861 Vs. 4000

Tom Bond

Member
What's the major differences besides year of manufacture and about 10 H.P. between these two models? I'm looking for another project so I'm shopping around. The 2 things I mentioned stand out to me and also the rear lift capacity looks almost double that of my 861. Which one would you guys rather own? An older hundred series or the later thousand series. For that matter, which one would be the better worker? Going to sell the 861 now that it's done but not too sure about moving to a 4000 or staying with another hundred series. Just lookin' for something to kill some time with in the garage this winter.
 
Which 4000?
The 4 cylinder 'Prior' 4000 is essentially an 801 painted Blue.
The 3 cylinder 1965 and later 4000 was a whole new platform and does not compare with the Prior much at all.

DL_1964_Ford_4000.jpg


ford-4000-tractor-parts3.jpg
 
I like both, but I like the rear hydraulics on the
4000 better. You can control it by hand and not use
your feet at all. Pretty simple under the top
cover.
 
The 3-cylinder would be the better worker, hands down, and by far my first choice of teh two. Better hydraulic flow and 3-point capacity, much better brakes, stronger front axle (unless you get a 4000SU), 30" rear tires (again, unless you get a SU), more weight, double-reduction rear axle, the 8-speed tranny...
I'm not saying the pre-'65's don't have their place, just that the 3-cyl. 4000's have a lot of advantages. (but only about a 5 h.p. advantage)
 
I've owned both and prefer the four cylinder 4000/8xx models for my purposes. I much like the small size, maneuverability and, expecially low overall height. I do not like the higher CG of the three cylinder 4000.

There is VERY little HP difference between the later 172 powered tractors and the 3 cylinder 4000s. Indeed, the early 192 3 cylinders produce slightly less PTO HP than do the late 172s in tractors with gear transmissions.

Dean
 
If you like the size of the Priors you would probably like a 3 cyl 4000 SU as there is not much difference in size/height.
I'm curious where you got your HP numbers from.
I always assumed there was at least a 5-8 hp increase on a 3 cyl.
 
Depends on the year... the early 3-cylinders were rated lower than later ones. Nebraska test #892, 4000, SOS/201 diesel:45.6 pto h.p. Nebraska test #893, 4000 8-speed/201 diesel: 46.7 h.p. I don't have the gasser test results handy, but they're likely within 1-2 h.p. That puts them even with a 871/881 and a couple horses behind a 851/861. I'd guess the h.p. went up to 50 @ pto in mid '68, when the 192 gas was replaced with the 201, and the 5000 was bumped from 233 c.i. to 256. (my '72 sales literature lists the 4000 as 50 pto h.p.)
By this point, I'd bet most all those early ones have been rebuilt, and have gotten whatever upgrades they needed to make 50 h.p. (expcept the ones still running a 192)
 
I agree about the SU, and actually looked unsuccessfully for a decent 4000 SU a few years ago. Eventually, I bought a MF.

I once owned a 66 4000 utility SOS gasoline and did not like it for my mowing chores, though it would have made a decent loader tractor due to the heavy front axle and increrased weight.

I mow some very steep ground and around many trees and like the hundred series tractors with horizontal exhaust for limb clearance and low CG. The low seat position is great for driving beneath limbs.

I have CH Wendels Nebraska tractor test book. Most of my performance specs come from it.

Dean
 
as others have said. completely different platform and machine build.

if the 4000 is not a SU.. it will be a good loader machine.. heavy axle..e tc.

I generally prefer the prior models.. though i do love my 4600.. etc..
 

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.

Back
Top