# differences between Ford 2000 and 3000 tractors



## Doc (Jun 5, 2003)

I need a tractor that can do the following: bushhog pastures, use haybale spear for moving small round bales; tiller; and pull a wagon for hayrides.

I tired both models and I like the "fit" of the 2000 better. Would like to hear pros/cons of each model -- and also safety issues, if any.


----------



## agmantoo (May 23, 2003)

some of the 2000 series have the brakes inboard on the differential and others have the brakes out at the hub where the wheel rims attach. The brakes at the wheel rims are not nearly as good. The 3000 has more horsepower which IMO is a major plus also.


----------



## Ross (May 9, 2002)

My neighbors 3000 has brakes on the hubs too so its probably just a vintage issue. Earlier ones had drum brakes later ones went internal. I think the only major difference is the 2000 is governed down to reduce hp. I'll check but I'm pretty sure they use the same engine tranny. This isn't a selectospeed is it?


----------



## Ross (May 9, 2002)

Ok scratch that they have a different bore and stroke, probably the same block on the diesels though. I know the 3000 and 4000 use the same block. The book I have here isn't that helpful, I'd need a couple we've loaned out. Used to have a 73 3000 6 speed. Luved it but it just got too small.


----------



## Doc (Jun 5, 2003)

Ross said:


> Ok scratch that they have a different bore and stroke, probably the same block on the diesels though. I know the 3000 and 4000 use the same block. The book I have here isn't that helpful, I'd need a couple we've loaned out. Used to have a 73 3000 6 speed. Luved it but it just got too small.



Ross -- why did you like it so much?


----------



## rambler (Jan 20, 2004)

Ross said:


> Ok scratch that they have a different bore and stroke, probably the same block on the diesels though. I know the 3000 and 4000 use the same block. The book I have here isn't that helpful, I'd need a couple we've loaned out. Used to have a 73 3000 6 speed. Luved it but it just got too small.


Be real careful on these. Ford came out with their 1000 series which was basically a 801 tractor with blue paint. (They needed to keep up with the new introductions from one of the other companies, but didn't have their new design/ tooling worked out yet....) The diesel engine was the 4 banger gas engine with injectors instead of spark plugs. A good gas engine, but not really built to be a diesel.....

Then they came out with the newer 1000 series. These had modern looking sheet metal, and 3 cylinder engines which were designed to be diesels, or could be fitted for gas. Much better engine, spruced up, different tranny options. But for some reason, they used the same model numbers. But a totally different tractor.

I believe they did this with 2 of the 1000 series, it involved the 4000 and either the 2000 or the 3000. Sorry I don't know the 1000 series that well.

We need to be real careful on _which_ of the 1000 series tractors we are talking about, the older ones that were repainted 100 series tractors, or the newer ones that had more features.

And, that SoS tranny was sure an option.......

--->Paul


----------



## Ross (May 9, 2002)

Our 3000 was very reliable, it even cold started pretty well. Great visability even with the ARPS loader which is kind of clunky. Ran the loader on the internal hydraulics which was a tad slow but far better than our old 2085 Fergie. It was just a handy little tractor. It was replaced with tractors that could handle bigger hay wagons on the hills, turn over a square baler pulling a 24 foot wagon, pull an 18 foot disc harrow........ you get the idea. If I had spare money I wouldn't thumb my nose at another, but to be honest my skidsteer can outwork the bigger loader tractors I have and the 6600 ford does the field chores I need done better than the 3000 could have done new. I don't need the really big tractors I've had any more but a 3000 just wouldn't do what I want better than what I already have.


----------



## hairy_shemp (Jan 28, 2005)

if u lQQk at a selectospeed run run fast! the tranny in them suck point blank
.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Go for the 3000, and go diesel. Tough tractors, decent hydraulics, and not too big for everyday stuff around the place.

Interesting sidelight....the FarmTrac from Long is basically an Indian built Ford 3000, and they make a diesel motor that will bolt up in place of the Ford, for those tractors that might need total replacement. Only knock I've heard is inferior seals, that allow the motor to drip too much, so some guys replace them before installation.


----------



## fordson major (Jul 12, 2003)

in it's time selecto speed was useful but like any early hydro stat many were not maintaned. if you can find a mechanic versed in rebuilding and tuning them they are great vary speed tranys . this being said a straight trany can be a good service even at high hours. have seen these appart too but more mechanics can fix them .given my choice the three thousand would be my choice.have a fordson major gas that is being redone as our utility tractor .does the farm trac not use a perkins or a copy of such?


----------



## mysticokra (Feb 5, 2003)

My neighbor's Ford 3000 is great. We use to mow, move dirt, plow, grade the road, haul hay, etc. The Bush Hog FEL was an add on. Parts are easily found and the technology not too complicated to fix.


----------



## Alex (Mar 20, 2003)

From another post of mine (you might search the archives about this),



> We love our 1985 Ford 1900, with Front End Loader, Three Point Hitch, PTO, 4WD, 30 Hp Diesel, only 590 Hours, with a 6' Brush Cutter. A real workhorse! Two years ago, we paid $7,000 CDN for the whole works (about $5,300 USD) plus we paid about $300 to have her painted.
> 
> We love her, and use her much more than we thought we would - true with all tractors that I have had over the years. However, we have a Quarter Section (160 acres) and have more need for a small 30 hp tractor than you do.
> 
> ...


I don't know too much about the other tractors, and I know this one would do what you want to do.

Alex


----------



## raymilosh (Jan 12, 2005)

i have one of each. a 1965 ford 2000 and a 1968 ford 3000. The 3000 has a front end loader and backhoe, so it is difficult to asess the power of one over the other, but i am writing to tell you about differences in the transmission. The 3000 has 2 stick shifts. a low and high range on and the other selects 2 forward or 2 reverse gears. It has a good range of speeds.
the 2000 has one stickshift...3 forward and one reverse gear. The low range on it is not nearly low enough. it makes bushogging difficult in small spaces where slow speeds and tight turning and carefulness are required. I'd suggest getting a tractor with the 2 gear shifts. Our are both gasoline. If you don't live in a cold place, don't mind difficult starting in winter, don't mind the noise, i'd suggest a diesel. they last forever.
ray


----------



## rambler (Jan 20, 2004)

raymilosh said:


> i have one of each. a 1965 ford 2000 and a 1968 ford 3000. The 3000 has a front end loader and backhoe, so it is difficult to asess the power of one over the other, but i am writing to tell you about differences in the transmission. The 3000 has 2 stick shifts. a low and high range on and the other selects 2 forward or 2 reverse gears. It has a good range of speeds.
> the 2000 has one stickshift...3 forward and one reverse gear. The low range on it is not nearly low enough. it makes bushogging difficult in small spaces where slow speeds and tight turning and carefulness are required. I'd suggest getting a tractor with the 2 gear shifts. Our are both gasoline. If you don't live in a cold place, don't mind difficult starting in winter, don't mind the noise, i'd suggest a diesel. they last forever.
> ray


I was not aware Ford made a 3 speed after the 9N. Are you sure you aren't missing something there? This wouldn't be the 5 speed gearshift that rides up & down vertically instead of the typical 'H' horizontal pattern?

Anyhow you make a good point - Ford offered different options on their tractors, and it is wise to check out exactly what options one is getting.


----------



## raymilosh (Jan 12, 2005)

rambler said:


> I was not aware Ford made a 3 speed after the 9N. Are you sure you aren't missing something there? This wouldn't be the 5 speed gearshift that rides up & down vertically instead of the typical 'H' horizontal pattern?
> 
> Anyhow you make a good point - Ford offered different options on their tractors, and it is wise to check out exactly what options one is getting.


Well, uh...i'm not sure. Even though i use it regularly and fixs it when it's broken, i just look at the gear pattern and select the one i need. It is some sort of H pattern. As I recall, the gears aren't set up 1-2-3 like on a car. 
I guess it doesn't matter, really. I posted mainly to point out that the low gear is definately not low enough. Everyone who uses it comments on it.
I do use it for bushogging and for hayrides, nonetheless. You just have to slip the clutch a bit and deal with either driving slowly with a slow spinning bushhog or having a bushog spinning at a good rate and having to drive pretty fast in tight areas.


----------



## Beeman (Dec 29, 2002)

I'm no expert on tractors but I do own a Ford 2600. The 2000 series tractors are excellent tractors. If you buy one with or plan on having a frt. end loader be sure to have power steering. My 2600 is just a later version of a 2000. You could buy these tractors with a few different transmission options which is why people get confused about what trans came with them. Mine has 2 shift levers which means one lever is a high/low range. They made these tractors in gas and diesel also. Mine is diesel which is great for power and fuel consumption. It also means that it is a little harder starting in the cold.


----------



## rambler (Jan 20, 2004)

Why I ask is it is common for people to miss 2 gears on the Ford 5 speed. You would be missing 1st & 2nd then.

Does your gear shift lever push up & down vertically with reverse back to you, 3rd to the front? Push the gearshift down to the tranny, and 4th is forward, high is back to you?

On those trannies, there would be a small detent 1/2 way down, where 1st & 2nd is. Sometimes people miss those, & the tranny cover is usually coated in oil & the pattern isn't noticed....

I didn't think Ford used those trannies in later tractors, but I aslo didn't think they made a 3 speed either. Just trying to help. I'd be happy to continue on with Private Mail if you want to persue this and not tie up this thread. I enjoy tractors & be happy to continue the converstion. I will check with smarter people on tranny options on 2000's.

--->Paul


----------



## oldmanriver (Aug 1, 2004)

I have both a 4000 diesel and a 4000 gas the gas has the select to speed trans and out of 20 years of use has never been a minute of trouble however there was a lot of bad ones If you find an older one that is still in use you can bet it had a good trans in it or it would have been junked by now The gas one had a little trouble with round bails but the diesel is great the 4000 gas is in semi retirement Bad thing is you can't pull them to start em


----------

