I need to pull a 2-row plow, 7 ft. disc-harrow, 7 ft. cultivator, 6 ft. bush-hog, and 2-row planter. I have been looking at older MFs (the 150, 165, and newer 245). These all seem to be real solid tractors. The 150 is the harder model to find, maybe because it is so popular. My Dad always said that the MF 180 was a "lemon" model for MF, and to stay away from it. I'm looking for advice on which way to go. Thanks.
150, 165, or 245???
- Thread starter TNSuperC
- Start date
- Views: 18050
cowski
Platinum Member
we got a 150 my neighbor has a 165. i have had lift trouble. the 245 is basically the same tractor just newer.based on what i have seen they have more lift trouble than the others i have owned and been around.
Farmwithjunk
Super Member
The MF1085 was a bit of a lemon. (Head gasket issues from day one) I've never known a 180 to have issues. I know of several that have been with original buyers since new, and nothing except the usual maintenance and upkeep in their history. The 180 is essentially just a 175 with a flat deck operators station.
That said, a 150 will handle every chore you mentioned, and do it well. You won't find a bigger fan of the 150 than with me... 165's are a tough act to beat also, provided you find one in decent shape. Remember, a 100 series Massey could be as old as 47 years....And it can take some operators about 47 SECONDS to destroy a perfectly good tractor.
245's are ever-so-slightly updated 135's for the most part. They're VERY good tractors in their own right. I prefer the 150 over a 245, even with the 245 obviously being newer. 150's are slightly longer wheel base, and a few pounds heavier, most of that being added to the FRONT end weight. That gives you a much more stable platform with a heavy load on the hitch. 150's have a heavier front axle also, which can be valuable should you ever want to add a loader. The BEST feature of a 150 OR a 245 is the engine, should you elect to get yourself a diesel version....The Perkins AD3-152 is extremely miserly with fuel. In fact, when the MF150 was tested at the University of Nebraska Tractor Test Facility, it was the most fuel efficient tractor tested to that date. Not many have come close since either. The Perkins 152 has seen over 50 years of production, and is in a number of tractors besides Massey's.
I'm a little biased, but after 40 years of ownership of a fine example of a Massey Ferguson 150 diesel/8-speed, I'm CONVINCED it is the best utility tractor ever built.
That said, a 150 will handle every chore you mentioned, and do it well. You won't find a bigger fan of the 150 than with me... 165's are a tough act to beat also, provided you find one in decent shape. Remember, a 100 series Massey could be as old as 47 years....And it can take some operators about 47 SECONDS to destroy a perfectly good tractor.
245's are ever-so-slightly updated 135's for the most part. They're VERY good tractors in their own right. I prefer the 150 over a 245, even with the 245 obviously being newer. 150's are slightly longer wheel base, and a few pounds heavier, most of that being added to the FRONT end weight. That gives you a much more stable platform with a heavy load on the hitch. 150's have a heavier front axle also, which can be valuable should you ever want to add a loader. The BEST feature of a 150 OR a 245 is the engine, should you elect to get yourself a diesel version....The Perkins AD3-152 is extremely miserly with fuel. In fact, when the MF150 was tested at the University of Nebraska Tractor Test Facility, it was the most fuel efficient tractor tested to that date. Not many have come close since either. The Perkins 152 has seen over 50 years of production, and is in a number of tractors besides Massey's.
I'm a little biased, but after 40 years of ownership of a fine example of a Massey Ferguson 150 diesel/8-speed, I'm CONVINCED it is the best utility tractor ever built.
TnWV
Platinum Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2008
- Messages
- 588
- Location
- Liberty,WV - Putnam Co.
- Tractor
- 2003 Zetor 4341 w/FEL, 1970 MF 150, 2012 JD X530
I also have an MF150. My father pulled a two bottom plow, 7ft disc, and 5' brush hog with it for years. Only plowed and disced about 2 acres a year, but never had a problem. The perkins diesel still sounds great and its a solid tractor for the tasks you mention. I only upgraded to get 4X4 to be safer on my hills, a loader, and to be able to pull and 8' brush hog. I still have the MF150 and will keep it forever, as my father has passed on and it was his pride and joy. It doesnt look too bad, but I hope one day to make it look as good as Farmwithjunk's 150. I really like that era MF, and they look great all fixed up. GoodLuck with whichever you decide.
Yes, I didn't mention the 175...but my Dad puts both the 175 and 180 in the same "stay away from them" category. I really hate to mention this since I've had no personal experience with either of them...but these two models have a bit of bad reputation around our part of the county.
My Dad owned a 150 for a few years and now has an IH 684. He's always said the 150 was the best tractor he's ever had. He always maintained that he could run it all day and not use a tank of fuel.
I can more easily find older Ford tractors around here (like the 3000, 4000, and 4600), but they are usually a bit more expensive especially if they've been restored to any degree.
I have a 52 Farmall Super C with wide front, new tires, 12V conversion, and 3-pt conversion which I need to sell. I bought it to use, but Dad insisted that it is just too clean to mess up. The old Farmall is just tough as nails...not much you can say bad about them.
TnWV
Platinum Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2008
- Messages
- 588
- Location
- Liberty,WV - Putnam Co.
- Tractor
- 2003 Zetor 4341 w/FEL, 1970 MF 150, 2012 JD X530
My Dad owned a 150 for a few years and now has an IH 684. He's always said the 150 was the best tractor he's ever had. He always maintained that he could run it all day and not use a tank of fuel.
I second the 150 being fuel efficient. When I was using my 150 as my primary tractor I would put 10 gallons in it and run it for many hours at PTO speed with the 5' cutter mowing a bunch of acres, before needing to refuel.
I second the 150 being fuel efficient. When I was using my 150 as my primary tractor I would put 10 gallons in it and run it for many hours at PTO speed with the 5' cutter mowing a bunch of acres, before needing to refuel.
Farmwithjunk
Super Member
People who own Masseys tend to never let go of them. They have a way of endearing themselves to you!
I had a 674 for a summer. Good tractor but someone made me that proverbial "offer I couldn't refuse".
The 150 has a 17gal (+ or -) fuel tank. I've seen it plow for a full 10 hour day on several occasions and not use a gallon an hour.
Way back when I was a youngin', a neighbor just down the road would head out to his mailbox to get the morning newspaper just about the time I needed to get up for school. He had a Super C. I could hear it start all the way across the hayfield that separated our house from his. Every time I hear a C crank up, it takes me back to those days!!!!
texasjohn
Super Member
I had a MF 165 for years and did a lot of work with it. I thought it was a great tractor, gas version. It got the job done but I have to admit that I had to fight it to make it happen. I actually needed a larger tractor and didn't know it at the time. Problems I faced included, light in the front (added weights, needed more), radiator problems, rebuilt engine, some hydraulic problems, electrical problems with the starter interlock, rebuilt carb/tune up numerous times.
Having gotten the equipment shown in my signature, I now understand that a FEL more than doubles the usefulness of a tractor... never take it off now.
Having gotten the equipment shown in my signature, I now understand that a FEL more than doubles the usefulness of a tractor... never take it off now.
Now that I've researched it a bit, the MFs generally are all more fuel efficient than the Fords or IHs (the other tractor makes I've been considering).
I agree on the FEL. Dad's 684 has an older Westendorf mounted on it that is heavy duty. It is cheaper to buy the tractor and loader as a unit...I know this...just depends on the $$$.
I agree on the FEL. Dad's 684 has an older Westendorf mounted on it that is heavy duty. It is cheaper to buy the tractor and loader as a unit...I know this...just depends on the $$$.