Hauling a MF 135

[Sam in TN]

Was wondering if anyone could tell me if I could haul a Massey Ferguson 135 on a Uhaul auto transport trailer. I am unsure of the year of the tractor and am posting a pic in case it helps.

The weight of the tractor should not be a problem, I am just worried about the width. I can't find the trailers minimum width, only the maximum.
This is the info on the trailer:

Max load: 4,000 lbs
The vehicle being towed:
Must have a maximum outside-to-outside tire width of 75"
Must have a maximum wheelbase (distance from front axle to rear axle, usually posted on the driver's side door jamb) of 133 inches.

What do you all think?

 

[aczlan]

Was wondering if anyone could tell me if I could haul a Massey Ferguson 135 on a Uhaul auto transport trailer. I am unsure of the year of the tractor and am posting a pic in case it helps.

The weight of the tractor should not be a problem, I am just worried about the width. I can't find the trailers minimum width, only the maximum.
This is the info on the trailer:
What do you all think?

I would guess that the inside to inside on the places the wheels go is between 51 and 39 inches wide (making the ramps between 12 and 18 inches wide).

Aaron Z

 

[cperky]

Not exactly sure what info you are needing but here is a link to the tractor data web site with specs for the massey 135
TractorData.com Massey Ferguson 135 tractor information

 

[Farmwithjunk]

To put it all in proper perspective, a 135 is SMALLER (width and length) than most cars. You'll be fine as far as physical size. Weight might be an issue. I see U-Haul's specs say max weight of 4000lbs. A 135 will weigh in slightly more than 4000 and if the rear tires are fluid filled, quite a bit more than 4K.

I see the PAVT rear wheels..... (Power adjustable variable tread) In the position they appear to be in, you should probably expect 68" to 72" outside to outside on rear tire width.

 

[Renze]

75 inches is 190 cm... Common trackwidths for the 135 were 135 or 150 cm, with 12.4-28 standard tires that gives you 10 to 25 cm to spare.

Given the spacing between mudguards and wheels, i assume its 150cm trackwidth and 12.4-28 rear tires. This tire size wont hold much water, so you wont be much overweight.
My 3011 is about the same size and weight and it towed fine behind my 850 TDI at around 110 km/h. I did use a 3.5 ton trailer with proper brakes and tires though.

 

[Harold_J]

If you are OK with the weight the trailer should work.
Worst case would be you may have to adjust the wheel spacing on the tractor to load it.
Front and rear spacing can usually be set in range of 52" to 72" center top center, more or less.
Figure rear tire width will be approx 12".
I can't tell from the picture exactly how wheels are set, but you should be OK. Take some tools just in case.

 

[Sam in TN]

Thanks for everyones input. I will be going to pick it up this weekend. Then I can run the serial number and figure out what year it is. All I know is it has a 3 cylinder Perkins engine, which I thought was strange for a gas burner.

 

[Harold_J]

Thanks for everyones input. I will be going to pick it up this weekend. Then I can run the serial number and figure out what year it is. All I know is it has a 3 cylinder Perkins engine, which I thought was strange for a gas burner.

I seem to remember that on the gas versions MF had switched from the Continental 4-cyl to the Perkins 3-cyl and then back again to the Continental 4-cyl. The Perkins gas is likely derived from a diesel block. I don't remember hearing anything bad about the durability of the Perkins gas, just that they were not as fuel efficient as the Continental 4-cyl and didn't run quite as smoothly. Good luck with your new tractor.

 

[Renze]

I seem to remember that on the gas versions MF had switched from the Continental 4-cyl to the Perkins 3-cyl and then back again to the Continental 4-cyl. The Perkins gas is likely derived from a diesel block. I don't remember hearing anything bad about the durability of the Perkins gas, just that they were not as fuel efficient as the Continental 4-cyl and didn't run quite as smoothly. Good luck with your new tractor.

...As long as the Perkins gas is more durable than the Standard Diesel, he'd be o.k. with it...

The Standard IDI 4 cyl. Diesels were notorous for their poor starting and oil consumption. Short said, bad engines. In Europe the switch to Diesel fuel in tractors was much quicker than in North America, in Europe the switch from 10% diesels, 90% kerosene, to 10% kerosene, 90% diesel, happened within 5 years. Availability and price of both fuels also changed because of that.

After some dealers began replacing the gas engines with the industrial Perkins P3 engines, Frank Perkins offered a complete conversion kit (with other requirements like radiator hoses and correct flywheel)
In the used tractor market, the P3 conversions would become worth more than the factory Diesel with the Standard engine. There is some more about this story which i cant remember, but in the end, MF bought Perkins and the P3 conversion became a factory version.
I think in either the Beauvais, France or the Coventry, England factory, they still produced partially with Standard engines due to an agreement they couldnt just quit.

 

[Farmwithjunk]

Thanks for everyones input. I will be going to pick it up this weekend. Then I can run the serial number and figure out what year it is. All I know is it has a 3 cylinder Perkins engine, which I thought was strange for a gas burner.

Back when that tractor was new, Massey Ferguson owned Perkins. (Caterpillar owns Perkins now) The AD3-152 (diesel) was the most fuel efficient tractor engine of the day in ALL sizes. (Univ. of Nebraska test in MF150) MF used the Continental Z134 gasser in base model 135's and the Z145 in deluxe models. In the late 60's, MF decided to switch to an "in house" Perkins gasser that was derived from the diesel (designated AG3-152) It SHARED many parts with the gasser, including same block, crank, rods, pistons, bearings, oil pump, ect. MOST parts have common part #'s (gas vs diesel) I've been told that production demand for the diesels out stripped capabilities to produce BOTH versions. (Several OTHER brands of tractors were equipped with the AD3-152 also) So, the switch back to the Continental Z145. (The Z134 version was never re-introduced)

BOTH gassers are VERY reliable, VERY efficient, and neither holds a definitive advantage over the other. Resale is equal amongst the pair. Arguably the Continental is a BIT smoother at certain RPM's, but not so much as to be too noticable. Any shortcomings (perceived or otherwise) for the Perkins gasser are overlooked based on the STELLAR reputaion of the diesel version.