Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1
    New Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    11
    Location
    Western Washington
    Tractor
    MF1635

    Default MF 1635/1643 Overall Width

    Pretty well made up my mind on a Massey either 1635 or 1643 with FEL. Have a good long term dealer < 10 miles from the house with two more dealers one 75 miles north another 75 miles south. My question is in regards to the spec'ed overall width. In reading the MF specs the min. overall width for both models is listed as 64.5" w/Ag tires. So I better understand this that dimension is the min outside to outside on tire wall ? Also both tractors are currently set-up w/R4's - so will the R4's significantly incresase the footprint? I'm looking to determine implement width. L/S rake, finish grooming mower, BB and attach blade so the implements, when doing their thing, can cover my tracks. My current thinking is 72" implements maybe 84" on just the rear attach blade factoring in blade angle

    I'm sure the response will come as in "just go measure", but unfortunately I'm overseas working for another 14-20 months and that's not an option. The wife wants a tractor w/FEL (nice problem, LOL). We will be using this on a 8 acre horse property, paddocks, 60 X 120 covered riding arena and building a extreme trail course (when I get home). Also we rent now and landlord is begging to buy. There is a significant amount of maintenance, clean up and landscaping we would do if we decide to buy the place so thing's are justifiable.

    Lastly - just curious can the rear wheel spacing be adjusted on these compact style tractors. Thought I read somewhere some tractors were what is called flange mount ?

    Thanks and appreciate any input.

    Mike

  2. #2
    Elite Member JasG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,089
    Location
    CNY
    Tractor
    Kubota L3240

    Default Re: MF 1635/1643 Overall Width

    Quote Originally Posted by 3 Sisters Ranch View Post
    Pretty well made up my mind on a Massey either 1635 or 1643 with FEL. Have a good long term dealer < 10 miles from the house with two more dealers one 75 miles north another 75 miles south. My question is in regards to the spec'ed overall width. In reading the MF specs the min. overall width for both models is listed as 64.5" w/Ag tires. So I better understand this that dimension is the min outside to outside on tire wall ? Also both tractors are currently set-up w/R4's - so will the R4's significantly incresase the footprint? I'm looking to determine implement width. L/S rake, finish grooming mower, BB and attach blade so the implements, when doing their thing, can cover my tracks. My current thinking is 72" implements maybe 84" on just the rear attach blade factoring in blade angle

    Mike

    The loader is able to have 66 and 72" buckets, so I would think that any tire combination would be less than 72".

    I would go with 84" width unless there is a reason you need narrower. My box blade is 84" wide and I like it with that much over hang. This way when grading curves it covers the tracks without issue. My mower is 72" rear mount and I do wish it was wider. I have a kubota of similar size and width to the Massey's you are looking at.

    The rest of the questions I can't help with.
    “Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other."


    Ronald Reagan

  3. #3
    Member DeereRack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    39
    Location
    MN
    Tractor
    Massey 1643

    Default

    I think my 1643 is about 68" wide with R4's. all of my 6' attachments cover tracks except my back blade when angled all the way. Wheels are adjustable on mine, but left them stock.
    Massey Ferguson 1643
    FEL with QA 72" bucket and pallet forks
    SpeeCo QH
    6' Kodiak tiller
    4' Howse rotory cutter
    6' back blade
    Old 9' pull disc

  4. #4
    New Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    11
    Location
    Western Washington
    Tractor
    MF1635

    Default Re: MF 1635/1643 Overall Width

    Thanks DeereRack - that's exactly what I wanted to know . Based upon implement pricing a guy's gotta save where possible and 72 vs 84 can make a difference $$ wise. My ref to 64.5" min overall width w/R1's came from the MF website spec sheet. R4's seem to push things out a bit but was not sure how much. I really see no need at this time to push them out wider as I'm not looking at any row crop spacing.

    Told the wife this a.m. head over to the dealer Tuesday a.m. with the checkbook and cut a deal. We'll see how that rolls.

    They are listing a 2012, 1635 @ little over $20, w/120 FEL. They also have a 1643 w/130 FEL there also and told her to work $$ on both for the best deal. Both are P/S tranny's. Like the '43 for the extra kick on PTO output, but $$ will drive final decision.

    Thanks
    Mike

  5. #5
    Platinum Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    920

    Default Re: MF 1635/1643 Overall Width

    Quote Originally Posted by 3 Sisters Ranch View Post
    Thanks DeereRack - that's exactly what I wanted to know . Based upon implement pricing a guy's gotta save where possible and 72 vs 84 can make a difference $$ wise. My ref to 64.5" min overall width w/R1's came from the MF website spec sheet. R4's seem to push things out a bit but was not sure how much. I really see no need at this time to push them out wider as I'm not looking at any row crop spacing.

    Told the wife this a.m. head over to the dealer Tuesday a.m. with the checkbook and cut a deal. We'll see how that rolls.

    They are listing a 2012, 1635 @ little over $20, w/120 FEL. They also have a 1643 w/130 FEL there also and told her to work $$ on both for the best deal. Both are P/S tranny's. Like the '43 for the extra kick on PTO output, but $$ will drive final decision.

    Thanks
    Mike
    One thing to think about with the attachments. Granted 72" will cover your tracks, but the difference in width is about 17%. So for the life of the attachment like a mower, landscape rake etc. It will take about 17% longer and more fuel. The tractors you are looking at could handle wider stuff.

    My box blade is 84" wide, which does 2 things, it allows me to use it on a larger tractor which I sometimes do. It also makes maintaining my road ways a 1 pass vs a 2 pass operation.

    Just some food for thought.

  6. #6
    New Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    11
    Location
    Western Washington
    Tractor
    MF1635

    Exclamation Re: MF 1635/1643 Overall Width

    "One thing to think about with the attachments. Granted 72" will cover your tracks, but the difference in width is about 17%. So for the life of the attachment like a mower, landscape rake etc. It will take about 17% longer and more fuel. The tractors you are looking at could handle wider stuff.

    My box blade is 84" wide, which does 2 things, it allows me to use it on a larger tractor which I sometimes do. It also makes maintaining my road ways a 1 pass vs a 2 pass operation."

    Thanks jagyzf -

    Not really against anything wider just looking for a few thoughts out there to make a good assessment of what will work well. You make some very valid points and really appreciate your input regarding time and fuel, many people don't/won't factor in. Figured since I was going to do this just as well do it correct from the outset and there's to many smart people on TBN not to use the resource. I always hate to run things at the min. if I have options. Now the BB, rear attach blade or arena groomer etc., no problems with the '35 IMHO. If a guy has to take a little lighter bite or slow the ground speed - well then you do. My largest concern was the 72' RFGM which spec's min 20 PTO hp. The '35 can handle it with a touch slower ground speed.
    Again appreciate you time and input and am sure by the time the wife gets done drive with her test drive this a.m. well I'll probably be a Massey owner by the time the sun set.

    take care
    Mike

  7. #7
    Platinum Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    920

    Default Re: MF 1635/1643 Overall Width

    Even the 1635 I believe is between 25 and 28 HP depending on the trans. It should be fine for either 72 or 84" I would think.

    Good luck.

  8. #8
    Gold Member the6shooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    455
    Location
    oklahoma
    Tractor
    MF 1643

    Default Re: MF 1635/1643 Overall Width

    One thing has been left out here, and should give it some thought, is rear remotes. I didn't but now wish I had. get them before not after.

Similar Threads

  1. Advice on bush hog width vs rear tire width
    By Rmd8136 in forum John Deere Buying/Pricing
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 05-27-2013, 11:02 PM
  2. Loader MF 1635/1643 loader frame pic request.
    By WilliamBos in forum Massey Ferguson Owning/Operating
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-15-2011, 06:09 PM
  3. Comparison 1533 v 1540 v 1635 v 1643
    By merrickvilleguy in forum Massey Ferguson Buying/Pricing
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 05-20-2010, 08:15 PM
  4. to go from a 1635 to a 1643 for $2500, worth it?
    By woodchuckcanuck in forum Massey Ferguson Buying/Pricing
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 09-26-2009, 11:24 AM
  5. Bottom plow width vs rear tire width
    By peter_vii in forum Tires
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 08-13-2009, 12:58 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
© 2013 TractorByNet.com. TractorByNet is a registered trademark of IMC Digital Universe, Inc. Other trademarks on this page are the property of their respective owners.