Ford 3000 or Ford 4000

I just sold my Massey 35 Deluxe and am up sizing for a couple different reasons. Wondering what are the big differences between 3000 and 4000 other than HP. I need a little more horsepower, would like to find one with a loader or eventually add one (we move small round bales about 1x or2x a week) and will do alot of food plots, and till, plow, disc, rake, plant with this tractor. Just dont want to purchase a 4000 if a 3000 will do and keep the gas cost down. May also move snow from time to time. I would greatly appreciate some valuable input.

Welcome. There are several on
here that know more than I do. I
have a 3000 and 5000 Ford.
Assuming you are talking about a
later model 3cyl 4000 I would go
with a 4000 over a 3000 for what
you plan on using it for. A 4000
has a much heavier front axle to
accommodate a loader. Also has
wet inboard brakes just to name
a few things. There is a big
difference in the two tractors
besides horse power.

I agree. The 3-cyl 4000 will act like the tractor you are asking for. The 3000 will act like an incremental change. Jim

I agree. 4000 it is.

For loader use go with a 4000 All Purpose, it has a much stronger front axle and inboard wet disc brakes.


3000 swept back front axle, dry drum brakes, similar in size and hp to your 35 Deluxe.
More of a even swap than a upgrade.


4000SU same front axle as 3000 but more powerful engine, inboard wet disc brakes and independent pto, no 2 stage clutch


4000 All Purpose heavier cast front bolster, much stronger straight axle, inboard wet disc brakes, ind pto, larger rear tires and wheels.
I consider this model to be superior over the other 2 for loader use, but it's not as compact as the others.
If it's size is to big go with the 4000SU for the better brakes

Wow thank you for all your help, this is my first time on here and appreciate the insight.

In other areas you might find a 3000 but not here in western Ohio. Have only possibly seen a couple of 3000 at shows, never as a working. And I would go with a higher version of the 4000 being a 4100 with the 38" rear wheels Works very good with a loader. And stronger than the 4000SU that is almost as scarce as the 3000.I had 2 of them 65 & 68 4100 models.

Except we do have a few spots where we need to tuck in around some tight corners, and under trees to get to a few spots for hauling wood out and planting.....

You got a great pictorial view of the 3000/4000 series. Even into the 90's models, very good choices to be had. I'm very happy with my 4630 ford for similar work minus the loader work, which the 555C backhoe handles now. I like these models because they have the weight and feel of what tractors were for a long time, before all the modern ones came about, mainly the smaller ones.
Good luck on you purchasing, post back the results & welcome to the discussion forums here !

If you are conserned about height for getting under trees the All Purpose 4000, sub model 4100 with 38" rear wheels would only be 5" higher than the 4000SU with 28" rear wheels andhas a lot stronger front end and the 38" wheels will about double traction of the 28" wheels. Now the 4000 row crop, sub model 4200 is a flat platform tractor that you do not straddle the tranny like on the others or the Ferguson. So yes that would be more problems around trees. I don't know the models nerwe than the 4000 like say a 4600.

It appears to vary according to what part of the country ones located, but here in Ky 90% of the 4000AP's had 30" rear tires
The one in the photo has 16.9-30's.
The 4000AP and 4000SU have the same engine and drive line so there no difference in power output from ether one, but the engines were upgraded in mid 68 giving all of the 4000 models additional hp.
65-early 68 had 46 pto hp
mid 68-75 had 52 pto hp

A 4000AP is 5" taller and 10" longer than a 3000, also is 700 lbs heavier as shipped, mine with optional cast rear wheel centers is 1000 lbs heavier.

For the prier mentioned loader plans I strongly recommend the AP model over the SU, but I'd also want a quick-attach loader that can easily be removed when not needed, makes the tractor much for versatile in those tight areas.

Although I love my -000 series tractors if I was starting fresh I'd seriously consider the next up 4600 model, improved dry element paper air filter, larger hydraulic pump (needed for loader use), improved power steering that became available on the later 4000's, small things like engine driven tach, raised parking brake handle and flat top fenders are improvements I've added to my 4000.

Mu 65 had a 201" motor, the 68 with plastic grill had a 199" motor and no more power and same steering as the 65. And most had tires of size for cultivating on row crop use and duald mounted for field work. Your area probably did not have much row croping done with the 30" tires. Too wide for 30" rows.

Your 65 with 201 was a diesel, your 68 with 192 would have been a gas engine, if diesel it had 201 like the 65.
68 was a running change over year, even though the change is listed for 3/68 I bought a parts tractor built in 7/68 that had new model sheet metal and grill but still had the older engine and head.
The side steering cylinder was used until after 8/70 when they switched to integral power steering, that design was used until the introduction of the 4630 with hydrostatic steering.

When these tractors where introduced many in this area were still planting 36" rows, but I do believe the 38" tires were more popular in areas with more row crop farming.