what's it worth, JD 2350?

buickanddeere · Dec 13, 2013

murphy1244 said:
MF 265

Capacity: 8 gal [30.3 L]

Pressure: 2300 psi [158.6 bar]

Valves: 0 to 2

Pump flow: 10 gpm [37.9 lpm]

4.5 gpm [17.0 lpm] (3-point)

Total flow: 19.5 gpm [73.8 lpm]

Steering flow: 5 gpm [18.9 lpm] -- Total flow 19.5 gpm

The 2350 is equipped with the 40cm3/3 cu" 2000 series pump. Rated for 23.3gpm at 2300rpm. All of that available to support hydraulic loads. There isn't 5 gpm reserved for the PS even when the PS isn't in use.

murphy1244 · Dec 13, 2013

buickanddeere said:
The 2350 is equipped with the 40cm3/3 cu" 2000 series pump. Rated for 23.3gpm at 2300rpm. All of that available to support hydraulic loads. There isn't 5 gpm reserved for the PS even when the PS isn't in use.

Type: closed center

Rear valves: 1 or 2

Pump flow: 13 gpm

Tx Jim · Dec 14, 2013

fieldman12
It matters not what the naysayers state in the right place that JD 2350 will "ring a bell" bringing a lot more money than they think.

jenkinsph · Dec 14, 2013

Tx Jim said:
fieldman12
It matters not what the naysayers state in the right place that JD 2350 will "ring a bell" bringing a lot more money than they think.

I agree with Jim, my much smaller 820 with canopy 31hp pto 1973 about 4000 lbs with 1700 hrs sold for $5900 this summer. If it had been this 2350, larger and heavier with ps I would have kept it. This tractor will sell better and bring a good price in flat land areas.

terryknight · Dec 14, 2013

we'll see if my friend wants helps selling it or not and go from there. I was going to put it on craigslist separately fro the implements. I would think those would be easy to sell around here.

murphy - I checked tractorhouse, ebay and CL all before coming here. people seemed to be wanting $10K ish for a similar tractor with more hours on CL and ebay had 2 a parts tractor at 12xx (on CL for 4800), and a 4x4 3500 hrs 2 owner for 88xx, reserve not met (on CL for 12500). i try and do my research before i ask questions.

Thanks for all the people saying that this is a well built and popular tractor i would never have guess that.

fieldman12 · Dec 14, 2013

Deere just does not build them as nice as these tractors where made in this day and age. The steering on all the older Deeres was and still is the best of any tractor company in my opinion. I have spent allot of time on a 5400 and 5310 and even though they turned out to be great reliable tractors they just are not built as solid. I can remember working ground as a teenage in a mfwd jd 4650. I must say i thought i was in heaven. The mf 165 was a solid reliable tractor. We still have one on the farm and i also owned a 255. They where one of the most reliable machines made at that time but hydraulics is not the fastest on them. None of ours had multipower. Not sure why the mf 165 tractors dont bring more than four to six thousand around here. Im thinking its because multipower scared allot of customers because of reliability issues. A 165 is built heavy the perkins diesel is great. in my opinion it is the best tractor for the money in that time frame.

Dizno · Dec 14, 2013

fieldman12 said:
Deere just does not build them as nice as these tractors where made in this day and age. The steering on all the older Deeres was and still is the best of any tractor company in my opinion. I have spent allot of time on a 5400 and 5310 and even though they turned out to be great reliable tractors they just are not built as solid. I can remember working ground as a teenage in a mfwd jd 4650. I must say i thought i was in heaven. The mf 165 was a solid reliable tractor. We still have one on the farm and i also owned a 255. They where one of the most reliable machines made at that time but hydraulics is not the fastest on them. None of ours had multipower. Not sure why the mf 165 tractors dont bring more than four to six thousand around here. Im thinking its because multipower scared allot of customers because of reliability issues. A 165 is built heavy the perkins diesel is great. in my opinion it is the best tractor for the money in that time frame.

Likewise I cut my teeth in the 1970s driving a 165 when I started driving for long hours at 9 years of age. Ours did not have multi power either and was a fairly reliable tractor although I do remember my dad taking things apart like a head gasket. I also remember a kind of sloppy front steering linkage, ok but not great brakes, and either going too slow or two fast in reverse. I remember my dad being uptight that we be very careful with it as the rear ends were weak.

Fast forward and I bought the 1020 and 1030. These are not as nice as a 2350 but everything is nice about them. They steer very well, the brakes a light to apply, the engines very throaty and torquey.

Should you have a chance - drive a 2350 - I am sure you would notice they are a better machine. The 5400 is from a different era.

fieldman12 · Dec 14, 2013

Dizno said:
Likewise I cut my teeth in the 1970s driving a 165 when I started driving for long hours at 9 years of age. Ours did not have multi power either and was a fairly reliable tractor although I do remember my dad taking things apart like a head gasket. I also remember a kind of sloppy front steering linkage, ok but not great brakes, and either going too slow or two fast in reverse. I remember my dad being uptight that we be very careful with it as the rear ends were weak.

Fast forward and I bought the 1020 and 1030. These are not as nice as a 2350 but everything is nice about them. They steer very well, the brakes a light to apply, the engines very throaty and torquey.

Should you have a chance - drive a 2350 - I am sure you would notice they are a better machine. The 5400 is from a different era.

Yes the mf 165 would get a wobble in the front and I could tell my 255 was starting to get that way before I sold it. The 255 had allot better brakes than our 165 but to be fair the 255 we had came with wet brakes. I drove a 2440 and it was nice. I know the 2350 is a great machine. It would make a great haying tractor for smaller hay equipment.

Dizno · Dec 14, 2013

fieldman12 said:
Yes the mf 165 would get a wobble in the front and I could tell my 255 was starting to get that way before I sold it. The 255 had allot better brakes than our 165 but to be fair the 255 we had came with wet brakes. I drove a 2440 and it was nice. I know the 2350 is a great machine. It would make a great haying tractor for smaller hay equipment.

I never knew the differences between the 165 and 255 - wet brakes and what else were the differences?

buickanddeere · Dec 14, 2013

murphy1244 said:
Type: closed center

Rear valves: 1 or 2

Pump flow: 13 gpm

My source the real John Deere CTM7 Tech Manual for Radial Piston Pumps trumps anything you find on TractorData.com - information on all makes and models of tractors .
You can also find the 3cu" front pump in the JD parts manual on the JD web site.
Beats the 10gpm the Massey can only flow to the SCV.

fieldman12 · Dec 14, 2013

Dizno said:
I never knew the differences between the 165 and 255 - wet brakes and what else were the differences?

1.The 255 had the A4-236 engine that was suppose to be a more well balanced and smoother running engine than the A4-203 Perkins in our 165. Both where Perkings four cylinder engines.

2. Wet brakes where an option on the 255. you can tell by rear end. There is a plate with notches on both sides for the wet brake setup.

3. The gears patterns where switched around on the eight speed in the 255 versus the eight speed in the 165.

4. The throttle linkage was a better setup on the 255.

5. The break and clutch setup was different. The 165 was mounted from top and went straight down to floor when pushed. On the 255 they came up from the bottom below the floor boards.

6. Battery location on 255 was moved to front and a much larger battery.

Other than that and sheet metal for the most part they where identical. Personally I think the 165 was a better looking machine and one of the nicest looking for that size and time frame. The older 165's had some other slight differences than the later models.

Dizno · Dec 14, 2013

fieldman12 said:
1.The 255 had the A4-236 engine that was suppose to be a more well balanced and smoother running engine than the A4-203 Perkins in our 165. Both where Perkings four cylinder engines.

2. Wet brakes where an option on the 255. you can tell by rear end. There is a plate with notches on both sides for the wet brake setup.

3. The gears patterns where switched around on the eight speed in the 255 versus the eight speed in the 165.

4. The throttle linkage was a better setup on the 255.

5. The break and clutch setup was different. The 165 was mounted from top and went straight down to floor when pushed. On the 255 they came up from the bottom below the floor boards.

6. Battery location on 255 was moved to front and a much larger battery.

Other than that and sheet metal for the most part they where identical. Personally I think the 165 was a better looking machine and one of the nicest looking for that size and time frame. The older 165's had some other slight differences than the later models.

Thanks for that - really appreciate you taking the time! Makes things more clear from 35 years ago. I always wondered and I drove that 165 a lot!

terryknight · Dec 14, 2013

i find it amusing how this thread has evolved (and i truly mean that)

Dizno · Dec 14, 2013

terryknight said:
i find it amusing how this thread has evolved (and i truly mean that)

You started it all

terryknight · Dec 14, 2013

i know, and it started talking about a JD 2350 and wound up on the difference between a MF 165 and 255

Tx Jim · Dec 15, 2013

Terry
I agree on the threads evolution from green to red/grey.

Zebrafive · Dec 15, 2013

Nice tractor. I wish my 2030 only had 800 hours.

hossy · Mar 25, 2015

I would think the tractor is worth between 8000-10000 $.That is if the hours are correct and as good of shape as it looks. If you still have it and want to sell call me at 1-845-482-3682.