MF 150 versus Mf 165

[Scottnj1]

Good Morning folks, I have recently retired an old Allis 160 when the perkins 152 diesel died. I think I broke the crank, and the engine was the best part of the tractor. I"ve replaced it with a larger green diesel tractor, but I really miss my little easy on fuel tractor for mowing and chores. While I"m keeping my eyes open for a perkins 152 at the right price to drop into the Allis, I"ve started thinking about finding another little tractor. So I"ve been reading about the MF 150 and 165 diesels. I like that the 150 has the same 3 cyl perkins that is so good, and gets such good economy. However, it looks like a 165 could pick up some of my heavier work if my big green was down. How"s the economy of the 4 cyl 165 diesel compared with the 3 cylinder 150 diesel? Any other differences I should consider between the 150 and 165?
 

[Tony in Mass.]

Since you are here, might want to ask around for anyone with an extra 152, should be exactly like the one you blew. A 165 is more like your old 160 or 170's in size and heft, the 135 and 150 mf's are more like D15's, but all nice and handy. But your AC's engine might be fixable with ex MF Perkins parts... where are you?
 

[Scottnj1]

Tony, Thanks for the reply. Yes, it might be rebuildable, but the crank has significant play in both axial and radial directions. Not just the pulley, but the actual crank. Just before I shut it down, it sounded like there was a big load put on it, and in a couple minutes it overheated. It is likely to need more than a freshen-up. The old Allis is a wonderful little tractor, but there are noises in the tranny, could use a radiator, and other stuff that just doesn't make it a good fit money wise for sinking $ 2000 into the engine. Also, parts are difficult to find for this France made Allis tractor. Now a $500 running engine would change my direction. Haven't found one of those yet. I've learned my lesson to attend to an engine when it needs a re fresh rather than after it gets too sloppy and something gives.

I'm located in S. Jersey, my farm is on Marlyand's Eastern Shore.
 

[Mike tn]

My 150 has 14.9x28 rears and the traction is close to Dads 265 it seems. His 265 really doesn"t use a lot more fuel unless we pull a sub-soiler. They are both fuel misers.The four cylinder runs a little smoother.
 

[Tony in Mass.]

Who on here is in New Jersey? Trac? I never had a 160, no gassers, all diesel Perkins with French front end and back halves wasn't it? Even my big allis was a gasser. And I never had a complaint about fuel, all were efficent enought to please me.... just always rolled too fast and odd (expensive) tire sizes. We'll see who reads this, and comes up with an engine or a decent tractor....
 

[Jason S.]

You would be hard pressed to find a tractor that got better fuel economy than a 165 diesel in its horsepower range. I"d say you wouldn"t find one any better to be honest. I"ve got a friend of mine who had a 165 and a Deere but to be honest I can"t remember the model number but they were both similar in horsepower. He said if they were chopping corn for silage with the Deere if they started at daybreak by 2 or 3:00 you had to refuel it. He said the 165 would run all day until dark and would still have fuel left in the tank. I grew up with a 165 and I don"t dispute what he says. I have a 175 now and it easy on fuel. People wonder how I can sell my hay cheaper than everyone else around here and make money. It"s simple...I don"t have to spend much on fuel.
 

[Scottnj1]

Thanks to all who have responded. It seems like I"m hearing a 165 would be a good fit for my farm. That gives me more choices. In case anyone has a 152 engine, I actually spend more time in Delaware and Maryland"s Eastern Shore than NJ.
 

[Perkins diesel]

The engine in a 165 is a 4 cylinder version of the 152 and did have the best fuel economy in it's HP class.