IH UK Utilities vs Ford and MF

Posted a similar topic on another board.....

How did the UK built IH utility tractors stack up to the likes of the MF 135 and Ford 3000 series tractors in that time period? What would have been a good IH model to compete against them?

(quoted from post at 07:53:53 03/12/17) Posted a similar topic on another board.....

How did the UK built IH utility tractors stack up to the likes of the MF 135 and Ford 3000 series tractors in that time period? What would have been a good IH model to compete against them?

Click to expand...

I own an IH454 that I wouldn't trade for either one of those tractors. It has more options and hp. It's been real good to me the last 22 years.

The direct IH UK tractor competitor to the MF 135 were Bradford built tractors like the 276/434 354/444(UK, same as US 364)

The Doncaster built 454 and larger 74 series were a much nicer tractor but really a way different class to compare.

Have a modern version of the MF 135 (MF 240) and the IH 454 (CIH 495) here now. While the 240 is a very nice tractor, the 495 is about twice the tractor the 240 is. The 240 really only beats the 495 in fuel use and road speed.

Unless the 454 was WAY MORE money than the 135 new, I have no idea why anyone would pick the 135 over the 454.

You know, we also have 2 674 tractors, that I don't know for sure if they were all built in England, but I thought they were. They are very handy tractors, well built, easy to use, lots of nice features, live PTO with an easy engage so you don't break shear pins on heavy load start ups, good parking brake and steering brakes, nice power steering, strong 3 point, and nice looking lines. I think they were offered with 2 separate remotes, but both of ours only have one set of remotes. The lever to operate the remotes is in a stupid spot that's hard to reach, but I fixed that, see pic above. Like was stated, I believe the 74 series is in a different class than the tractors you asked about though.

Ross

By the time the 454 came out the 135 from Massey and the 3000 from Ford had already been in production and on the market for nearly 6 years
and got a strong market hold. In the U.K. the 135 had a massive 25% market share on it's own!
I.H. were just too late in getting a replacement on the market for their very tired designs, when they did introduce the world series
tractors they were miles ahead of the competition, but that competition had already got such a strong foothold.

(quoted from post at 22:29:21 03/12/17) By the time the 454 came out the 135 from Massey and the 3000 from Ford had already been in production and on the market for nearly 6 years
and got a strong market hold. In the U.K. the 135 had a massive 25% market share on it's own!
I.H. were just too late in getting a replacement on the market for their very tired designs, when they did introduce the world series
tractors they were miles ahead of the competition, but that competition had already got such a strong foothold.

Click to expand...

Basically have to agree. By the time IH came out with a decent utility Ford and MF had pretty much snagged most of the market. Too little too late. They did the same thing with a true power shift sticking with the TA far too long. And I like my IH/Farmall tractors and can see where IH messed up.

Rick

IH utility tractors are pretty rare around here, back then we had more Ford dealers than any other while MF was second.

OK - I've got my farmer's hat on from back in the day and I've been down to the Ford and MF dealers. What specific feature/benefits is the IH sales guy going to point out to me to buy their tractor than the Ford 3000 or MF 135 ?

Thanks!
Bill

(quoted from post at 18:23:58 03/12/17) You know, we also have 2 674 tractors, that I don't know for sure if they were all built in England, but I thought they were. They are very handy tractors, well built, easy to use, lots of nice features, live PTO with an easy engage so you don't break shear pins on heavy load start ups, good parking brake and steering brakes, nice power steering, strong 3 point, and nice looking lines. I think they were offered with 2 separate remotes, but both of ours only have one set of remotes. The lever to operate the remotes is in a stupid spot that's hard to reach, but I fixed that, see pic above. Like was stated, I believe the 74 series is in a different class than the tractors you asked about though.

Ross

Click to expand...

The 84 series and later did what you did for the factory remotes, our 95 series has 3 slots for 3 remotes.

74 series assembled in US have the headlights in the fenders, versus grill for UK built.

First time I sat on a 74 series I thought what a stupid remote lever, same goes for parking brake, though it's supposed to be "kick off" on the 74 series.

(quoted from post at 23:48:46 03/12/17) OK - I've got my farmer's hat on from back in the day and I've been down to the Ford and MF dealers. What specific feature/benefits is the IH sales guy going to point out to me to buy their tractor than the Ford 3000 or MF 135 ?

Thanks!
Bill

Click to expand...

If you are comparing a MF 135 to a Bradford IH, had this discussion with someone who actually made the choice back in the day.

The big thing is ground clearance. The MF sits LOW compared to the IH

IH offered diesel 4 cyl power (154 CI to the 152 3 cyl perkins) for those hung up on cylinder counts. (perkins is great motor..no glow plugs)

Factory loaders, most MF's here had an aftermarket loader than just didn't fit/look right. Know of a 135 with an allied loader that looks cobbled on, sold new with it. compared to an IH 276 with a 1501 loader that fits nice.

O.K. Bill, it is 1972, the I.H. 454 had just come on to the market, so has the David Brown 885. The M.F 135 and Ford 3000 have been available since 1964 and have allready got a good market hold.

I.H. 454 has oil immersed brakes, Ford 3000/MF135/David Brown 885 all dry drum brakes
454 has IPTO, Ford/MF/D.B are all Live Drive (Dual Clutch)
454 and 3000 have indipendent hydraulics MF and DB are live drive.
454 and DB have 540/1000 rpm PTO as standard, don't think it was even an option on the other 2.
454 has full hydrostatic power steering as standard, Ford/MF/DB all optional power assist
454 has 8 speed syncromesh box as standard DB has 12 speeds as standard but syncro only on 2nd/3rd in each range, crash box on Ford and MF
A better shift on the go Hi/Lo on the I.H. than the M.F. Multi Power, No on the move Hi/Lo option on the Ford and D.B.
All 4 tractors have a good, strong 3 cylinder engine.

(quoted from post at 04:10:05 03/13/17) O.K. Bill, it is 1972, the I.H. 454 had just come on to the market, so has the David Brown 885. The M.F 135 and Ford 3000 have been available since 1964 and have allready got a good market hold.

I.H. 454 has oil immersed brakes, Ford 3000/MF135/David Brown 885 all dry drum brakes
454 has IPTO, Ford/MF/D.B are all Live Drive (Dual Clutch)
454 and 3000 have indipendent hydraulics MF and DB are live drive.
454 and DB have 540/1000 rpm PTO as standard, don't think it was even an option on the other 2.
454 has full hydrostatic power steering as standard, Ford/MF/DB all optional power assist
454 has 8 speed syncromesh box as standard DB has 12 speeds as standard but syncro only on 2nd/3rd in each range, crash box on Ford and MF
A better shift on the go Hi/Lo on the I.H. than the M.F. Multi Power, No on the move Hi/Lo option on the Ford and D.B.
All 4 tractors have a good, strong 3 cylinder engine.

Click to expand...

The IH may have been a better tractor but again, too little too late. Here for example you had IH and JD dealers all over the place when the 454 came out. Very few Ford dealers. MF was 60 miles away so in this area MF didn't even count. Now look at the customer base. Schools, city departments, few land owners and a lot of Farmers. And all of them resistant to change! Read the pages here on YT. How many of us older guys embrace change and how many fight it tooth and nail. Now add in the reputation of the older IH utilities compared to MF and Ford. So most often they stuck with what they knew. They never even looked.

Looking at some of the items you listed:

The brakes. Those old farmers knew how to work on dry brakes. Oil bath brakes were something they were uncomfortable with. So not a huge selling point in that day, actually more of a don't buy point.

Heck even the AC tractors like the 190 didn't have IPTO so again not a huge selling point.

1000RPM? Why? In 1974 about the only things that used 1000 were silage blowers and PTO combines. The 454 would not run either. So unneeded and extra cost. Heck here in 74 only a couple of farmers were running silage blowers that were 1000. So not a selling point.

Power steering? Most of the tight old farmers up here for a small tractor without a loader? That added to the price, not a selling point.

The tranny? Heck they were going to pull wagons with it, manure spreader. Again cost.

So yea today, looking back, the IH seems like a much better tractor. But in the eyes of the buyer in that day? And the 1000 PTO? I don't think I've seen any smaller PTO driven implements that require 1000. The silage blower my BIL uses and his current chopper are both 1000 RPM and my 6601 JD combine is too. Those all require way more tractor. Some of the more modern seeder/planters are 1000 but nothing that 454, MF135 or Ford 3000 could even think about running.

AH the tranny and shifting. Not many guys then or now using a utility do/did anything where you couldn't just select a gear and go. Ain't like yer in the field with that ole disk, digger or plow and need to shift down a gear for a tuff spot.

Now in areas were a smaller tractor was all that was needed things may have been different. But here, in the early to mid 70's, they were a chore tractor used to run bale elevators and grounds maintenance tools.

Rick

Never did figure the 1000 RPM PTO on the smaller IH's. Dual shafts very common on the small 74 series.

Tractordata list the following prices:

Ford 3000 $6300
MF 135 $4385
IH 454 $4640

Not sure accuracy, but 454 clear winner there.