Is this a Massey in disguise?

Manoffeeling

I need a tractor with a loader. All grass and no hire work. Just something to work about 300 hours a year. I am not familiar with this Ursus 4514, but several people have told me that it is made from Massey parts. Is this true? It seems like a perfect stockmans tractor if it is true.

http://www.donedeal.ie/for-sale/tractors/3465777

Is this a MF with Ursus stickers? Thanks

kevthegaff

i think its an ursus could be wrong

Manoffeeling

kevthegaff wrote: »

i think its an ursus could be wrong

In recent years, a lot of the tractor and car firms have joined up with each other, yet retaining their own label and badge. Renault have John Deere components as do Class. Ford and Fiat also. I am just wondering if this type of Ursus is similar to a MF. I do believe MF invested in plants in Poland and Slovenia.

josephsoap

It looks just like a MF 390

Richk2012

Manoffeeling wrote: »

In recent years, a lot of the tractor and car firms have joined up with each other, yet retaining their own label and badge. Renault have John Deere components as do Class. Ford and Fiat also. I am just wondering if this type of Ursus is similar to a MF. I do believe MF invested in plants in Poland and Slovenia.

Have you any pravious experience with Ursus ??

ci985

Yes i used one for a while it is a mf 165 in new clothes still the same rubbish underneath though!!!

Manoffeeling

Richk2012 wrote: »

Have you any pravious experience with Ursus ??

None. I like simple tractors like JD 2130/40 or Ford 76/77/81/82

What are these Ursus like as a stock mans tractor? Cheap, but why?

Manoffeeling

ci985 wrote: »

Yes i used one for a while it is a mf 165 in new clothes still the same rubbish underneath though!!!

Really? I always thought the 165 was a good tractor. MF made 2 types of tractors-really good and really bad. The 2100 was rubbish

Richk2012

Manoffeeling wrote: »

None. I like simple tractors like JD 2130/40 or Ford 76/77/81/82

What are these Ursus like as a stock mans tractor? Cheap, but why?

Hmmm i dont know to tell you the truth .
Whats very cheap today could be very expensive tomorrow . The reason i was asking do u have any expierence with them was i was on the same idea as yourself .. Was thinking in the next couple of months of maybe picking one up but i really dont need a ball of trouble

ci985

Never really gave much trouble just horrible place to spend a day
bad vision out of the cab, bad turning circle, poor controls, not modern
by any standards certainly nowhere close to a 2140 or a 76 ford and 15 years newer

Manoffeeling

ci985 wrote: »

Never really gave much trouble just horrible place to spend a day
bad vision out of the cab, bad turning circle, poor controls, not modern
by any standards certainly nowhere close to a 2140 or a 76 ford and 15 years newer

I was reared on bad Nuffields and Leylands. They can't be any worse than them yolks. Bad steering, breaks, lift and just a general all round pain of a yolk. I still have night mares about the bad steering :eek:

This little Ursus can't be any worse

moy83

I think you will get a fairly good mf 390 for E13500 + VAT . If the ursus was 8/9 k it might be worth it ,but when you are spending that kind of money you might aswell get the real deal .

reilig

Ursus have a perkins engine in them. Yes, that's the same engine that the MF has. But JCB and Landini also use perkins. Saying that the Ursus was a MF in disguise was just sales pitch in the past. The Ursus did not have the reliability that the MF had. Problems wih hydraulics, poor steering bearings and shafts, lift problems etc.

A grand tractor if you're just tipping about and doing a couple of hundred of hours a year. But not a MF in disguise.

lakill Farm

i know a lad who had a 4512 deluxe 2wd with tanco loader. Feeding 300 cattle and farming 500 plus acres. He had it from 95 - 2001, then bought a 490 mercury 4wd ursus (390 type) and finally moved to MF 5455.

I drove it for years and it was fine. The loader controls were operated different to other tractors. I think he was alot happer with the 4512 than the 490. :rolleyes:

Manoffeeling

Does it have the engine,gearbox and back end of a MF?

reilig

Manoffeeling wrote: »

Does it have the engine,gearbox and back end of a MF?

No, perkins just make the engine for both MF and Ursus.

jdmluder

Hi

Think i can add a bit on this. My dad bought a 4512 almost 19 years ago. Its a two wheel drive. It has proved to be a very reliable machine capable of doing what has been required of it. There are a few areas where the 390 of the same era outclassesit by far though.

1. Ours has powerassisted steering. This needs to be kept calibrated. Like a 188 it will usually turn easier one way then the other. The later ones had a fully hydraulically operated system which is much better. Our tractor has done a lot of front loader shear grab work and has only had the arm at the front which moves the track rods and ball joints on the track rods have been the replaced.

2. Operation of the clutch for the pto is on the same pedal for the drive clutch. The 390 has a seperate control and is much better. The clutch pedal os also positioned very badly. whoever designed it hadnt heard of ergonomics.

3. Even the older 390 gearbox is way ahead of the ursus box. the ursus has a high/low split with 4 forward and one reverse. The 390 shifts way easier and quicker. The ursus will grind away all day long. We used to have a problem with the gearstick end popping out of the selectors under the top cover. Ths was solved by putting an approx 5" extension on the main gear stick and it hasnt happened since. it has also made changing less of a chore.

4. it has aged very well. its outside most of the time. The paint used is very good with very little rust on the cab or body work. only spots are the bottom of the doors rusting from the inside out from water and other stuff like stuffing fertiliser bags in the inside pockets. the bar at the bottom of the rear window has rusted a lot also. This bar obstructs the veiw of the rear a bit but id prefer it then the 390 as the little drop down window on the 390 is very easily broken.

5. The rear wheels that come on the tractor are two small and narrow. One of the neighbours have one with bigger wheels of a MF on it and its a different tractor on the road. ours is painfully slow.

6. Overall i thinks its a very good tractor but hes always been sorry he didnt spend the bit extra for the 390 for the creature comforts mainly being the steering and the seperate control for the pto. A fwd wouldnt have the steering prob though.

littlevillage

On our farm my dad has owned two Ursus Tractors ..

a Mercury 3512 (50hp) for about 7 years and a then Mercury 450 (50 hp). Still have the 450.. its 11 yrs old now.

Neither one ever gave us any problems.. except 3512 cab rusted quite badly after a few years and it didn't have power steering. 450 is galvanized... so no rust and it has power steering.

But we would be light users .. just round bales and a bit of tipper trailer work. 200-300 hours per year

Great little tractors and cheap when compared to basically anything else. They are clones of older Massey Fergusons. They use the same perkins engines as MF's. (Which is legendary reliable).

The rest of the tractor is made in Poland and using lots of parts that were originally designed for Massey Fergusson's and was then made under license. Which theoretically means you are buying a kind of an cut price MF or a whats called a clone. Yes they ARE low tech... but any garage can fix them and service them .. which is not true of some of the newer high tech whizz bang stuff.

So my advice .... is if you can buy one at the right money go for it .. sounds like you are a similar farmer to myself and its exactly what you need.

problum8

lads lookin at this tractor on done deal....
http://www.donedeal.ie/for-sale/tractors/4345431
What do ye reckon... Anyone had this model??
would it be ok for silage bales on the front loader??
4WD OR 2WD