy, but the Zetor was better :fight::lol::2guns:

A few old lads around here are convinced Zetor would have took over only for two issues

The quality of the tinwork was behind MF. Communism was the cause of that. The second was stuff like water hoses, weren't as good as western offerings at the time.

The Spec was way ahead of many western tractors at the time, but build quality was worse due to not having access to good material. Crystal was years ahead of a 165 at the time, but theres a lot more 100 series still on the go today.

When I was working fixing tractors more regularly, I did a lift in a 165 and an Ursus mercury in the same month. Had to cut several bolts at the rear of the cab in the Ursus, heads had rotted clean off then. Every bolt on the 165 was like new. The English had access to better quality steel. Many of those Eastern bloc countries were largely forced to trade with Russia, and Russian steel was poor quality.

SIAC cabs is another example, fitted to landinis and 600 series massey fergusons. Russian steel was used cause it was cheap.

I'm as diehard a Landini man as you'll get, and even I'll admit the stuff in the cabs was pure shite til about 1994.

Had the Zetor crystal been built in England id say they could be the market leader today. Politics is a strange thing.
 
The 100 series easily out do any other series of tractor built to date icuding the 300 series. Their simple, reliable and handy on diesel.

I’m not sure,I’d rate the 4 and 5000s as far better than 165s and 185s,but I’d still rate the 135 as the best tractor ever made.
 
Ah lads. Surely ye can’t forget about the Zetors. :tt2:
They started making the Crystal range in 1968. Flat floor safety cabs, one of the quietest cabs of its time (under 85dB), enough room inside to bring the whole family for a spin, they’d pull damn near anything you could hitch onto them, came standard with 2 stage torque converters, hydraulic tractor brakes (and before anyone starts picking on this, the reason they suffered so badly for some people was largely, but not entirely, down to a lack of willingness to bleed them. I know plenty that got on great with them. They reckoned the secret was bleeding them up.), pneumatic trailer brakes, on board air compressors...... need I keep going?
And yes, I know they’d be heavier on diesel than a 135 but probably twice the power. And all the smaller ones had much the same specs bar the torque converters. All very torquey for pulling. The only reason I’m giving the crystals as an example is it’s very hard to pinpoint dates as to when the smaller ones got cabs etc.

The Massey might be classy, but the Zetor was better :fight::lol::2guns:
The 8011 seemed to be good tractors if well minded, when I was young we had a 120hp 4wd Ursus 12145??? I can't remember the number. It was a good tractor while going but spent more time in the garage than working, my older brother was very rough on machinery and my father was no longer into machinery so it got dogs abuse and no care, but the MF 178 and 135 were able to withstand the abuse unlike the Ursus.
Even with that said the smaller Zetors- Ursus, sub 50hp were not able to hold a candle to a 135. Neither are any of the modern small tractors, once you are down around that hp simplicity is king, anything extra draws to much of the hp.
 
I would agree completely and add that the 7000 was miles ahead of anything MF were offering at the time.

We never saw a 7000 round here till the early 80s,can only think of one,both my neighbours had 7600s apart from porous blocks great tractors.
 
A few old lads around here are convinced Zetor would have took over only for two issues

The quality of the tinwork was behind MF. Communism was the cause of that. The second was stuff like water hoses, weren't as good as western offerings at the time.

The Spec was way ahead of many western tractors at the time, but build quality was worse due to not having access to good material. Crystal was years ahead of a 165 at the time, but theres a lot more 100 series still on the go today.

When I was working fixing tractors more regularly, I did a lift in a 165 and an Ursus mercury in the same month. Had to cut several bolts at the rear of the cab in the Ursus, heads had rotted clean off then. Every bolt on the 165 was like new. The English had access to better quality steel. Many of those Eastern bloc countries were largely forced to trade with Russia, and Russian steel was poor quality.

SIAC cabs is another example, fitted to landinis and 600 series massey fergusons. Russian steel was used cause it was cheap.

I'm as diehard a Landini man as you'll get, and even I'll admit the stuff in the cabs was pure shite til about 1994.

Had the Zetor crystal been built in England id say they could be the market leader today. Politics is a strange thing.

I seen the mud guards and doors rotted with rust on a newish at the time ursus 490 mercury.

That said a neighbour put 12000 hours on a 4512. The black cabs lasted better than the silver ones around here
 
I would agree completely and add that the 7000 was miles ahead of anything MF were offering at the time.
I would agree 100% with you, the 7000 was way way ahead of anything else when it came out. It got to name of being heavy on diesel but that was because the tank was too small.
 
The 8011 seemed to be good tractors if well minded, when I was young we had a 120hp 4wd Ursus 12145??? I can't remember the number. It was a good tractor while going but spent more time in the garage than working, my older brother was very rough on machinery and my father was no longer into machinery so it got dogs abuse and no care, but the MF 178 and 135 were able to withstand the abuse unlike the Ursus.
Even with that said the smaller Zetors- Ursus, sub 50hp were not able to hold a candle to a 135. Neither are any of the modern small tractors, once you are down around that hp simplicity is king, anything extra draws to much of the hp.
I had an 8011 here many years ago,the most unreliable heap of shit that ever stood in the yard.
Constant oil leaks ,no brakes,no power and poor hydraulics that when they weren’t airlocked couldn’t tip a trailer But back the 165 in beside it and it tipped it no bother.
The cab was reasonable on them but I always thought they had shocking visibility for anything rear mounted.
Traction was good on hard ground but in soft ground their way so little clearance in them that the sat on their bellies and god nor man wouldn’t move them.
It was replaced by an MF 698 which wasn’t one of Masseys finest By any means but it was twice the tractor of the 8011.
 
From what i understand, zetor were the first to put a passenger seat in a tractor. Said passenger seat was for the mechanic that was needed to fix it. Was a simple fix in my eyes
 
In a strange turn of events I seem to have talked my way into running down Ford 3000's and 3600's and talking up Crystals, how the hell I managed to talk myself into that stupid corner I don't know.
It must be lack of practice talking sh!te when drunk in a bar.
 
I would agree completely and add that the 7000 was miles ahead of anything MF were offering at the time.

I would agree 100% with you, the 7000 was way way ahead of anything else when it came out. It got to name of being heavy on diesel but that was because the tank was too small.
I also concur with that.
IIRC the 7000 held 75 litres of fuel , same as the 5000.
 
We did not get on well with the Massey 165 and 135 with both sold with 7000 hours.and the 165 had the engine done at 5000 hours and the 135 had something done with the head .
The 135 was worked hard and the back wheel rims and dishes had to be replaced because they broke up hauling heavy trailers. The wheel centers on the 165 cracked around the nuts and they were not loose . The hydraulics were always banging . I think the Ford 4000 were a great tractor . Good brakes and lever engaged PTO and lively hydraulics and a fantastic engine.
 
In a strange turn of events I seem to have talked my way into running down Ford 3000's and 3600's and talking up Crystals, how the hell I managed to talk myself into that stupid corner I don't know.
It must be lack of practice talking sh!te when drunk in a bar.

You may get Kavanaghs to start serving grub so that you can get a lough of pints into you :lol::lol::lol:
 
In a strange turn of events I seem to have talked my way into running down Ford 3000's and 3600's and talking up Crystals, how the hell I managed to talk myself into that stupid corner I don't know.
It must be lack of practice talking sh!te when drunk in a bar.

The way you are going we dare not mention older IH's :whistle:
 
For sure the 135 deserves huge praise.
They were always over tasked and never gave up.
Power to weight was superb. My late father bought a very early 1966 one with Multi Power which has currently circa 8800 hrs!! It was his tractor to bale with a NH377 and many were amazed at how quick it could bale!!! Many others were using twice the power but no better output!!
Maybe a little quieter though if they had a q cab
 
Can wings be gotten for these cabs?

I know you could get them folded up by a fabricator but just wondering are they available off the shelf?
 

Attachments

  • 20200711_183311-01.jpeg
    20200711_183311-01.jpeg
    487.3 KB · Views: 63
Good thing about those Lambourne wings is every bit is cut from flat sheet , an exact copy would be possible .
 
I have a couple of pairs of standard 135 mudguards, both pairs in OK condition, not perfect but not bad. What sort of price should I be looking for them?
 
I sold the ones off the 185 for £ 150 for the pair at Lanark mart in March ,thankfully I turned down the offer of £60 from a dealer when we were laying them out for the sale.
 
Back
Top