Another Dealer Ad - 3000

Ultradog MN · Mar 17, 2016

Here are some more dealer ad photos for those of you who liked the others.
I like all the Fords but the 3000 will always be my favorite.

Bern · Mar 17, 2016

I never knew you could get a 4-speed transmission on a 3000. I don't believe I've ever seen a 4-speed transmission from that era that didn't have a torque converter in front of it.

I'm curious as to why the 3000 was your favorite? What advantage does a 3000 have over a 4000, other than maybe tighter turning?

Ultradog MN · Mar 17, 2016

4 speed was not uncommon. You could get them with a sherman combo too.
My first 3 cyl was a 2000 and first 3000 both had 4 speeds.
1st gear was too fast in them.
I like them because of their size. They are just right for my weekend warrior purposes.
4000 is just a bit too large.
I've had or built several nice 4000s thinking I would like it. But always ended up selling those and keeping my 3000.
4000 is easier to work on. No wishbone steering or side pump to mess with on a split.
3000 brakes are lame too.
But the size is what keeps me going back to the 3000.

Shetland Sheepdog · Mar 17, 2016

Ultra, you definitely need a 4000 SU! All the advantages of the 3000 and the 4000 all in one super package!
Jus' sayin'
Dave

shaun wallace · Mar 17, 2016

When the 6Y tractors came out they added a 6 speed trans.

Benj R · Mar 17, 2016

Hey thanks for posting the the 3000 dealer ads. I have a 1965 2000 3cyl diesel with the 6 speed transmission, it is the UK version. I do not think the 4 speed was available in the UK. Most of our thousand series tractors here in Canada came from the Britain.

JBGOATS · Mar 18, 2016

Thanks Ultradog. I'll be saving this link. I have a '74, gas, 3000 and often wondered what size implements were commonly used with the 3000. This ad showed they were using four row planters. I'm going to enjoy this post. Thanks again....

3000OH · Mar 18, 2016

Thank you!!! Really really neat to see how our '65 probably looked when it got delivered. Interesting to notice some things:
-- The 3000 decal on side of the hood is indeed an all-white background, unlike the shiny silver background sold by some restoration companies (maybe that type was used on a later year?).
-- The Ford white rear rims & centers. We've seen some pics on this board of some 65-68 centers that were blue.
-- The 3-bolt rear wheel weights to mount to the dished centers.
-- The low-mounted oval mufflers.
-- The high-extended air pre-filter tube.
-- The nearly all-blue 2000.

We haven't owned anything except an N and two 3000-series but I have to agree with you, the 3000 just about perfectly fits our needs.

Thank you again!!!

wvfarmboy · Mar 18, 2016

great little tractors a 3000 or a 3600 when pushed can do any job on the farm except chop corn and for a part time farmer thay are perfect and pritty good loader tractor aswell i remember loading 5x5 round bales when i stoped with loader up stacking two high the rear wheels was off the ground i finally got a 5000 made a big difference.

Ultradog MN · Mar 18, 2016

I think you are right.
I tried it with a 4400. It was short and low
enough but I did not like the steering. Not
crisp enough and didn't turn as sharp as a
3000. I would avoid the 3000 style steering
if I could but an SU may end up being the
best option.

Ultradog MN · Mar 18, 2016

You and I have talked about this before...
If you look closely at the photos you can
also see that the early 3000s had the hood
set at the higher setting. Look at the
height difference between the valance and
the axle on the 2000 vs 3000. Also note how
much more of the intake manifold and fuel
tank you can see on the 3000.
The later ones - 4/68? onward were both set
at the same height - lower setting.
As for the different paint schemes, this is
a photo of a mid year 68 2000 that I used to
have.
I'm certain the paint is original.
Gray fenders, unlike the blue ones in the
dealer ad.

Bern · Mar 18, 2016

To each his own I guess. I'd take a 4000 over a 3000 for the steering and front axle alone. I cannot stand that SU front end.

3000OH · Mar 18, 2016

I didn't realize the valence was different. I'd read about others having to mod repop noses to get them to fit an older model but never understood exactly what had to be changed.

I wonder if the hand throttle rod was also longer (higher) on the early 3000s. I've had a problem in winter when snow plowing w/big mitts - a left turn sometimes ends up with engine going to idle as the end of the mitt catches the end of the lever.

Thanks for the info!

Sean in PA · Mar 18, 2016

(quoted from post at 17:57:10 03/17/16) I never knew you could get a 4-speed transmission on a 3000. I don't believe I've ever seen a 4-speed transmission from that era that didn't have a torque converter in front of it.

The earliest manual reversers were also 4x4's and there were a number of them on 3400's and 4400's.

Ultradog MN · Mar 18, 2016

Throttle rod/handle is the same length.
It just is closer to the cowl on the high
tin models.
Also, the nose is the same on both styles.
There are two settings (bolt holes) on the
bolster where the nose bolts on at the
bottom to adjust for the height.
There is more to it than that - different
cowl on high/low tin and rear hood bracket
is different on a diesel. But that is the
gist of it.

Shetland Sheepdog · Mar 18, 2016

I had a late 3000 gas S-O-S many years ago, as well as a late 4000 AP diesel S-O-S! Unfortunately, I didn't have a clue about proper S-O-S maintenance, so they both went by the wayside!

Another Dealer Ad - 3000

Ultradog MN

Well-known Member

Bern

Well-known Member

Ultradog MN

Well-known Member

Shetland Sheepdog

Well-known Member

shaun wallace

Well-known Member

Benj R

Member

JBGOATS

Member

3000OH

Member

wvfarmboy

Member

Ultradog MN

Well-known Member

Ultradog MN

Well-known Member

Bern

Well-known Member

3000OH

Member

Sean in PA

Well-known Member

Ultradog MN

Well-known Member

Shetland Sheepdog

Well-known Member

Similar threads