MF 1700 Series Compacts Tractors

[Mac2411]

I just pulled the trigger on a new 1742 hydro open station with the 66" quick attach bucket on the FEL at $24,900. I think it was a decent deal-probably not stellar but I like the dealer and that counts for something. My dealer had a lease return 1652 hydro open station on the lot with about 286 hours for about $1000 more, but I decided to go with the newer model despite less power. I really liked the features of the newer model and the fact that it was quieter.

 

[WilliamBos]

I love all of the changes, except the DPF! They should of went DOC/SCR.

Thanks for taking the time to post this.

 

[Mac2411]

My 1742 was delivered this morning. Barely had a chance to do much more than a victory lap around the barn but I really like the ergonomics of the tractor and the responsiveness of the hydraulics. Ended up going with a hydro instead of the powershuttle.

 

[Wobblin-Goblin]

Is the 1700 hood the exact same hood on the 1600s?

 

[Mac2411]

Is the 1700 hood the exact same hood on the 1600s?

If it's not it's pretty darn close. One thing that is different with the 1700's is there is more size variability between models. What I mean by that is with the 1600 series a 1635 and a 1642 were the same size chassis, hood etc. However, the 1736 and 1742 are slightly different sized or at least they appear that way to my eyes.

 

[Wobblin-Goblin]

If it's not it's pretty darn close. One thing that is different with the 1700's is there is more size variability between models. What I mean by that is with the 1600 series a 1635 and a 1642 were the same size chassis, hood etc. However, the 1736 and 1742 are slightly different sized or at least they appear that way to my eyes.

FYI, the 1643 might be the same tractor with a different engine, but the 43's wheelbase is 1" longer than the 1635. I'm guessing it's the front axle that is positioned differently, not the rear.

For what it's worth.

 

[Wobblin-Goblin]

I have to say this again (just because), after looking at numerous different brands of tractors, it became clear that the two most refined were made by John Deere and Massey Ferguson and it's not even close. I went into it wanting a Deere, but a few things didn't sit well with me:

1. Plastic hoods and fenders (especially the fenders).
2. Price.

This 1643 really is a nice machine. The hydraulics are a little choppy, but with more time on the machine I'll get used to how they operate and smooth things out some. I imagine the 1700s are nice tractors, too, with even more refinements, but the emissions stuff and the significantly higher price pushed me to buy a 1600 series while they were still available.

 

[Mac2411]

I have to say this again (just because), after looking at numerous different brands of tractors, it became clear that the two most refined were made by John Deere and Massey Ferguson and it's not even close. I went into it wanting a Deere, but a few things didn't sit well with me:

1. Plastic hoods and fenders (especially the fenders).
2. Price.

This 1643 really is a nice machine. The hydraulics are a little choppy, but with more time on the machine I'll get used to how they operate and smooth things out some. I imagine the 1700s are nice tractors, too, with even more refinements, but the emissions stuff and the significantly higher price pushed me to buy a 1600 series while they were still available.

I was looking at the 1600 series as well and would have went that route had I been able to find what I was looking for in my area. They simply are not to be had in my area. I've not found the hydraulics to be "choppy" at all, but that could be a subjective thing. As for the emissions junk, it does have the benefit of helping quiet the tractor.

 

[Wobblin-Goblin]

I was looking at the 1600 series as well and would have went that route had I been able to find what I was looking for in my area. They simply are not to be had in my area. I've not found the hydraulics to be "choppy" at all, but that could be a subjective thing. As for the emissions junk, it does have the benefit of helping quiet the tractor.

I'm used to "yellow" machinery and equipment.

Those hydraulics are a little different.

 

[TSO]

MO MF DEALER ... I'm considering a leftover new 1648 cab with DL130 loader. Why does Massey list such a substantially lower breakout force than everyone else? They can lift a competitive amount higher than most of the competition, and they clearly have some of the best hydraulics ... I just can't wrap my head around the breakout numbers they post. (Just above 3000 lbs @ the pins)

For example, both Kubota & TYM have competing tractors in the same size and class as the 1648, and they all have the same maximum lift capacity to about the same height. However, the Kubota list about a 1000 lbs higher breakout rating at the pins, and the TYM lists about 2000 lbs more.