Ford vs. Massey-Ferguson

I'm new to tractors and have been comparing the older 1950's and early 1960's Ford tractors against the 1950's and early 1960's Massey-Ferguson tractors. The problem is, they both look exactly the same.

The only difference I see between them is one is painted blue and grey and the other is painted red and grey. Other than that, for the most part, both look like they rolled off the exact same assembly line.

I'm not trying to stir up a heated debate between the two, rather, I'm trying to figure out the differences between the two in an objective way. Also what are the advantages and disadvantages of each.

I'm especially interested in the diesel powered versions of each. :wink:

I don't know anything about the Masseys, but I know enough about the four-cylinder Fords to say that there's a huge differences between the different Ford models. These include:

Engines: 134 or 172 cid; gas or diesel.
Standard versus row crop (row crop can have either narrow or wide front end)
Transmissions: 4 speed, 5 speed, Select-o-Speed (8 speed). 4 speed may have Sherman high/low auxiliary transmission.
PTO: Live or non-live

Decide what's important for you. As far as Massey vs. Ford, I would see who has the nearest dealership, and whether or not the dealership's parts department is any good. A good dealership nearby can make a huge difference in keeping a tractor running.

If you're talking pre-'65 then I'd honestly look harder at the massey for NO reason other than the Perkins engine. Post '65 Fords.... the 2000 and 3000 are a much improved tractor over the 2000/4000 of the older series but still a light utility tractor. The 4000 and 5000 were two of the very best tractors EVER built by ANY manufacturer since the time that tractors were built. The early ones had some troubles but they generally ironed that out. It's hard to beat an early 70's 4000 diesel with an 8 speed crash box. For the money you paid you got an efficient little lugger of a 3 cylinder engine, said 8 speed transmission, independant PTO and a double reduction planetary axle with wet brakes. Massey spent a whole generation after that dedicated to a light tractor in that class with single reduction axles and dry brakes. Those tractors had lots of power to 'hurry up and spin'. The Ford's went out and did the work.

I'm not really a big fan of the older Fords from the Jubilee up to the early thousand series. Engines were decent but inefficient, hydraulics were problematic and the tractors were light. They needed a lot of ballast to be useful. Transmissions also left a lot to be desired.
At the end of the day it's all a matter of which you prefer anyway...

Rod

One of the big things is parts. Both are now owned by other company's. But so far ford wins over part then the MF. Both came for the same place at one time till one man got mad at time till one got made at the other. Ford parts are easier to find and cost less then the MF parts do

I own both. (MF150, Ford 3000) Bought the 150 new in '71, bought the 3000 new in 73. Massey has advantage in engine (Perkins diesel) Ford has SLIGHTLY better hydraulics but by the slightest of margins. Massey has held up much better, less repairs needed over the years. Massey Ferguson parts MUCH less expensive than New Holland/Ford parts. (New Holland in general is highest priced parts around. I've got a couple Deere's too) Tie on ease/availability of parts. Local dealer service and support should make some difference as to which is best for you.

All things being equal, I MUCH prefer to use my MF and let the Ford sit. The MF is a much better all around tractor.

Sounds like you arent too tractor savy so why would you want a diesel which will require good maintenence and a good shed for storage.

There have been volumes written on this topic. I would recommend contacting the N-news in Corinth VT.www.n-news.com I am sure that they will be happy to set you up with any amount of resources that you like about the subject. One tidbit: to differentiate between the old ones as you drive by them; ford grills have vertical bars MF are horizontal

If you are talking about a 9/2/8N, then the Ford parts are easier to find and cheaper, but you will need to buy them more often. MF had better engineering. Here in NY, every Ford in those yeare has been ridden hard and put away wet...VERY WET! Don't know why, but most of the MF seem to have gotten a lot more love. For this reason folks around here always try to find a MF. To the point they pay 2-3x's more for them. Mike

I've ran/ operated/owhed both. I'd have a hard time choosing. They are my favorite brands of tractor. I'd go with whichever had the best parts availibility in your area.
Mr. Bob

To be able to compair diesel to diesel you will have to step up to the ford 01 series.. and in that one, the 172 is better than the 144.

I think , as rod stated, the latrer ford diesels will make a better apples to apples comparison.. than trying to go across ont he 50's era tractors.

soundguy

On the old gas burning tractors,I like the Fergusen better than the Ford.Overhead valve engine,not too bad to work on.Other than that its about the same tractor.Then the NAA on up a couple of years and the Ford has a couple of things better like the steering,the motor.Then in the diesels I think its Massey Fergusen a little better at first.Then the newer thousand series Fords were better.So year by year it kind of depends what year as to who made a better tractor.Another thing is what do you want to do with it makes a difference as well.While there is not a real big bunch of difference in any of them,its kind of hard to say which one will work the best for you.It can get hard to get parts for Massey Fergusen sometimes.I think its not too bad to get parts on the Fords.All the parts cost a lot.From where I live its a long ways to a Massey Fergusen parts place,but theres a New Holland about 30 miles away.If I had to choose,I would go with Ford for that reason.You will cuss something it takes a half a days drive to get some little 20 dollar part for a lot more than something you can get in an hour and be back in the field.