Welcome! Please use the navigational links to explore our website.
PartsASAP LogoCompany Logo (800) 853-2651

Shop Now

   Allis Chalmers Case Farmall IH Ford 8N,9N,2N Ford
   Ferguson John Deere Massey Ferguson Minn. Moline Oliver

Attention Forum Users: On the 28th of December 2023 at 9:00am Central Time, we will be taking the forums down for maintenance while we prepare the new forums for your use. Please click here for more information.

Massey Harris & Massey Ferguson Tractors Discussion Forum
:

MF135 differences 1968-1974, are there any?

Welcome Guest, Log in or Register
Author 
rusty stuff

09-08-2006 17:37:34




Report to Moderator

Had a deal lined up to purchase a 68 MF135 but the seller has decided to keep the tractor for now. I found a 1974 MF135 for sale and am considering checking it out. Any improvements to the newer machine? I only have one picture of each and the 74 looks to sit taller in the picture, maybe just because of tire size? Dean and the rest of you have me set on finding a 135 to replace my 2N Ford, just have to find one :)

[Log in to Reply]   [No Email]
DavidP, South Wales

09-10-2006 12:00:31




Report to Moderator
 Re: MF135 differences 1968-1974, are there any? in reply to rusty stuff, 09-08-2006 17:37:34  
Hi, not sure if its the same in the States but in the UK they changed to the 12 and 10 inch clutch from the 11 and 9 around 1971. Also we have a straight axle from around 1970 on.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
MF Poor

09-08-2006 22:40:15




Report to Moderator
 Re: MF135 differences 1968-1974, are there any? in reply to rusty stuff, 09-08-2006 17:37:34  
Post '68 models will have alternator as opposed to generators. (A good many older 135's will have a retrofit alternator, but that wasn't original prior to 68)



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Gerald J.

09-08-2006 18:44:30




Report to Moderator
 Re: MF135 differences 1968-1974, are there any? in reply to rusty stuff, 09-08-2006 17:37:34  
For a time after 1968 and probably before 1974 they used the Perkins gas engine. There are probably some other changes, but nothing else major that I've detected in my parts book.

Gerald J.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
rusty stuff

09-08-2006 18:49:34




Report to Moderator
 Re: MF135 differences 1968-1974, are there any? in reply to Gerald J., 09-08-2006 18:44:30  
thanks, I known the 68 has the 4 cylinder gas engine, the 74 is also gas so I assume it would be the 3 cylinder perkins. So no improvements over the years? I am not sure if the 68 has multipower, would the 74 for sure or was it always an option?



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Gerald J.

09-09-2006 08:58:20




Report to Moderator
 Re: MF135 differences 1968-1974, are there any? in reply to rusty stuff, 09-08-2006 18:49:34  
I can't tell from my parts book that they went back to the Continental gas engine in 1974. Most of my parts book pages are dated 1/73, but some are dated 11/74.

If there's a factory alternator, its almost sure to be a Perkins gas engine. The tachometer drive for the Perkins comes off the camshaft. The tachometer drive for the Continental gas comes off a gear box on the back of the generator which makes converting to an alternator a bit of a pain having to replace the tachometer too.

I can't tell from the parts book if they were really offered, but it shows two or three different 8 speed transmissions, three or four multipower transmissions, and a couple 6 speed transmissions. Added drive variations involve single or double clutches, live or independent PTO that's part of the transmission.

I'd take it that these were options, with fewer options given for the Special than the Deluxe, like seat and dash gauge options.

Many vintage overhead valve engines have proven prone to loosing lubrication to the rocker arms which then wear rapidly. The Z-134/145 engines use corks in the ends of the rocker arm shaft to hold the oil in. By now they have rotted. That takes oil pressure off the rocker arms and the added friction can break off the anti-rotation pin and when the rock arm shaft rotates, it cuts off oil to the rocker arms completely. I rebuilt mine several years ago, buying solid bronze bushings and turning them to fit in place of the Garlock steel backed bushings that are no longer made in the size needed to fit the rocker arms. Since then a place that sells lots of tractor parts that I can't mention here has begun to offer rebuilt rocker arm assemblies. I also made a new rocker arm shaft with provisions for oil passages even if it broke off that pin and rotated, and then I made the pin larger. I also used a snap ring at each end of the shaft to hold the end rocker arm spring instead of a 1/16" cotter key that wears away and I tapped the ends for 7/16" set screws to be more permanent plugs than the corks.

Then I had to ream out the oil passage from the block to the head to get oil to my new assembly. I put 100 psi air on the line with plumbing fittings to blow the deposits back to the crankcase. It took lots of pressure alternated with penetrating oil to open that passage.

I don't know if the Perkins has this problem, but its an overhead valve engine... Ford cars used to have that problem too.

But the MF-135 is a good working tractor, makes an 8N look like a toy. And I've had an 8N so I speak from experience.

Gerald J.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
rusty stuff

09-09-2006 17:55:07




Report to Moderator
 Gerald, here is a pic of the 68 in reply to Gerald J., 09-09-2006 08:58:20  
Here is a pic I have of the 68, does it look like 1100 hours would be accurate? This tractor was bought and owned by the sellers family.

[IMG]http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d136/drptop70ss/68massey.jpg[/IMG]



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
rusty stuff

09-09-2006 19:32:22




Report to Moderator
 Re: Gerald, here is a pic of the 68 in reply to rusty stuff, 09-09-2006 17:55:07  
pic didnt work, I can email it if you want it. I think the picture shows the 68 has manual steering, I know the 74 has PS and remote hydraulics.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Gerald J.

09-09-2006 20:42:37




Report to Moderator
 Re: Gerald, here is a pic of the 68 in reply to rusty stuff, 09-09-2006 19:32:22  
Working power steering and remote hydraulics are a positive factor in my use. The power steering didn't work when I got it, I had to replace hoses and eventually rebuild the power steering cylinder after the piston rod broke. About that time I had to replace the steering shaft top seal too. It was OK without power steering without the loader but with the loader power steering (its an assist, not the complete power steering of the 4020) is necessary. I could mow or plow all day without it though.

Also remote hydraulic valves to fit are hard to find these days, but handy for working drawn implements like my disk, my mower/conditioner, my planter, my side dresser, and my semi mount plow (but that's too big for the 135). I wish my sickle mower had its own lift cylinder too. Forgot the old JD CCA field cultivator. Yah, I use the remotes regularly. You might not just mowing and pulling a grader blade.

I don't make my e-mail address available so I'll have to pass on the picture unless you can find a place to post it that allows me to look at it. I was able to copy and past that url, but it said the picture wasn't there.

Gerald J.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
rusty stuff

09-09-2006 14:26:40




Report to Moderator
 Hey Gerald, a couple questions in reply to Gerald J., 09-09-2006 08:58:20  
Well the owner of the 68 is back on for selling his machine. The 68 is about $700 less than the 74 machine, 68 is the 4 cylinder gas version with 1100 hours and a one owner machine. The 74 is also a gas version, assume it is a 3 cylinder perkins, and has 3000 hours. Should I be concerned with the valve train oiling on the 68? I really do not plan on a rebuild (ever lol) because the machine will only be used in the spring/summer to mow grass and do work here and there. Is 3000 hours a lot of hours on a tractor? I assume 1100 is low for a 68.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Gerald J.

09-09-2006 15:21:17




Report to Moderator
 Re: Hey Gerald, a couple questions in reply to rusty stuff, 09-09-2006 14:26:40  
1100 hours is way too low for a '68. Likely the tachometer cable corroded off 20 years ago. It should be in pristine shape for those few hours and the tires original (probably hard but hardly worn).

I'd pull the rocker cover and check the rocker oiling while setting the valves on either engine. The cork plugs rot with age, not with engine hours.

I'd look at the spark plugs (while replacing them) to see if any were sooty or oily.

6000 hours to as much as 12000 hours is typical from the average farm tractor at rebuild time. More go longer than shorter. However failing to notice an oil leak can kill any engine in a couple hours.

The tachometr on my 135 shows 5000 hours or so. The rear tires died of old age. I think I've put a couple thousand hours on it since I bought it about 1987. Some years plowing, preparing, planting, and baling 24 acres of ground, I ran it 100 hours a year. Lately I've cut back on earth work, but gone back to using it for spraying and planting only using the 4020 when I need crop clearance for spraying.

I know my tachometer cable has failed once since I've had the tractor.

And there are no laws against setting the hour meter back on a tractor.

Except for rot of old age, a 1100 hour tractor should look like its still in the showroom.

Gerald J.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
richard in nz

09-08-2006 20:22:03




Report to Moderator
 Re: MF135 differences 1968-1974, are there any? in reply to rusty stuff, 09-08-2006 18:49:34  
Multi-power was always an option, I cant remember if the 135 was ever offered with the optional 8 speed box, I know the 148 was. The 1974 tractor should have the later beam type front axle, it should also have the larger 12" clutch and I think it will have heavier front wheel bearings (bolt on front wheels instead of studs & nuts) Dont know about the engines as we never got the petrol versions when I lived in England, all ours were Diesels. I would consider the 135 and 148 tractors to be the best in thier class at the time they were built.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
MF Poor

09-08-2006 22:46:15




Report to Moderator
 Re: MF135 differences 1968-1974, are there any? in reply to richard in nz, 09-08-2006 20:22:03  
I may be wrong, but the U.S. marketed 135's had the swept back axle through end of production. The 150 (sold in U.S. market) had the heavier front axle from '65 through '75. It had the bolt-on front wheels. (as opposed to studs and lugnuts). 150 was essentially a 135 with 165 front end, cooling system, air filter, fuel tank, steering, and sheet metal. (not exact same parts, but very close)



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Gerald J.

09-09-2006 08:36:12




Report to Moderator
 Re: MF135 differences 1968-1974, are there any? in reply to MF Poor, 09-08-2006 22:46:15  
I called MF in Des Moines when I was considering lifting large round bales with my MF-236 loader on my MF-135. The engineer said they used that same axle yet on the 2235. That swept back axle. Mine has been broken and welded once. That's too much loader. Its on my JD 4020 now where its almost big enough.

Gerald J.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
richard in nz

09-09-2006 04:34:31




Report to Moderator
 Re: MF135 differences 1968-1974, are there any? in reply to MF Poor, 09-08-2006 22:46:15  
Could be right as we never got the 150, just the 130,135,& 148 in the small tractor class. The 130 is well worth a miss! I think we got the beam type axle in about 72? along with a spin-on oil filter around the same time. Did the U.S. get the 148?



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
MF Poor

09-09-2006 10:54:15




Report to Moderator
 Re: MF135 differences 1968-1974, are there any? in reply to richard in nz, 09-09-2006 04:34:31  
Not sure about the 148. Never saw one, but there's a lot of things in life I've missed out on. I've got one 150 and I'm shopping around for a second. Talk about a stout utility tractor! The extra 3 or 400 lbs on the front end, plus the extra wheel base made them handle a heavy load on the rear lift MUCH better. The steering is worlds better, and the 20 gallon fuel tank will keep a Perkins diesel in the field long after the operator is ready for rest. I've got a Ferguson F-40 and an MF 50. They're both gassers, but still good tractors. The 50/150 concept took one of the best tractors ever built (135) and made it BETTER!

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
[Options]  [Printer Friendly]  [Posting Help]  [Return to Forum]   [Log in to Reply]

Hop to:


TRACTOR PARTS TRACTOR MANUALS
We sell tractor parts!  We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today. [ About Us ]

Home  |  Forums


Copyright © 1997-2023 Yesterday's Tractor Co.

All Rights Reserved. Reproduction of any part of this website, including design and content, without written permission is strictly prohibited. Trade Marks and Trade Names contained and used in this Website are those of others, and are used in this Website in a descriptive sense to refer to the products of others. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy

TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER: Tradenames and Trademarks referred to within Yesterday's Tractor Co. products and within the Yesterday's Tractor Co. websites are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Yesterday's Tractor Co., our products, or our website nor are we sponsored by them. John Deere and its logos are the registered trademarks of the John Deere Corporation. Agco, Agco Allis, White, Massey Ferguson and their logos are the registered trademarks of AGCO Corporation. Case, Case-IH, Farmall, International Harvester, New Holland and their logos are registered trademarks of CNH Global N.V.

Yesterday's Tractors - Antique Tractor Headquarters

Website Accessibility Policy