Author |
[Modern View] |
pomester
03-30-2019 17:18:35
|
not associated and not interested, but someone might be https://tippecanoe.craigslist.org/grd/d/delphi-ford-6000-tractor-diesel-67hp/6839039947.html
sorry, don't know how to make a hot link - David
|
|
|
sunbeam
04-01-2019 07:25:37
|
Re: 6000 in reply to pomester, 03-30-2019 17:18:35
|
|
If you own one of these tractors and have children around please exhaust the hydraulic accumulator when parking. I remember a case where 2 kids were playing on the tractor one moved the 3 point lever and the other was caught in the linkage.
|
|
|
Royse
03-31-2019 13:36:02
|
Re: 6000 in reply to pomester, 03-30-2019 17:18:35
|
|
"I would Not haul a 6500 lb tractor on a 7000 lb trailer."
You are spot on. Unless your trailer only weighed 500 pounds, you'd be over the weight rating for the trailer's axles.
|
|
|
Ultradog MN
03-31-2019 12:08:49
|
Re: 6000 in reply to pomester, 03-30-2019 17:18:35
|
|
I would Not haul a 6500 lb tractor on a 7000 lb trailer.
|
|
|
Bern
03-31-2019 12:39:59
|
Re: 6000 in reply to Ultradog MN, 03-31-2019 12:08:49
|
|
Not only that, most 6000 tractors weigh much more than 6500 pounds. They could be ballasted to well over 9000 pounds with cast iron and liquid weight.
|
|
|
Fordfarmer
03-31-2019 18:52:18
|
Re: 6000 in reply to Bern, 03-31-2019 12:39:59
|
|
Aw, it'll handle it - just load her heavy on the tongue. 🙄 If theis post was on Tractor Talk, the YTDOT would have a field day with it. I'm going to look it up when I get in from there barn, but I think a 6000's unbalasted weight is close to 6500 pounds, and it looks like upwards of 500 pounds of weights on that one.
|
|
|
Ultradog MN
04-01-2019 02:56:06
|
Re: 6000 in reply to Fordfarmer, 03-31-2019 18:52:18
|
|
Not only YTDOT but MNDOT - with all the accompanying Swat teams and savagely barking police dogs.
|
|
|
Fordfarmer
04-01-2019 04:04:46
|
Re: 6000 in reply to Ultradog MN, 04-01-2019 02:56:06
|
|
It IS hard to believe it was that long ago! And that thing has been put on the back burner so many times, it's still not done. (Clutch for the 7000, engine swap in the 2000, Luke's 4000...)But it is close... I think about all that's left is to get it its own battery, and get spark to the plugs. IIRC, it had spark, but not while cranking. I like sotxbill's comment. :)
|
|
|
Bern
03-31-2019 21:30:50
|
Re: 6000 in reply to Fordfarmer, 03-31-2019 18:52:18
|
|
According to my Commander lit, an all-purpose "standard equipped diesel" weighs 7300 pounds. That said, the '63-'64 lit shows that same tractor as weighing 6750. So, let's split the difference and say that a 6000 weighs 7000 pounds from factory. A person could add 1200 pounds of rear wheel weight, and 720 pounds of front end weight (front wafer weights plus wheel weights). If you add all of these up, this is almost 2000 pounds of iron that could be hung on this tractor, not including any liquid ballast.
|
|
|
Fordfarmer
04-01-2019 03:58:41
|
Re: 6000 in reply to Bern, 03-31-2019 21:30:50
|
|
'Farm Tractors 1950 - 1975' by Lester Larson lists the 6000 (utility pictured) as 7405# unbalasted, and the Commander (w.f rowcrop pictured) as 7130. Either way, well above the 6500# listed in the ad, even before you figure in the cast iron hanging on it. I would have expected the Commander to be a little heavier.
|
|
|
Bern
04-01-2019 07:57:56
|
Re: 6000 in reply to Fordfarmer, 04-01-2019 03:58:41
|
|
Why would you expect a Commander to weigh more? The only major difference between the two generations is in the styling of the front nose piece.
|
|
|
Fordfarmer
04-01-2019 10:26:05
|
Re: 6000 in reply to Bern, 04-01-2019 07:57:56
|
|
I thought the rear end was redesigned, (differential? Axles? Both?) with bigger/stronger components.
|
|
|
Bern
04-01-2019 17:28:04
|
Re: 6000 in reply to Fordfarmer, 04-01-2019 10:26:05
|
|
They changed the final drive ratio in the back and made the ring and pinion a little bigger, but I'm not aware that they significantly beefed up any components. Not 600 pounds worth anyway. I do know that they made the rear wheels lighter on the later models. My two rear wheels have different part numbers, one is a C0NN and the other is a C3NN. The C0NN has noticeably more iron in it - I found that out the hard way when I was painting them.
|
|
|
Destroked 450
03-31-2019 09:59:31
|
Re: 6000 in reply to pomester, 03-30-2019 17:18:35
|
|
A little red showing on the front axle to, but probably been swapped from narrow to wide axle.
|
|
|
sunbeam
03-31-2019 06:51:24
|
Re: 6000 in reply to pomester, 03-30-2019 17:18:35
|
|
I worked for a ford dealer in the 70s oh how I hated to see one come in.
|
|
|
WayneIA
03-31-2019 09:35:42
|
Re: 6000 in reply to sunbeam, 03-31-2019 06:51:24
|
|
Was working at a dealership when they were introduced. "field ready" with a oily spot on the floor after a day setting there. When Ford replace the whole tract a customer didn't want to let his go back so we totally rebuilt it at the dealership
|
|
|
Bern
03-31-2019 07:25:44
|
Re: 6000 in reply to sunbeam, 03-31-2019 06:51:24
|
|
I would have liked it myself. After a while 5000s get a little boring. I started working at a dealership in 1985. By then, most 6000s were retired, so I never got to work on one there.
|
|
|
Royse
03-30-2019 18:17:42
|
Re: 6000 in reply to pomester, 03-30-2019 17:18:35
|
|
Bern
03-30-2019 17:30:19
|
Re: 6000 in reply to pomester, 03-30-2019 17:18:35
|
|
Sounds like a fair price if everything works. It's a '63 or '64 model by its appearance.
|
|
|
agjim
03-31-2019 04:55:48
|
Re: 6000 in reply to Bern, 03-30-2019 17:30:19
|
|
I'd say it a '61 or '62 rebuilt tractor.
|
|
|
Bern
03-31-2019 06:49:03
|
Re: 6000 in reply to agjim, 03-31-2019 04:55:48
|
|
I'd agree with you if there was more red showing than just on the engine. More likely that machine had the engine swapped at some point in its past. My '65 Commander has red paint showing through the steps, because evidently someone wanted the early swivel steps on it instead of the rigid later ones. I even have some factory literature for the '63-'64 models that shows a tiny bit of red on the backside of one machine where evidently the paint flaked off before they took the pics.
|
|
|