Worked the 850

[Ken Oh]

Thanks to all for the tips on getting my 850 running right..
Mowed 4 ft. high grass with a 6 ft. bush hog for 2 hrs. yesterday. She ran like a top and didn't get hot. And she worked! If I had to buy a bush hog for this tractor it would be a 5 ft. But as long as I can borrow this one...............

 

[Ford850]

Ken,
I've used a 6' King Kutter rotary mower on my 850 for several years, and it is heavy! I used to have a snow plow frame on the tractor that I left on year round, and that gave me plenty of front ballast, but that heavy mower really stresses the hydraulics. I added check chains which helped quite a bit. You can set the chains to the height you want to cut, and then lower the 3pt and the chains hold the weight of the mower instead of your hydraulics.

 

[souNdguy]

An 8XX has plenty of 'nads' to pull a 6' mower..

that's alotta engine under that hood.. high mid 40's pto hp.. etc. .. a 6' hog probably don't need much more than 30pto hp.. maybee 35 in thick stuff.. front weight helps though..

soundguy

 

[Keith Williams]

I agree sounder!
My 64 4000 4 cyl gas. ( just a newer versions of the 800/801 series) handles my 6 foot Wood's Cadet 72 fine (6 Foot). I have front wheel weights which are necessary on my hills. That said if the grass gets tooooooo far ahead of me it does make me drop down a gear.
I like to set my hog so it is just off center to the left hand side. I then cut with the left tires in the grass, the right tires just outside the uncut area. (Front tires at 60" center makes the rears 72" wide. That way I cut everything that I am running over. I leave no wheel marks in the uncut grass and the direction that the hog rotates does the best cutting that way.
Keith

 

[Mr. Bob]

I've "hogged" with a 6' Woods pull type behind a Ford 860 in some pretty thick stuff. That tractor had very ample power to digest whatever got in its path. In porportion to their size, the 800/900 series are probably the most powerful tractor ever built.
Mr. Bob

 

[souNdguy]

I'd say they far good in comparison to a mf 65.. but yeah.. they are roughly 8n size.. but 2x the power.. etc.

soundguy

 

[souNdguy]

yep.. they are real beasts. Wat trans you got.. the 5spd or the 4spd?

I like my 5 speeds.. finally got as smooth with them as the 4-speed..

soundguy

 

[Keith Williams]

Five speed.
Light stuff 4th
medium to heavy 3rd
If it reallllllly gets tough 2nd.

3rd and reverse on the 5 speed are so handy and quick. Most of the time I just mow in those 2. I am clearing some areas and I can hold the hog up and back over some really nasty stuff. Then just drop and "rock" on.

My cousin has a 68 4000 SOS. It's great going forward but I am NOT a fan of the reverse in it. I end up spining the tires. It's amazing how much is different from a 64 4000 to a 66 4000.
Keith

 

[lonestarjeff]

Ken...I have an 860 in the middle of the restoration process. When I read posts like yours it makes me really look forward to hooking it to my 6' hog someday.

I use the 6 footer behind a MF165 right now, but my 8' hog will soon be repaired & ready to go, so the 6' will go to the 860.

The 860 went straight from the trailer to the shop for tear-down, so it will be all new to me. I'm looking forward to the fun you had this day.

Jeff

 

[souNdguy]

a post 65 4000 is a whole different class of machine.

on th 5spd, i also spend most of my time in 3 & r

soundguy

 

[Mr. Bob]

souNdguy,
I've operated the 860 and the MF 65 doing similar work. If both are weighing the same; there's very little if any difference. The base(shipping)weight of a 65 is a few hundred pounds more, but if both tractors are weighing around 5200-5500# thet are really powerful pullers and power supplies. These are my 2 favorite tractors.
Mr. Bob

 

[Ken Oh]

I was mowing in first gear. It bogged down too much in second. I mow it to 6-8 in. which maybe too low?

I mowed this field 3 yrs. ago when the grass was over the hood, with a buddies MF35 diesel in 2nd low and it didn't seem to work very hard at all.

The two things I don't like about the 850 is not having a live pto, and reverse gear seems too high.

That being said, I don't have a lot of experience with working tractors either. That's why I don't post on here very much.

 

[souNdguy]

According to the manual, the weight on an 861 is 2991#.. I looked around for mf 65 specs and found a weight of 4500#.. That's a huge difference.. it's another 50% heavier...

soundguy

 

[Mr. Bob]

if you got your weight info from tractor data .com, some of the weights they list may vary according to ballast or not. We once had an MF 65 gasser low profile with bumper, wheel weights and loaded 14.9x28 tires. It weighed around 5400. The listing for the Ford would likely be dry shipping weight. I, estimate the MF 65 to be maybe being 5-7 hundred pounds more weight dry, unbalasted. They both, when well ballasted, are fine tractors.
Mr. Bob

 

[Mr. Bob]

As an example of weight of tractors; the base shipping weight of a 2N is around 2400#. I've had mine over the scales, it weighing 3600# as ballasted and equipped as I use it.
Mr. Bob

 

[souNdguy]

We are still talking 1500# difference from base 860 and base mf 65.. ballast both as to use.. and I'll bet you still have a 1500# spread... hard to compair two machines that weight so differently..

soundguy

 

[souNdguy]

I got my weight from the manual.

They are both fine tractors.. however.. they both quite different weight.

soundguy

 

[souNdguy]

Mr Bob.. here's a quote of one of your messages:

I've operated the 860 and the MF 65 doing similar work. If both are weighing the same; there's very little if any difference. The base(shipping)weight of a 65 is a few hundred pounds more, but if both tractors are weighing around 5200-5500# thet are really powerful pullers and power supplies. These are my 2 favorite tractors.
Mr. Bob

As I have been trying to point out.. the base weights of the 2 tractors in question are drastically different.. thus your apples to apples comparison is more like apples to cantalopes...

soundguy

 

[Mr. Bob]

The 65 is definitely a heavier base weight tractor. The 860 that i used to run had 14.9 tires on it loaded and pie weights which made it weigh about the same as the 65 with like loaded tires, but much lighter one peice wheel weights. These two trastors as equipped seemed very similiar in their performence as I experienced working them.
Mr. Bob

 

[souNdguy]

The only Issue i see is the tractor that weighs 1500# lighter base than the other has to carry that much more ballast to be in a similar weight category. The laws of physics dictate that that machine will consume more of it's available hp into carrying the load, thus having less available to 'compete / compair with a tractor made heavier, and made to carry that load .. etc... that's all I'm trying to point out.. IE.. no free lunch... if you ballast the 860 up to the mf 65's weight.. then a portion of the 860's useable hp is dedicated to hauling that extra 1500#'s of weight.. and is not available for comparison work.. etc.

soundguy

 

[Mr. Bob]

I never thought about that. It's interesting that mostly the Ford hundred series are tractors for which the tremendously heavy pie weights are made. The MF 65 is one heck of a tractor. I'd have a hard time choosing between a 65 and an 860 in like condition. It would be interesting to see how fuel consumption would compare with both weighing the same(860 carrying much more added ballast) opersting a like implement in like conditions.
Mr. Bob
Mr. Bob

 

[souNdguy]

I agree. Also .. what would you compair..MF gas or diesel? The 860 would only have a gas option.. and the 8XX gassers are pretty hungry.. at least my 850 is.. I would like to see a comparison like that though.. would be neat to tally the fuel after 'x' hours of work, both pulling a 3pt plow.. or similar tillage or same type of work..e tc. See how much difference the weight made.

soundguy

 

[Mr. Bob]

I've thought at times thay I'd like to replace my 2N with an 860/861, but, my tractor weighted and equipped with its crossover manifold seems to have ample power and traction to pull my firewood trailer, heavily loaded. I also on occasion pull my 7' mounted disc with it, drag logs and trees, and do grading with a 6' rear blade. I really have little need for live pto. It would be nice to have live hydraulics though. My tractor very effeciently fills my needs on about 1 gallon per hour. If I went to the 860, I'd have much more power and live power, but at gas prices as they are, for the most part, I'd be burning twice the fuel to do the same jobs I do with the 2N. I feel that I've "maxed out" my 2N in regard to upgrading it, and it is very dependable, so I think I best be content with it. But I sure do like the 860s though.
I realise that probably all makes of tractors are good and each having certain advantages, but for me, it's hard to think past Fords, Fergusons or Massey Fergusons.
Mr. Bob

 

[souNdguy]

Yep.. I'd ahve to say that fords are my favorite.. etc.

soundguy

 

[Mr. Bob]

J would be comparing gas tractors. Low profile 65 vs. 860; both with same size tires and both tractors weighing the same.
Mr. Bob

 

[Mr. Bob]

Its my view that the combined designs of Henry Ford and Harry Ferguson were far more advanced in the areas of effeciency and user friendliness over the other brands of their era.
Mr. Bob

 

[souNdguy]

Very simple and robust designs.

soundguy

 

[Ford850]

Ken,
I'm surprised you have to mow in first gear. I can mow in 3rd most of the time. I back it down to 2nd in the tall stuff (over the hood). Mine consists of a lot of weeds and light brush mixed in with the grass though. Do you run the RPMs up to reach the proper 540 PTO speed?

 

[Ken Oh]

Ford, I just run it at a speed that is smooth and " happy". The tach doesn't work well enough to trust, but it's reading around 1700 rpm at my " sweet spot ". It handles the weeds fine in second, it's the part of the field that is all grass that I have to mow in 1st gear.