MF Combines (300, 500, etc) 1960's to 70's differences

I'm looking for a simple explanation for the similarities and differences in the Massey Ferguson combines from the mid- 1960's to I guess maybe the end of the 1970's.

I want to know what models would share similar parts to my MF-300 combine (it has slant-6). The engine I can take care of, it's the other mechanical parts.

I sorta know that the 510 "looks" similar to the 300?

Its when I'm looking through parts available on-line that I'd like to know if the johnson rod from a 550 or what ever would likely work on the 300.

A chronological explanation of the timeline of when these combines were made/sold would also be informative.

(quoted from post at 19:10:58 10/12/21) I'm looking for a simple explanation for the similarities and differences in the Massey Ferguson combines from the mid- 1960's to I guess maybe the end of the 1970's.

I want to know what models would share similar parts to my MF-300 combine (it has slant-6). The engine I can take care of, it's the other mechanical parts.

I sorta know that the 510 "looks" similar to the 300?

Its when I'm looking through parts available on-line that I'd like to know if the johnson rod from a 550 or what ever would likely work on the 300.

A chronological explanation of the timeline of when these combines were made/sold would also be informative.

Click to expand...

Tom Carroll was the main engineer at Massey harris combines. He designed the Massey Harris 20,then the 21. He spent his entire life living everywhere.
Toward the end of his carreer, he was an expatriate for Massey in Scotland (for the Kilmarnok factory), and designed the 400 and 500 combines to be built there in 1960.
Those had ground breaking technology, like improved operator comfort, saddle tanks, hydraulic turret style auger, 2 speeds variable speed cylinder drive, tailings retresher, rotay screen for air intake on the engine, and the list goes on...
The width of the walkers, cylinder, and shoe was the same on the 400 and 500.

In USA, the Super 92 and Super 82 were sold at that time. The super 92 featured the wider walker body compared to rest of machine, and was related to the Massey Harris 21 that also shared engine under separator.

In 1963, the 410 and 510 ware released in NA, built in a brand new factory in Brantford, Ontario. In fact, North America was waiting for the new factory and new production tooling to replace the outdated massey with engine under the separator.
The 410 and 510 were improved over the Kilmarnock 400 and 500 by having the wider walkers, and the 3 screens cascade shoe. The 400 and 500 had a more conventional shoe.
The 410 and 510 were also launched in production for 1964 or 1965 in France (Marquette plant) and Kilmarnock. So 3 factories were building them at the same time, and they were big hits.


I think the 300 was introduced on the US market slightly before the 410 and 510, but I am not sure. The 300 had a specific design compared to others models of the range (410 and 510). I think not much can be swapped between a 300 and a 410, because the layout of the belts is different. 300 is simpler machine.
Interestingly, the massey 300 did not made it to Europe, but instead top mounted engine combines similar to the 35 and bigger were developped in Germany. Those Germans models design was exported to Brazil and were still made in improved version few years ago (and very successfull).

The 300 was replaced in the lineup by the 205 with a top mounted engine.
The 410 replaced the Super 92 (37 inch cylinder), and was replaced by the 540.
The 510 was a new size (45 inch cylinder), and was replaced by the 550.

It must be noted that there was a "genereation 2" of the 510 introduced around 1969 I think: In Europe, the 510 was replaced by the 520 in 1968. That combine had a longer cleaning shoe similar to the one fitted on the late US made 510s. The 520 was even replaced by the 520 "Super 2" during the mid seventies (same time the 550 was introduced in the USA), and got the same high inertia treshing cylinder than the 550.

Like the 550 is often accused of reliability issues, the 520 was never seen as as good as a combine as the 510. Build quality was an issue, but it could be that combines were built lighter than the earlier one.

I hope this is clear. Massey combines development and evolution at that time period needs to be seen globally, because there was lots of interation between Europe and NA for improving and designing combines. But as per your first question, the 300 is an orphan, parts wise.
If in doubt, you can always lookup by "parts number" on AGCO Partsbook online.

What always stood out to me about a MF 300 was it was the smallest MF machine sold around here it
would take a three row corn head. 410s here were running 4 row headers. THe easiest one to work on as
a mechanic was the 750/760. We had a 4t5 JD,and I went to the dealership and worked on the 750s About
the only thing that was shared was the air in the tires.

Enjoying this topic, great info.

Know a fella that did a Brantford factory tour in the eighties. It was a union plant and there was always 2 men available to do one man's job, alcohol consumption among employees was ignored. I forget the high number of combines that were turned around at final inspection for defects. The Brantford combine factory workers where the highest payed factory workers in Canada at the time, CAW's at it's best.

Might not of made a difference if it had employees that cared, but you never know.

Might not of made a difference if it had employees that cared, but you never know.

Click to expand...

It would have made a difference. The combine plant in France had exact same issue, with unions and frequent strikes. This affected quality greatly.

In 1968 mf launched a replacement for the 510 in Europe: the 520. First models were built during the long strike of may 1968, and many were loosing parts in the field like walkers, etc.... before then, Massey was indisputable pionneer, but the bad rap of the first 520's give more room for Claas and New Holland.

My first manager at Agco was a former employee at the massey marquette combine plant. He told me that when he entered in 1974, first thing HR told him is: " If you work right, you will not search for another job in your carreer".
MF was deemed too big to fail. The marketshare they had in tractors and combine could be compared to john deere today, altough they had more competitors.

Well, 8 years later marquette plant cease combine production and start making tractors cabs. He did not have to search a job, because he got recycled in tractors engineering.



In Europe, the 700 and 800 had a very thorough PDI inspection done by the importer (the copany that installed parts for Europe, like the tank cover, lights, etc...) and this probably explained why those combines never had many issues.

Acording to sales lit the 205 did not replace the 300 but both were sold at same time as the 205 was a smaller machine than the 300. 205 more size of JD 45 while the 300 was more size of JD 55 machines. The 205 and 300 were both in same sales lit.

Also, the 540 was more of a 300 than a 410. Many of the internals on a 540 are the same as a 300. Most of them did carry 4 row corn heads in my neck of the woods, while 300s ran a 2 row or 3 row.

Al

The 540 is 37 inch cylinder like the 410 and the Super92 before that. So it was meant to replace them.
But the 540 had similar drives to 300 to keep cost down.

Wanting to keep cost down and running a pricebook war while having a superior treshing combine did broke massey down... There was no need for them to do that. Bad managment