Author	[Modern View]
greebas 01-29-2013 23:00:24 76.22.235.185 Report to Moderator	Trying to decide between purchasing a 165 or 265. Was wondering if there are any differences in reliability issues? [Reply]   [No Email]
Finn MD 02-06-2013 09:41:02 70.91.159.193 Report to Moderator	Re: MF 165 or 265 in reply to greebas, 01-29-2013 23:00:24   I have a 165 D and have also run a 265 before. The 265 has better hydraulics for equipment and loader, and a bit more power. I use my 165D for cutting & baling hay just fine, but the 265 works better if you want to round bale. I also put wet disc brakes on the 165D years ago and helps with working on hills. For a 165, I would look for a 4 speed 165 D, which do not have Multipower, and newer ones that have the square rear axle (more heavy duty). The square axle 165 can get the wet disc conversion only. If they all have MP make sure they work properly, otherwise no compression braking, you will free wheel, very dangerous. For light work and mowing/brush hog, either works fine. Both are very reliable, and both great tractors.   [Reply]  [No Email]
Masseynut(Australia) 01-30-2013 16:24:40 121.223.35.221 Report to Moderator	Re: MF 165 or 265 in reply to greebas, 01-29-2013 23:00:24   To add to the other contributors here, if your looking at a 165, the later models with oil immersed wet brakes were a far better option than the earlier models, that sometimes had troublesome dry disc brakes. Evan.   [Reply]  [No Email]
Dieseltech 01-30-2013 21:23:52 199.16.223.2 Report to Moderator	Re: MF 165 or 265 in reply to Masseynut(Australia), 01-30-2013 16:24:40   MF 100 series US tractors, I have never seen wet brakes on either early or late models. 200 series did have wet brakes on late models. Sounds like UK got the better wet brakes before US did. My early 165 has same brake 65 did, brothers late 165 has dry brakes too, but plates are larger diameter than early models.   [Reply]  [No Email]
Jason S. 01-31-2013 08:28:24 204.54.36.245 Report to Moderator	Re: MF 165 or 265 in reply to Dieseltech, 01-30-2013 21:23:52   I wish the US versions did have the wet brakes. My 175 is a 1974 model and it's got the dry brakes but I plan on doing the wet brake conversion on it.As far as the 165, I grew up with one and it was a 1965 model. I never did really notice the vibration from the engine. I can tell you that the hour meter quit in 1980 and it had 7200 hours on it then and we used it daily until 1992 when we got a 253. I'd say that tractor had over 9000 hours on it and it is still running to this day. All that was ever done to it was two waterpumps,clutch,front axle pin, and brakes. You cant go wrong with either tractor although the 265 has a better steering system from what I can remember and it you are going to use a loader the 265 would be the better tractor for a loader.   [Reply]  [No Email]
Masseynut(Australia) 01-31-2013 02:22:51 121.223.35.221 Report to Moderator	Re: MF 165 or 265 in reply to Dieseltech, 01-30-2013 21:23:52   Jez, you blokes did get the rough end of the pineapple! The English built models had wet brakes from 71' thru till the last model in 79'. They were referred to as the "upgraded" models. All dry brake models up until then, had the same diameter discs as the 65's. When did the last of the 165's run to in the US?   [Reply]  [No Email]
Dieseltech 01-31-2013 04:58:30 75.146.127.109 Report to Moderator	Re: MF 165 or 265 in reply to Masseynut(Australia), 01-31-2013 02:22:51   The last 165s I remember being sold when working at MF dealer was 1973, but may have been 1974. Recall several 200 series sold in 1975, even they had dry brakes, but larger diameter, still 2 discs. Not sure what year multi disc wet brakes were installed.   [Reply]  [No Email]
Bob N.Y. 01-30-2013 16:04:12 72.10.212.122 Report to Moderator	Re: MF 165 or 265 in reply to greebas, 01-29-2013 23:00:24   + The 265 is more horsepower than the 165. The 265 replaced the 175. The 165 was replaced by the 255.   [Reply]  [No Email]
Dieseltech 01-30-2013 05:27:59 75.146.127.109 Report to Moderator	Re: MF 165 or 265 in reply to greebas, 01-29-2013 23:00:24   If you are looking at diesel models, 165 has Perkins 203, 265 has Perkins 236. My choice would be the 236 engine as it has a balancer and will run smoother. Dad had a 165D, ran good, easy on fuel, but not as smooth as his 180 with the 236. My 2 cents worth.   [Reply]  [No Email]