 |
07/11/11, 01:25 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: WNC.
Posts: 2,315
|
|
|
Ford 6610 4wd...too much tractor?
The specs on the 6610:
http://www.tractordata.com/farm-trac...ord-6610.html#
What we currently have:
http://www.tractordata.com/industria...rguson-40.html
We have 17 acres,a bit hilly to us(lived in the swampy,bug ridden flatlands of SC until recently  ) that needs clearing of the brush and pines that have grown up.Will be selectively clearing out trees, putting in fencing,keeping it all cut down so it is actually walkable and the like.
The MF has done okay although it has become obvious to me that it is a little tired and the shuttle transmission isn't suited to pulling a rotary cutter,difficult to find a good speed without either having no power or having too high rpm's.It DOES however have a front end loader.
I think the 4wd will be handy,especially after it has rained up here,red clay is simply lovely to try and drive in...LOL
So thoughts?
The 6610 is,according to the seller,rough looking but mechanically sound.Has what is left of a cab(no doors or roof),was used to move mobile homes down where we used to live.Asking $5000.
Thanks.
Last edited by oz in SC V2.0; 07/11/11 at 01:28 PM.
|
07/11/11, 02:19 PM
|
|
Living the dream.
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Morganton, NC
Posts: 1,982
|
|
|
Even though the 4x4 might be capable of doing something in the red mud, I wouldn't want to tear my place up when it is soft, just makes too much of a mess. A FEL is pretty useful too, if it means giving it up to get the Ford, I wouldn't do it. Fuel consumption is another consideration, as is manuvering in tight areas (if you think you will need to). Do you have the capability to transport it? A lot of tractors are farm bound because the owner does not have the ability to transport them, which limits your utility somewhat. Re you going to finish your projects, then wish you had a smaller tractor? Other than that, it looks like it could reeally get something done!
|
07/11/11, 02:24 PM
|
 |
sheep & antenna farming
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: far SW Wisconsin USA
Posts: 2,847
|
|
|
Are you keeping the Massey/FEL too, or selling it off to get the Ford? Can you have both?
Peg
|
07/11/11, 02:29 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: WNC.
Posts: 2,315
|
|
|
Well that is true regarding the mud,but the 4wd also might help I think getting round,especially going up the slopes.
I too thought the FEL would be great,thing is,the loader bucket on the MF is quite small and due to....ahem...some farmer modifications,it no longer can dump it's load.The bracket for the ram was rewelded in the wrong place.
Fuel consumption is higher on the Ford for sure.
I did think might be able to resell the Ford if it outlives it's usefulness on our land...
|
07/11/11, 02:29 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: WNC.
Posts: 2,315
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by PNP Katahdins
Are you keeping the Massey/FEL too, or selling it off to get the Ford? Can you have both?
Peg
|
Nope,would sell the MF.
To add,what do y'all make of this?
Hydraulic top link?
Last edited by oz in SC V2.0; 07/11/11 at 02:31 PM.
|
07/11/11, 04:30 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East-Central Ontario
Posts: 3,862
|
|
|
Looks like a custom job for moving trailers. Looks like the lower 3pt arms are gone and they built something else in place, pretty sure the 3pt is useless as it is? I'd say the cylinder they're using is too long to use for a toplink and if the bottom arms have been taken off you'll have to find them or buy some. I'm not sure that the upper arms to lift the lower arms are even still there,might be tucked in there in the shadows, I'd say you're looking at a tractor with the 3pt hitch removed. Tractor itself should be ok sizewise as long as you don't have to do a bunch of $$ work on the front end or something.
__________________
The internet - fueling paranoia and misinformation since 1873.
Last edited by DaleK; 07/11/11 at 04:36 PM.
|
07/11/11, 06:50 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East-Central Ontario
Posts: 3,862
|
|
|
Doesn't look like it even has a drawbar.
__________________
The internet - fueling paranoia and misinformation since 1873.
|
07/11/11, 07:03 PM
|
 |
Moderator
|
|
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Ontario
Posts: 12,685
|
|
|
Looks more like a 6700 6710 to me. What Dale said + it needs rear tires at least. Its a beater tractor, normally I luv the brand and type (heck we have a 6710) but these beat up ones could become money pits. The 6700 6710 and the higher hp versions all share a weakish PTO drive, that may need replacing and dual power shift on the tranny. I'd leave it and look for a $7000 real 6610, or a pretty 6700 6710.
__________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup........
|
07/11/11, 07:19 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: WNC.
Posts: 2,315
|
|
|
It has 4800 hours on it and has no doors or roof according to the seller.
It had a new clutch three years ago also according to the seller.
|
07/11/11, 07:31 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Whiskey Flats(Ft. Worth) , Tx
Posts: 8,749
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by oz in SC V2.0
It has 4800 hours on it and has no doors or roof according to the seller.
It had a new clutch three years ago also according to the seller.
|
....................See if the owner will drop it off at the local New Holland dealer , and then have them prepare a ball park cost figure too put it back into a configuration for your needs ! , fordy 
|
07/12/11, 12:25 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: WNC.
Posts: 2,315
|
|
|
Okay seller has no three point linkage on it so not going to work for us.
Thanks all.
|
07/12/11, 04:38 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Eastern North Carolina
Posts: 34,225
|
|
|
I think it's more horsepower than you really need anyway.unless you're going to do a LOT of haying
__________________
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
|
07/12/11, 04:41 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: WNC.
Posts: 2,315
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bearfootfarm
I think it's more horsepower than you really need anyway.unless you're going to do a LOT of haying
|
No...wouldn't be haying at all.
|
07/12/11, 05:33 PM
|
|
Moderator
|
|
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Ontario
Posts: 12,685
|
|
|
A 6610 or a 6710 are about 72 hp just different configurations. One is a utility (6610) the other (6710) for row crop work....its a bit taller and slightly different tranny and PTO drive line) . Not huge not tiny. Nice type, no turbo to fly apart not hard on fuel plenty of power for most jobs. I notice the wheels are an odd size forr the rear (should be 18.4/34 for both a 6610 and 6710 and they are not) so it may have some issues in the transfer case for the front axle have incorrectly sized wheels. Glad to hear you're looking elsewhere. A 5610 is less hp but the same size and not especially better on fuel comp. But still a great useful tractor!
__________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup........
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:23 AM.
|
|
