nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Massey 390 T vs alternatives

Old diesel

Good evening all - hope all is well

Just wondering what do you all think of Massey Ferguson 390 Ts - vs other tractors of similar size/power and capability

I think the John Deere 6300/6400s look potentially interesting - but we know very little about them - is it just the John Deere* badge one is buying :eek: or are they actually better then a 390 T

Tractor would be used for things like spreading fertiliser, spreading slurry, agitating slurry - drawing bales on a trailer etc.

NEEDS to be 4wd.

All thoughts welcome

*not into the whole badge thing - just a decent tractor - would consider Fiats, Landinis, Renaults etc if someone argued a strong enough case for them vs a 390 T

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

I said

GrandSoftDay wrote: »

4255, 4355 and the 54 series are all 40k It's just nigh on impossible to change from medium to high while actually moving and you can forget about it altogether if you have any sort of a load behind you.

With 40k my bad

agriman27

I know the 390t is a great handy tractor but these lads talking about pulling 2000gl tankers and drivin 3m power harrows and 10ft mowers the likes are talking nonsense. We use an 1100gl abbey and it shoves it about on hilly ground and I certainly wouldn't let it near a 3m power harrow and our 7ft plain disc mower is enough for it to handle.They are a grand wee yoke for smaller jobs but they're not heavy duty IMO just look at the hitch and the backend its tiny compared to its modern equivalent . Couple of years ago we made some wet bales and 390t couldn't nearly keep the front wheels on the ground carrying one. If I was buying I would look around at more modern tractors with far better cabs and capabilities. When you see 390s around he mart now they look a bit old fashioned imo

Reggie.

agriman27 wrote: »

I know the 390t is a great handy tractor but these lads talking about pulling 2500gl tankers and drivin 3m power harrows and 10ft mowers the likes are talking nonsense. We use an 1100gl abbey and it shoves it about on hilly ground and I certainly wouldn't let it near a 3m power harrow and our 7ft plain disc mower is enough for it to handle.They are a grand wee yoke for smaller jobs but they're not heavy duty IMO just look at the hitch and the backend its tiny compared to its modern equivalent . Couple of years ago we made some wet bales and 390t couldn't nearly keep the front wheels on the ground carrying one. If I was buying I would look around at more modern tractors with far better cabs and capabilities. When you see 390s around he mart now they look a bit old fashioned imo

390T can be small in fairness.

That's where the 398 comes into play. Far bigger back end on it. Well I can say I ran a 2500 tanker no bother with mine.

Never ran mowers or anything but pulled 12 dump trailers in all type of terrain.

simx

Reggie. wrote: »

Can't argue with that but for a small holder like myself it's fine. I stack bales, ted, rake, bale, draw a 12 ton dump trailer, slurry, agitate and god knows what else with a tractor that is 20 years old now and still going strong.

Them awkward gearboxes will still outlast the new fancy ones I guarantee ya.

Have to agree there, had uncles tm140 buckraking this year and after about 6 loads it just stopped on the pit and wouldn't move an inch, called nh dealers, they came out, syncho got stuck, rounded the two notches out of a sensor, when replacing that sensor ya have to change another with it, total bill-€350, and held up for two hours

Reggie.

This just ain't the masseys it's for all machines of that era but was thinking of changing the tractor to a newer one and my mechanic said to me that if the Massey breaks he can do something if the mower machines break it's a low loader your after he reckons. More laptops needed than spanners in workshops these days

Damo810

JohnJoe88 wrote: »

MF 390T.

95HP tractor, Side column gear stick is nicest option with shuttle by steering wheel. 4wd model will climb d wall for ya, and a Dinger n Boggy ground.
Capable of 3furrow reversible plough, twud handle a 3m powerharrow too.
2000Gallon tank Adgitate slurry, fert, round baling, wrapping, stacking, hedge cutting, 14Ton Dumptrailer,
Great with a Loader, 5ft shear grab. 6ft Bucket, bale handler. Pallet forks.
40KM/ph box so get from a 2 B fast.
Steering is very responsive!

Low profile cab is great for small sheds and crossing hills But u can get High profile too ( flat floor) solves the space.
Not prone to rust unlike other Massey models!

We have one with 10yrs. 4100hrs on it. It does the work above, great machine, starts on d key first time. Yes that spring breaks and has broken.
It's €8 in cork farm machinery
€800 labour but u cud do it if ur mechanically minded us put in in no bother!

Fantastic tractor overall. You will get the clean ones in the Uk. We bought ours for €22000 put a Rossmore loader on it for €8000 keep it serviced and clean.

For the crack I took it to a main dealer and offered €24000 as a trade in. Delighted with that!

YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR..

€30,000 for a 20 year old tractor with a loader is nothing short of ridiculous, imo. For that kind of money you could be getting a far superior tractor that is less than 10 years old..

Lads rave about the 300 series, but they're nothing short of a plain stockmans tractor and to be paying the kind of money some lads are is foolish..

Reggie.

Damo810 wrote: »

€30,000 for a 20 year old tractor with a loader is nothing short of ridiculous, imo. For that kind of money you could be getting a far superior tractor that is less than 10 years old..

Lads rave about the 300 series, but they're nothing short of a plain stockmans tractor and to be paying the kind of money some lads are is foolish..

True enough. But at that money the machine would want to be restored or in very good condition. Most newer machines at that price are close to death

Nekarsulm

For 30,000 i personally would go for an International 1056 with a turbo, a Massey 30e loader, and still have the price of 70 or 80 ewes in my bpocket.......

Greengrass1

A deutz 4 dots are unbreakable too.
Fathers friend has had them all his life and can't be beaten. I drive them too and there a nice tractor

Bleating Lamb

The John Deere 6310 would be similar tractor power wise to the 390T and has better hydraulic system for use with a front loader,the joystick responds quicker than it would in 390 series when working with bales etc.

Old diesel

Bleating Lamb wrote: »

The John Deere 6310 would be similar tractor power wise to the 390T and has better hydraulic system for use with a front loader,the joystick responds quicker than it would in 390 series when working with bales etc.

Do you have a 6310 - how do you find it overall????

bogman_bass

Case CX90? similar size machine. You would get a fresher one for the same money as the 390

sandydan

Reggie. wrote: »

The best one for traction is the 398. Same size as 390 but the power and weight of the 399.

sorry to disagree with you but according to ~Tractor Data.com the 309t and 398 are rated same HP at 94 HP while www. tractordb.com rates it at 97. i know there was upgrade to perkins engine maybe that explains that.
weight 390T= 6,400 lbs
398=from 7047-7648 lbs
399 A6.356 engine= 97 Hp
399 1006 series engine=104 Hp
weight from 7, 233 lbs-8029 lbs
398 supposed to have same rear end as 399
also according to sales figure released in Feb 2014 390/390T were the most popular second hand tractor registered in Ireland and they have an article advising on what to look for.
my neighbour has 398 and claims 399 with 6cyl engine has more power when going gets rough ie if you have to trottle back for a reason the 399 is better to pick up again and mine has the A6354 engine, but we both agree that the 2 neighbours landini blizzards with 236 turbo engines and other neighbours newer Fusion are knackier and better traction and power wise both in hilly and soft ground than either 398 or 399 and certainly well ahead of my old 390 with recon engine

sandydan

Bleating Lamb wrote: »

The John Deere 6310 would be similar tractor power wise to the 390T and has better hydraulic system for use with a front loader,the joystick responds quicker than it would in 390 series when working with bales etc.

i know its unfair to tar all with same brush . friend paid out €30,000 for 6310 about 4 years ago and drew bales,about 70 bales drawn and tractor wouldn't change direction ,pulled it out from bale he had reversed into, called supplier, in fairness even though guarantee period had expired by over 1 month he gave him 6400 (i think) in exchange when he couldn't sort it.he recons it was used for dumper haulage by previous owner/leaser.said it cost him to repair.its just typical of uses the tractors with synchro type gear exchanges get.heard of similar case since but it was farmer drawing gravel and tractor wouldn't move after being stopped either.and according to seller of 3910 there are loads of them waiting after celtic tiger years belonging to lease companies and building contractors waiting to be cleared,so beware.

Old diesel

sandydan wrote: »

i know its unfair to tar all with same brush . friend paid out €30,000 for 6310 about 4 years ago and drew bales,about 70 bales drawn and tractor wouldn't change direction ,pulled it out from bale he had reversed into, called supplier, in fairness even though guarantee period had expired by over 1 month he gave him 6400 (i think) in exchange when he couldn't sort it.he recons it was used for dumper haulage by previous owner/leaser.said it cost him to repair.its just typical of uses the tractors with synchro type gear exchanges get.heard of similar case since but it was farmer drawing gravel and tractor wouldn't move after being stopped either.and according to seller of 3910 there are loads of them waiting after celtic tiger years belonging to lease companies and building contractors waiting to be cleared,so beware.

I guess there are bad/troublesome examples of every make - I wonder what are the 6300/6310 like generally????

All thoughts welcome

simx

Old diesel wrote: »

I guess there are bad/troublesome examples of every make - I wonder what are the 6300/6310 like generally????

All thoughts welcome

have a 6210 jd here, only have it little over a year but not a bother yet and it does be tried and tested now and again-mowing, driving silage harvester, agitating, spreading slurry, chopping beet, drawing bales, drawing silage, drawingcattle, along with a few other things, great power for a small tractor, 90hp but good ol yoke to pull, likes the juice is the bigest problem i can say about it, know of one 10 series that has 25000hrs and still working strong, 00/10 series meant to be the best of the jds

Reggie.

sandydan wrote: »

sorry to disagree with you but according to ~Tractor Data.com the 309t and 398 are rated same HP at 94 HP while www. tractordb.com rates it at 97. i know there was upgrade to perkins engine maybe that explains that.
weight 390T= 6,400 lbs
398=from 7047-7648 lbs
399 A6.356 engine= 97 Hp
399 1006 series engine=104 Hp
weight from 7, 233 lbs-8029 lbs
398 supposed to have same rear end as 399
also according to sales figure released in Feb 2014 390/390T were the most popular second hand tractor registered in Ireland and they have an article advising on what to look for.
my neighbour has 398 and claims 399 with 6cyl engine has more power when going gets rough ie if you have to trottle back for a reason the 399 is better to pick up again and mine has the A6354 engine, but we both agree that the 2 neighbours landini blizzards with 236 turbo engines and other neighbours newer Fusion are knackier and better traction and power wise both in hilly and soft ground than either 398 or 399 and certainly well ahead of my old 390 with recon engine

Sandydan I wouldn't get too worked up about 10 hp or a few hundred kgs when it comes to machine.

Agree about the blizzards. Good machine them and the legend 135 were the best machine landini made in a while

sandydan

Reggie. wrote: »

Sandydan I wouldn't get too worked up about 10 hp or a few hundred kgs when it comes to machine.

Agree about the blizzards. Good machine them and the legend 135 were the best machine landini made in a while

i wont get toooo worked up to be sure ,just quoting figures that's all , that doen't take what is called "power to weight ratio " if you follow me on laymans terms the 10 extra horses might be ate up pulling the extra 1,500 lbs if you get my drift,so the 398 might be stronger in real terms.pulling slurry tanks of different brands in not an equal comparison either,im told some brand 2,000 gallon tanks are as easy or easier to pull as 1100 of other makes tyres,design brakes etc contributes to distorting comparison. i have nothing against different makes, just hightlight the problems i hear about to alert buyers what to look out for.i wanted to buy a case tractor similar to cousins but my big feet wouln't fit behind brake pedals and cab, maybe fault of tractor cab design but i wouldn't publish it as a fault

sandydan

simx wrote: »

have a 6210 jd here, only have it little over a year but not a bother yet and it does be tried and tested now and again-mowing, driving silage harvester, agitating, spreading slurry, chopping beet, drawing bales, drawing silage, drawingcattle, along with a few other things, great power for a small tractor, 90hp but good ol yoke to pull, likes the juice is the bigest problem i can say about it, know of one 10 series that has 25000hrs and still working strong, 00/10 series meant to be the best of the jds

drove several john deeres liked layout of cab location of levers etc , i presume your purchased second hand ,did you know previous owner or if not what sort warranty did you get, a lot of fellas i know buying are chasing the ones owned around locally,even some owned by contractors

jt65

sandydan wrote: »

i know its unfair to tar all with same brush . friend paid out €30,000 for 6310 about 4 years ago and drew bales,about 70 bales drawn and tractor wouldn't change direction ,pulled it out from bale he had reversed into, called supplier, in fairness even though guarantee period had expired by over 1 month he gave him 6400 (i think) in exchange when he couldn't sort it.he recons it was used for dumper haulage by previous owner/leaser.said it cost him to repair.its just typical of uses the tractors with synchro type gear exchanges get.heard of similar case since but it was farmer drawing gravel and tractor wouldn't move after being stopped either.and according to seller of 3910 there are loads of them waiting after celtic tiger years belonging to lease companies and building contractors waiting to be cleared,so beware.

(try again)

a lot of repossessed tractors were shafted by the previous owners before being taken back , ie sand and chemicals were put into the transmission & this in turn caused problems when the machine done a few hours work

my local jd dealer showed me a €15k repair he was doing on one, actually the unlucky owner would have bought a new tractor for what his bargain auction buy was eventually going to cost him

whelan2

agriman27 wrote: »

I know the 390t is a great handy tractor but these lads talking about pulling 2000gl tankers and drivin 3m power harrows and 10ft mowers the likes are talking nonsense. We use an 1100gl abbey and it shoves it about on hilly ground and I certainly wouldn't let it near a 3m power harrow and our 7ft plain disc mower is enough for it to handle.They are a grand wee yoke for smaller jobs but they're not heavy duty IMO just look at the hitch and the backend its tiny compared to its modern equivalent . Couple of years ago we made some wet bales and 390t couldn't nearly keep the front wheels on the ground carrying one. If I was buying I would look around at more modern tractors with far better cabs and capabilities. When you see 390s around he mart now they look a bit old fashioned imo

had 390t on 140 keenan feeder no problem, never had it on tanker, put a new block on 390 after 6 months other than that it was fine

on the river

whelan2 wrote: »

had 390t on 140 keenan feeder no problem, never had it on tanker, put a new block on 390 after 6 months other than that it was fine

How was it on juice?

whelan2

on the river wrote: »

How was it on juice?

tbh i cant remember but it was a flyer round the place. We only got rid of it as we didnt have the work for it any more, we stopped doing our own silage . Now that i think of it the pick up hitch was a fooker and the back window was broke a fair few times:cool:

sandydan

any one consider Zetor , seem to be improving image but any one buying

trixi2011

Old diesel wrote: »

I guess there are bad/troublesome examples of every make - I wonder what are the 6300/6310 like generally????

All thoughts welcome

Have had a 6200 and a 6310 in the last few years, both were extremely reliable. The only problem I could find with them was that they haven't the best of visibility for loader work. other than that found them geared really well and a good pulling tractor.

simx

sandydan wrote: »

drove several john deeres liked layout of cab location of levers etc , i presume your purchased second hand ,did you know previous owner or if not what sort warranty did you get, a lot of fellas i know buying are chasing the ones owned around locally,even some owned by contractors

Didn't buy local, off a dealer, 3 months warranty, know one contractor with two 10 series and one of them since 04(99 6810) and has a serious lot of work done and is still going strong, happy with my 62 anyway, would rate it as a good tractor, so far anyway

Damo810

simx wrote: »

00/10 series meant to be the best of the jds

By far and away they are, but they have the same problem as the 390's to an extent, finding a clean one with reasonable hours for respectful money is hard.

sandydan

jt65 wrote: »

(try again)

a lot of repossessed tractors were shafted by the previous owners before being taken back , ie sand and chemicals were put into the transmission & this in turn caused problems when the machine done a few hours work

my local jd dealer showed me a €15k repair he was doing on one, actually the unlucky owner would have bought a new tractor for what his bargain auction buy was eventually going to cost him

didn't have to wait for repossessions for that phenomena ,during early days of tiger a few fellas starting off in contracting ,digging and agri had machines tampered with , grit shavings put into hydraulic line, pump side of filters, one lucky chap copped it due to small drop of oil on ground ( must be aware of something brewing) checked and found oil pipe filter had been drained into some container obviously and partially filled with steel shavings,
some work back flushing but saved machine. heard of cars & other vehicles being rendered useless when used after being purchased at auctions.thick hydraulic oil or thinned milking machine oil in engine was as bad as any chemical too, dipstick looked normal when checked all it needed was drive to destroy engine

sandydan

simx wrote: »

Didn't buy local, off a dealer, 3 months warranty, know one contractor with two 10 series and one of them since 04(99 6810) and has a serious lot of work done and is still going strong, happy with my 62 anyway, would rate it as a good tractor, so far anyway

would some agree that its nearly whatever is in majority in area that purchaser tend to buy, ie new holland in one area massy in another john deere in another etc, also good dealership providing prompt service is another important factor and new makes dont cut it in a short period anywhere for eg. i haven't seen any Hurliman in area around here despite dealership locally for while

GrandSoftDay

Damo810 wrote: »

By far and away they are, but they have the same problem as the 390's to an extent, finding a clean one with reasonable hours for respectful money is hard.

Agreed, I would love a clean 6410 but the just aren't there to be got any more. 20s and 30s aren't a patch on them and I have driven plenty of them.