Ford 3400 opinions

[Fred Chartier]

Thinking on upgrading from a Ford 640 to a 69 Ford 3400 tractor. Any opinions on the 3400?

 

[Ultradog MN]

Others here will be of a different opinion and I don't fault them for it. But I think the 3 cyl Fords were a Big step forward from the older 4 cyl tractors.
If you consider that the 4 cyl tractors basically were designed in 52/53 and then tweaked and improved for another 14 years. The 65 and up tractors were a whole new platform and all that good engineering from 52 onward went into them from the ground up. I think they are more reliable, have more features, are easier to work on (for the most part) and last longer.
As for a 3400 they are basically a 3000 with a much heavier, non-adjustable front axle. They did have a couple of less than optimum transmissions in them such as that oddball 6X4 and will likely only have transmission pto, if at all. Some units came with NO hydraulics or 3 point which to me would make the tractor basically useless except for loader or drawbar work.
I think if you ever have a 3 cyl as your primary worker you will not want to go back to a 4 cyl.
Hope I'm not stepping on any toes here but that is what I think.
Plenty of knowledge and help for those 3 cyls here if you just ask. And it's better to ask before you buy the tractor than afterwards.
Good luck and keep us posted.

 

[Fred Chartier]

I went and looked at the 3400 and drove it. It runs real good and I love the power steering! But I am a little confused. The guy selling it said it is a 4 cyl. and not a 3 cyl.
Did Ford offer the 4 cyl. on 1969 3400"s?

 

[RickB]

The 3400 has a taller ring and pinion ratio than a 3000. Many 3400's with 8x2 transmissions I have seen have live PTO via a two stage clutch, but by no means all do. FWIW, I think the 6x4 manual reversing transmission is the best choice for loader work mixed with general purpose duties. The offering of reverse ratios other than too fast and too slow is handy.

 

[RickB]

No. The 3000 and all its derivatives are 3 cylinder.

 

[Fred Chartier]

Maybe the guy thought it was a 4 cylinder. I didn't actually look to see if it was.

 

[Ultradog MN]

[i:654c4848f0]"The 3400 has a taller ring and pinion ratio than a 3000."[/i:654c4848f0]

Maybe some of them.
I had the rear end of a junk 3400 laying around and Kenny wanted the square axles and diff lock on his first 2000. The top cover etc on the 3400 were already gone so we switched the differential, pinion gear and the trumpets.
I know for a fact that the tooth count on the two models were the same because he didn't want to do the split. Just wanted to slip the new differential in and call it good. I insisted that we do it right and we did.
Later a guy from Colorado found me and wanted to buy the ring and pinion from a 3400. Did the tooth count and sent him pictures and the 2000 parts were satisfactory. I drilled out the rivitts and sent him the parts. The old diffy is still around here somewhere.
As for the 6X4, I'll grant that it beats the 4 speed.

 

[Tony Jacobs]

Hello Rick and Jerry , You are both right and wrong about the gear ratio's . 2000 , 3000 , 3400 stick shift tractors are 6.16 gears , 2000 , 3000 , 3400 Select-O-Speed tractors are 6.67 gears . ALL 3500 INDUSTRIAL tractors have 7.17 gear ratio and parts DO NOT INTERCHANGE with other 3000 models unless you change the ENTIRE rear end assembly . Depending on what you had and what was done in the years past parts swapping repairs does not mean it came from the factory that way that's all . Yes the 6x4 trans. is much better than the earlier 4x4 manual reverser and since the 3400 is a UTILITY tractor designed for loader work and not Farm work that is why it has the Heavy Duty Axle and the Reverser transmission options that were not available on the 3000 FARM tractor . You can't compare 3000's to 3400's or 3400's to 3500's because they are all different models built for different applications . Thanks Tony

 

[Tony Jacobs]

Hello Jerry , The 4 cylinder tractors were designed in 1954 with split of the 600 / 800 after the 1954 NAA . The 52/53/54 NAA tractor was nothing more than a Stop Gap replacement of the 8N to avoid the PATENT INFRINGEMNET Law Suit on the three point hitch . The three point hitch is a modified 8n unit that does not fit on the 1954 and up 600/800 tractors , the rear axle is also just a modified 8n unit that does not fit anything else either . Just about all the parts of the NAA's fit only the NAA's or 8n's . The only thing that was an improvment was the overhead valve engine and that was only thing carried forth to the 600/800 series tractors . Personnally I have no use for any of the N series or NAA tractors because the 4 cylinder tractors are my favorites but I do like quite a few of the 3 cylinders like the 1969 / 1970 (I prefer the Simms inline injection pump and the early power steering with remote resevoir plus the newer grille design and decals) 3000 Diesels , 4400 Utility's with 4x4 , 3500 & 4500 Diesel Industrials with Power Reversers or S.O.S. Trans. and a 5000 Diesel with S.O.S. I think a 4500 Diesel S.O.S. 3 POINT AND PTO with loader and backhoe with 4x4 would be a cool tractor to have , unfortunately not many 4x4 axles were built and I have not been able to locate one of the ones that were . Thanks Tony

 

[RickB]

My bad on the R/P ratio. Sorry.
As for Tony's take that a 3000 and 3400 can't be compared, well that's just a little extreme.

 

[Ultradog MN]

A couple of thoughts. Tony might be thinking about a 3500 which I think had the double reduction rear end and maybe the shuttle shift 4 sp tranny. I've always assumed the shuttle shift wasn't available in the 3400s but could be wrong on that. Otherwise, aside from the front axle and a few esoteric differences the 3000 and 3400 are the same machine.

 

[Red Ford]

I have used a 3400. There was nothing about it that stood out as unacceptable. The tractor"s owner had it for a long time. The only problems he had were ordinary repairs and the Select-O-Speed trans. That trans was actually pretty handy, but due to problems they don"t have a great reputation. Because of that I would think twice before buying a tractor that had one.

 

[Tony Jacobs]

Hello Rick , 3000 and 3400 can't be compared , they are 2 different tractors . The 3000 comes with the set back AG FRONT AXLE ONLY which makes the WHEELBASE SHORTER for smaller turns and is adjustable in width and DOES NOT COME with and type of Reversing Trans. at all . The 3400 comes with the UTILITY LOADER front axle ONLY which makes the tractor LONGER and makes turning radius larger BUT the axle being set farther foward gives it the ability to carry a LARGER LOADER and more weight which a 3000 can't . The 3400 also comes with Manual Reversing transmission option for faster cycling during LOADER WORK which the 3000 does not . Many parts are the same but they are not the same tractor nor will they ever be otherwise Ford would not have built them as TWO SEPERATE MODELS . The 3000 is the AG TRACTOR and the 3400 is the UTILITY MODEL plain and simple . Thanks Tony

 

[Tony Jacobs]

Hello Jerry ,The 3500 is a dry Brake rear axle similar to the 3000 and 3400 but is larger and NO PARTS interchange between them . the 3550 is the WET BRAKE REDUCTION rear axle you are thinking about and is completely different again but is the same as 4000 AG TRACTORS, 4400 UTILITY TRACTORS, AND 4500 INDSUTRIAL TRACTORS . Power Reversing transmissions were available only on the 3500, 3550, and 4500 Industrial tractors , While Manual Reversing transmissions like the 4x4 and the 6x4 were available only on the 3400, and 4400 UTILITY TRACTORS . I do not know what you are calling a Shuttle Shift because the a true Hydraulic Shuttle Shift tractor did not come out until much later in Ford production years . Thanks Tony

 

[cdmn]

I have what's left of a 1975 2000 tractor. It has a torque convertor, hydraulic shuttle shift with a 4 speed. Also uses planetary rear axles like a 4000. Has the 3 cyl gas engine. It had the standard lightweight front axle, and 24 inch rear tires.
I have a 3400 diesel loader tractor and a 3000 gas ag tractor. Seems to me the 3400 drives a lot slower. I assumed it had a higher ratio rear end. Could be the engine just doesn't run up in rpms.