Ford NAA vs 1972 Ford 2000 3 cylinder

I currently own the NAA. I am considering the purchase of the '72 ford 2000 soon. I typically use the NAA to mow 5 acres with a 60" finish mower (brand unknown) with no problems. Recently I found a 6' Bush Hog ATH720 finish mower, in GREAT shape. My NAA struggles with the mower on mildly sloping terrain. I really like the mower, and honestly don't wanna give it up. Too, I'm also interested in later purchasing a 5 foot (6' if possible) tiller attachment for the ford 2000 since it is equipt with hi/low range transmission. The NAA isn't capable (ground speed too fast). With only 6 additional horsepower, hi/low transmission, and the obvious live PTO option, am I expecting too much from the ford 2000 to efficiently use these implements? Or, are the options available with the Ford 2000 "THAT" much more noticeable?
 
and the obvious live PTO option,

Not all 3 cylinder 2000's had live PTO. Make sure the one that you're looking at really does have it.

All you said about the trans on the 2000 was that it has a hi/low range. Is it a 6 speed or an 8 speed? 8 Speed is better with more speed ranges available at proper engine rpm's for 540 rpm PTO speed. But a 6 speed should be fine for brush hogging and roto-tilling.

Yes, the 2000 should be able to handle those implements better than an NAA. Besides a few more ponies the 2000 has about 700 to 800 lbs. more weight so it won't feel the weight of the implements wagging the dog as much, so to speak. Plus the 3 point lift on the 2000 should be able to lift a few hundred lbs. more than the NAA.
 
It's an 8 speed. 6 fwd/2 revs. Model# B1123C, I think. In terms of power, will it be a pretty noticeable difference you think? Not sure the horsepower at the pto on the NAA. The specs are clear as mud.
 
It's my understanding the 2000 "should" provide more torque than the NAA with its larger bore/shorter stroke engine. I'm hoping it won't bog down like the NAA under the same load the ATH720 demands.
 
I have a 72 2000 cylinder gas and I have a 48 8n. Both are in great shape and I use them both all the time. The 2000 has a lot more torque and does very well with the brush hogs that I have where as the 8n will bog down going up a hill and cutting brush. I do not have a tiller so I cannot comment on that.
 
Just recalling from memory here but I think a 3 cyl 2000 was rated at 33 hp while the NAA,600,601 was rated about 34 hp. So you will see no net gain in horsepower. Nada.
But as Sean says, the 2000 weighs about 700 lbs more than an NAA giving you a heavier, more stable platform.
I do think the 3 cyl is a superior machine in many regards. In that era of tractor building manufacturers were competing hard for sales. And Ford's engineering department wasn't exactly sitting on their hands for the 12 years between 53 and 65.
But I doubt you'll see a whole lot of increased performance on your rotary mower going from one machine to another.
 
Ultradog .... The specs listed via Tractor data are as follows:

Ford NAA:

http://www.tractordata.com/farm-tractors/000/2/1/219-ford-naa.html

Ford 2000:

http://www.tractordata.com/farm-tractors/005/1/5/5150-ford-2000.html
 
(quoted from post at 02:02:46 09/10/16) Just recalling from memory here but I think a 3 cyl 2000 was rated at 33 hp while the NAA,600,601 was rated about 34 hp. So you will see no net gain in horsepower. Nada.
But as Sean says, the 2000 weighs about 700 lbs more than an NAA giving you a heavier, more stable platform.
I do think the 3 cyl is a superior machine in many regards. In that era of tractor building manufacturers were competing hard for sales. And Ford's engineering department wasn't exactly sitting on their hands for the 12 years between 53 and 65.
But I doubt you'll see a whole lot of increased performance on your rotary mower going from one machine to another.

As noted earlier the 2000 is 6 horses bigger than the NAA, and roughly 2 horses more at the pto. Hope that's safe to assume. However, Tractor data suggests the NAA is "claimed" to be 30.12 at the pto, not "tested". This is where my confusion begins ... :-/
 


Both tractors will too fast to run a pto tiller correctly.

An SOS 10 speed will run a tiller perfectly with the extreame lower gears.

However a true 8 speed ford 2000 with higher torque will be a much better tractor all around. Its lower gears over the naa will allow hills to be handle easier and safer. It probably will have a locking rearend with the 8 speed and may or maynot have a live pto with the 8/2 speed transmission.
 
Tractordata is not always accurate.
Power test says 32.09 pto hp on a 3 cyl
2000 and
31.14 belt hp for an NAA
I'm pretty sure you wont get a 6 hp
increase from switching.
However, a 3000 gasser is rated 37 at the
pto. And they used the exact same 158 ci
engine as the 2000.
The consensus here is they gained the
extra hp by governing the engine about 150
rpm faster amd probably by using different
jetting in the carb.
So... you could do a bit of tweaking and
get the extra ponies you're hoping for.
But I don't understand why the NAA
struggles with a 6' finish mower. I used
to use a 6' fm behind a 2N and it was
adequate if i didn't let the grass get too
long. My first 3 cyl was a 68 2000 gasser
and it easily handled the 6' mower.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for upgrading
your tractor to a newer, better model and
a 2000 is better - especially if it has a
6 or 8 speed, more so if it has lpto.
And doubly so if it has power steering.
But I really doubt you'll get the hp
increase you are wanting if you go from an
NAA to the 2000.
 
I agree. The 2000 is all around an improvement over a NAA (especially the 8-speed), but h.p. is essentially the same. An NAA SHOULD handle a 6' finish mower without a problem...my uncles's 8N (5 h.p. less than an NAA) runs a 5' fm easily. Maybe that NAA is getting tired.
 
What maximum ground speed is recommended for tilling? I think I read somewhere that this 2000, in low 1st gear, moves about 1.3 - 1.4 mph. That's too fast?
 
No doubt my NAA is tired. Compression is pretty even, but on the low side (90 psi). Not burning any oil .... yet. Like others, I thought it'd handle the mower just fine too. Perhaps it's the gearbox/mower itself? Who knows. After rebuilding the carb last year, I can pull my 5' mower all day long @ only 1100-1200 rpm, no problem. It had no problems at all, regardless of grass height.
 
(quoted from post at 06:54:43 09/10/16) Tractordata is not always accurate.
Power test says 32.09 pto hp on a 3 cyl
2000 and
31.14 belt hp for an NAA
I'm pretty sure you wont get a 6 hp
increase from switching.
However, a 3000 gasser is rated 37 at the
pto. And they used the exact same 158 ci
engine as the 2000.
The consensus here is they gained the
extra hp by governing the engine about 150
rpm faster amd probably by using different
jetting in the carb.
So... you could do a bit of tweaking and
get the extra ponies you're hoping for.
But I don't understand why the NAA
struggles with a 6' finish mower. I used
to use a 6' fm behind a 2N and it was
adequate if i didn't let the grass get too
long. My first 3 cyl was a 68 2000 gasser
and it easily handled the 6' mower.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for upgrading
your tractor to a newer, better model and
a 2000 is better - especially if it has a
6 or 8 speed, more so if it has lpto.
And doubly so if it has power steering.
But I really doubt you'll get the hp
increase you are wanting if you go from an
NAA to the 2000.

Aside from what you mentioned, it's my understanding the 2000 and 3000 both had the same bore, but the 3000 had a longer stroke.
 

2000 and 3000 gas have the same 158 ci engine, 3000 diesel has a larger 175 ci engine.
The 2000's larger engine will have better torque than NAA and you will have lower gears to power on thru in heavy grass.
I pull a 7ft tiller with my 4000SU that's geared the same as a 2000, I think it does a good job but I always make multiple passes in both directions.
 
Was an option...if it has a pedal near the right foot... that is a rear end deferential lock,, that when pushed down with your heel, will lock both tires into the drive, so that only one tires does not sit there and spin. very rare on 2000s but more common on 3000s.

a higher torque engine will hold a load much better than a low torque engine before loosing rpm. A lower torque engine must be kept at higher rpms to generate the same hp but will loose it faster.
 
My thoughts exactly. You got a photo of the differential lock pedal? I'll look for it, but don't recall any mention of one by the owner.
 
Was thinking about this again this morning.
Destroked is correct. Both the 2000 and 3000
gassers used a 158 = 4.2b x 3.8s
The 3000D used a 175 = 4.2b x 4.2s
In 1976 when they came out with the X600s
the 2600g/d stayed at 158 but the 3600g got
bumped up to a 175 to match the ci of the
3600 diesels.
Ford did some fun things with 3 cranks
3.8,4.2 and 4.4 and 2 blocks 4.2 and 4.4
You could get 158, 175, 183, 192 and 201
engines though I've never heard of a 183
gasser snd I doubt they made anything with a
4.4b x 3.8s.
Fwiw, any of those engines would drop right
into a 2000. I ran a 201g in my 3000 for a
few years. THAT was a noticeable bump in hp.
 
I would not get too hung up on the diff lock feature. I use it rarely. As most do, I keep the brakes unlocked. The right and left brakes can be locked together or left independent. When a wheel starts to slip, I apply that brake to slow the spin which causes the other wheel to start pulling. Works quite well. That is the old school diff lock :lol:

John
 
Thanks everyone for the advice/replies. Today, I ran across a diesel Massey Ferguson 135, and snatched it up. Questions coming in a new thread soon!
 
Here she is!
20160917_182049.jpg
 

Nice looking 135, we had some neighbors that had 135's back in the day. I can't say anything bad about them, good used 135's are hard to find around here but our local Massy dealer closed years ago so parts availability became a issue.
 

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