MF 1643 Thinking of Trading for a MF1749 or MF 1754
- Thread starter onionfmr
- Start date
- Views: 30861
-
- Tags
- massey ferguson 1643
Wobblin-Goblin
Gold Member
My only previous experience with MF was with a 2007 1540 with FEL and the Powershuttle. That, my friend, was a great little tractor. It wasn't perfect (the ROPS vibrated at certain RPMs and made ear-piercing noises, the headlights were worthless, and it would have been nice if it had more storage and cupholders), but the good far outweighed the bad. That 3 cylinder turbo started instantly in any weather at any temperature, it was the quietest tractor (engine) I ever was around, the Powershuttle was buttery smooth and a huge upgrade over anything we had previously owned, and the loader joystick (floor mount) was much better than what's on the 1600 series (mounted on the fender). I had to sell it just 1.5 years into owning due to the bad economy. Fortunately, finances allowed me to buy this 1643 in 2013 and it's been (mostly) an upgrade over the 1540.
My comments about the 1700 series more or less revolve around the emissions equipment, the newer loaders and wimpy buckets, and also the newer tech in the HST, which I wonder about its reliability. One other observation I've made concerning the 1700s is that to my eyes, they appear to be physically smaller than the line it replaced. Perhaps there is no truth to it, but they really do look smaller across the line.
Not sure why they switched loaders, but they just don't look as attractive or beefy, and the new buckets are an embarrassment.
In the end, I was very happy with the 1540 (and it pained me to have to sell it), am very happy with this 1643, and I hope you find the right tractor for your needs.
Wobblin-Goblin - I appreciate your comments. The way you felt about your MF 1540 was how I felt about my MF 1240. I loved that tractor. It just was too small to run my chipper, large bush hog and other implements. It was PTO hp challenged.
I agree that the new 1700 series buckets are wimpy, in fact my MF 1643 came with one of those wimpy buckets. The new 1700 series tractors that I'm looking at have skid steer buckets. This dealer doesn't order them with MF buckets. The MF 1754 series tractors are 10" longer OAL (wheel base longer also) and 3" wider than my MF 1643 series as I actually measured with a tape measure. The bottom line is going to be the $ deal. If the deal is good, I'll probably do it. If not, I won't. Last fall, a dealer had my tractor sold and offered me a great deal to trade toward a MF 1754. Something came up outside my control and caused me to have to pass on the deal. We'll see what happens this time.
I agree that the new 1700 series buckets are wimpy, in fact my MF 1643 came with one of those wimpy buckets. The new 1700 series tractors that I'm looking at have skid steer buckets. This dealer doesn't order them with MF buckets. The MF 1754 series tractors are 10" longer OAL (wheel base longer also) and 3" wider than my MF 1643 series as I actually measured with a tape measure. The bottom line is going to be the $ deal. If the deal is good, I'll probably do it. If not, I won't. Last fall, a dealer had my tractor sold and offered me a great deal to trade toward a MF 1754. Something came up outside my control and caused me to have to pass on the deal. We'll see what happens this time.
NewLight
Bronze Member
I have a 131 hours on my 1754 and outside of few(first 10 hours) now resolved issues(one electrical, the other two were "non-issues" and related to my hilly land) it has been problem free and reliable. No issues of any kind with emissions\regen, that system has been flawless. The FEL is rated at a little under 2,500lbs and I'm sure I've toted around far more than that many times with no struggle or issues at all. The P/S trans works fantastically well. My only real complaints are I couldn't afford a cab model and I wish the diff lock was on the left instead of the right. I would suggest the 1754 at minimum, and if it were possible the 1758, or 1759. You wont be sorry you paid for the extra power.
NewLight - thanks for your reply. The used tractors my dealer had were not in the condition I would consider. So, I took a look at new. For me it is usually better to buy new equipment. All of our equipment is stored inside and meticulously maintained. Anyways, dealer can't find a new MF1749 or MF 1754 with a cab anywhere? I hate to say it but, I may have to look at orange.
Wobblin-Goblin
Gold Member
Your dealer isn't looking hard enough.
onceacop
Silver Member
Several here in NY,,, updated as of Aug 23,,,,,,
TractorHouse.com | MASSEY-FERGUSON 1754 For Sale - 28 Listings - Page 1.
TractorHouse.com | MASSEY-FERGUSON 1754 For Sale - 28 Listings - Page 1.
Fiziksgeek
Platinum Member
My dealer shows a 1754 cab in stock here in CT.
Fiziksgeek - thanks for the information. My dealer has now located a couple. We're still working on the price.
My wife likes the 1749 (price and less weight) however, I'm leaning towards the 1754 since I don't know if the 1749 will have enough gain in power over my 1643 to make it worthwhile to trade.
Let me clarify. The 1749 weighs 617lbs and the 1754 weighs 838 lbs. more than our 1643 tractor. Stationary operation i.e..., chipping, post hole digging, I don't believe will be an issue. However, plowing, snow blowing and loader work may be an issue. Will the additional weight minimize the additional HP?
Last edited:
Fiziksgeek
Platinum Member
My understanding is that, in general, more weight will allow you to take better advantage of the available horsepower. Basically, you have more traction with more weight. The only time more weight is bad, is when you are driving over a soft surface and don't want to leave ruts. For example, I mow with my little GC1720. Thought of stepping up to a 1726E until I read it was nearly twice the weight!
You're talking about 200 lbs in a machine with a base wight of ~4000 lbs, one half of one percent difference. When you include the weight on implements, the percentage difference is even less.
You're talking about 200 lbs in a machine with a base wight of ~4000 lbs, one half of one percent difference. When you include the weight on implements, the percentage difference is even less.
