N Board Forum - Expanded Thread Page

Subject: Ford NAA verses ford early 2000 series

[Back] [Return to Top of Forum]

Will    Posted 08-28-2017 at 00:48:43 [URL] [DELETE]        [Reply] [Email]  
  • Ford NAA verses ford early 2000 series
  • I own a 1954 Naa and like it much but considering buying an early ford 2000 series the ones made from 1962-64 So both tractors have 134 ci engine but seem to be rated at differant horse power ranging from 30-48 horse power are these number correct or is the horse power undetectable to all drivers?
    I know the brakes are better design in the 2000 and pto shaft might be the larger size. What other advantages are there with the 4 cylinder ford 2000 compared to the NAA?

    Ultradog MN    Posted 08-29-2017 at 05:48:26 [URL] [DELETE]        [Reply] [No Email]  
  • Re: Ford NAA verses ford early 2000 series
  • Some random thoughts...
    You can get some hints of the hours on a tractor just by looking at the amount of wear on the clutch and brake pedals and on the foot boards. Also on how much wear in the pivot points and linkages on the pedals. Likewise on the amount of wear on the balls on the lift arms.
    Yes the pedal bushings and lift arms can be replaced but often aren't even on a "restortion". And it's tough to fake pedal/foot board wear even on a complete resto.
    As to this particular tractor, I happen to know this seller. He's a small dairy farmer in WI and owns several Fords - a Jubilee which was his grand dad's tractor and a 3 cyl 4000 a 4600, 5000, 7600, TW30 and maybe another one or two.
    He knows his Fords, works them for a living and if he says he thinks this one is fairly low houred I would tend to believe him.
    As to the 134 vs 172 engined tractors, I too kinda prefer the smaller units. The 1958 and later 8/901 and 4000 Priors Are pretty thirsty. More importantly, I've always thought that putting out that much hp (43-45?) on that relatively small platform was kinda pushing their effectiveness. The 34 hp in what is about the same platform seems like a better all round match of hp, gearing, weight and physical size.
    And to me putting out around 50 flywheel hp in a 4 cylinder with a relatively light 3 main crankshaft doesn't seem conducive to a long life in the bottom end of an engine. Which brings up
    longevity in these things. I'd say Dean is probably correct in his estimate of 2500- 3K hours before needing some attention - valves? rings and rod bearings? all of which can be done inframe. And maybe a full reman at 4 - 4.5K.
    (remember that 3 main crank?)
    But to keep things in perspective here, that is an awful lot of hours for most of us hobbyists.
    You guys know I prefer the 3 cylinder Fords - for several reasons but a buddy of mine has an 841S diesel that I would love to own. It's a little sweetheart and that 4 cyl diesel is SO smooth and quiet compared to my rattley, noisy 3000d. His is the second generation with the crank balancer so should be fairly reliable. And that diesel uses a lot less fuel than the gassers of that era. You still have the issue of a light platform for that much hp but I suspect I could find a use for it if I really tried :)

    Will    Posted 08-29-2017 at 09:20:04 [URL] [DELETE]        [Reply] [No Email]  
  • Re: Ford NAA verses ford early 2000 series
  • The low hour 2000 is in MM.
    I have not heard it run yet or seen it yet but the 1800 low hours sounds appealing.
    I will compare the peddles and other wear makers as you noted.
    Thank you for all the tips and advise.

    Tim Daley(MI)    Posted 08-29-2017 at 18:25:48 [URL] [DELETE]        [Reply] [No Email]  
  • Re: Ford NAA verses ford early 2000 series
  • good to see a sense of humor... a metric clock ...that's a new one...

    Tim Daley(MI)

    Tim Daley(MI)    Posted 08-29-2017 at 07:36:58 [URL] [DELETE]        [Reply] [No Email]  
  • Re: Ford NAA verses ford early 2000 series
  • DOGMAN!!!
    You stated a lot of good points here. I've never owned a Blue and Egg Shell White model...er, uh, my uncles' paint job on my early '39 9N doesn't count, but when I was in a local tractor club, we had an old sawmill and put on demonstrations at tractor shows of how logs were cut into boards back in the day. We powered the sawmill with a FORD 5000 and I got to run it on occasion and I loved it. I'd have my early '48 8N with my Dearborn Cordwood Saw to cut up the slag and scarf then feed the pieces to a separate shingle mill. We put on three demonstrations per day for a three day weekend. We'd always be the show stopper and attract most of the crowd. Here’s an old photo of us setting up with the 5000 rear end just visible in the shot…

    Tim *PloughNman* Daley(MI)

    *9N653I* & *8NI55I3*

    Will    Posted 08-28-2017 at 20:40:00 [URL] [DELETE]        [Reply] [No Email]  
  • Re: Ford NAA verses ford early 2000 series
  • I think that my NAA might have 5000 hours based on original working hour meter.
    I have a chance at buy a ford 2000 series with 4 cylinder engine with only about 1800 hours.
    Since both tractors are over 50 years old there is no way to know for sure the hours but the owner of the ford 2000 is sure it is a low hour tractor.
    I happen to like the blue/grey color on the 2000 much better than the red/grey of the NAA. Also the 2000 appears to have less than half the hours of my NAA but I know the NAA and she is solid.
    What is believed to be the hours on a 134 ci engine under normal conditions when they might need a overhaul??

    Tim Daley(MI)    Posted 08-28-2017 at 22:00:24 [URL] [DELETE]        [Reply] [No Email]  
  • Re: Ford NAA verses ford early 2000 series
  • Don't believe what the PO says, many hour meters quit working, that was common, or got replaced, or got turned back -'low hours' is his selling point, but who really knows without actual documentation to back it up? PLUS, you do know that HOURS are not really 60-minutes of actual running right? I'm not trying to talk you out of buying a 2000,just tossing out the facts. You do what you feel is best for you of course. heck, I'd consider your NAA, maybe...

    Tim Daley(MI)

    Dean    Posted 08-28-2017 at 21:08:11 [URL] [DELETE]        [Reply] [No Email]  
  • Re: Ford NAA verses ford early 2000 series
  • There is no definitive answer to your question. It depends upon usage and maintenance.

    That said, most are getting tired around 2,500-3,000 hours.

    Tim Daley(MI)    Posted 08-28-2017 at 09:35:57 [URL] [DELETE]        [Reply] [No Email]  
  • All I Need is One Tractor -...and that was a lie!!!
  • You have to evaluate what your usage needs are as well. If you just need a weekend warrior tractor for mowing a few acres or less, garden tilling, and snow plowing, an N-SERIES will suit your needs just fine. If you have a hobby farm, horse rescue, or farm a lot more acres -say 40 or more, then a 2000 would be an upgrade, a 4000 even better. Both Dean and Ultradog have sound advice and I value both mens' opinions greatly. Power steering is a huge advantage/luxury. My next tractor, if I don't find a Moto-Tug or warhorse 2N, will be an 860 with live PTO and power steering. With my early 8N I have plowed many acres with it and a 2-bottom plow, but many times I wished I had more ponies and a 3-bottom plow. So, just saying, consider your requirements, but just to buy another tractor, well, nothing wrong with that...

    "...he said, all I need is one tractor..." and that was lie!!!!

    Tim *PloughNman* Daley(MI)

    *9N653I* & *8NI55I3*

    Will    Posted 08-28-2017 at 15:05:57 [URL] [DELETE]        [Reply] [No Email]  
  • Re: All I Need is One Tractor -...and that was a lie!!!
  • I plow my driveway in the winter with the ford trator.
    I mow a few acres a few times per year with a brush mower.
    I give hay rides occasionally.
    Mostly I go for joy rides in the suburb that we live in.
    I want a classy ford from the 1953-1964 era which happens to be the era that my dad and uncle had and I learned to drive on as a 10 year old kid. Kinda living in the past I guess you could say.

    Dean    Posted 08-28-2017 at 08:20:53 [URL] [DELETE]        [Reply] [No Email]  
  • Re: Ford NAA verses ford early 2000 series
  • UD has given you good advise below.

    I will add that the HP is similar between the two. 32 PTO HP for the NAA vis a vis 34 for the 4 cylinder 2000, IIRC. The increase is due to CR and/or RPM.

    Both tractors have dry drum brakes but of different design. The NAA uses the same brakes as the 8N while the 4 cylinder 2000 uses the same brakes as similar Ford tractors built between 55 and the mid 60s. Both work well if in good condition and not oil contaminated but the later design is generally considered to be an improvement.

    Myself, I would consider the 4 cylinder 2000 to be a noticeable upgrade vis a vis the NAA but would look for an 86/7/8 series or 4 cylinder 4000 in order to get the bigger engine.


    Will    Posted 08-28-2017 at 09:01:53 [URL] [DELETE]        [Reply] [No Email]  
  • Re: Ford NAA verses ford early 2000 series
  • Thank you I have heard that the 800s and early 4000s drink a lot more gasoline than the 134ci NAA and the early 2000s.
    Thank you

    Dean    Posted 08-28-2017 at 21:03:40 [URL] [DELETE]        [Reply] [No Email]  
  • Re: Ford NAA verses ford early 2000 series
  • Indeed they do but they will do a lot more work doing so.

    Ultradog MN    Posted 08-28-2017 at 06:02:05 [URL] [DELETE]        [Reply] [No Email]  
  • Re: Ford NAA verses ford early 2000 series
  • Was it you I spoke with on the phone yesterday?
    You won't gain any horsepower or functionality going from an NAA to a a 2000 Prior. Both used the same 134 ci Red Tiger engine and I think they are both rated about 34 pto hp.
    The biggest differences between an NAA and 2000 are the hydraulics and rear axles. Vane pump on the NAA vs piston pump on all models after about 1956 or so. No functional difference there but the piston pump is easily rebuildable and you can find a remote valve much easier for the 2000.
    2000 rear axles are a better design - no splined hubs to wear out and they are rated to carry much more rear ballast - if that matters. Brakes? Dunno. They are both of the outboard dry drum design which Ford used from 39 till well into the 80s. And as you may know, none of these small Fords were known for good brakes.
    And the NAA is a bit of an orphan in that parts for the transmission and rear end only fit 53 and 54 models where as the 2000 will interchange from 55-64.
    Personally I think the 2000 is a better looking machine - I never liked the looks of the cyclops front end and of course I like Blue over Red (except for my politics).
    The biggest advantage that particular 2000 has over your NAA is the power steering. Given the choice between PS and LPTO I would opt for the PS any day.
    Generally, the 2000 is not enough of an upgrade that I would trade a known good NAA for an unknown 2000 with 4 sp trans. I would for one with 5 sp w/lpto.

    Will    Posted 08-28-2017 at 09:05:52 [URL] [DELETE]        [Reply] [Email]  
  • Re: Ford NAA verses ford early 2000 series
  • Ultradog,
    Yes we spoke on the phone yesterday.
    Your wisdom is solid no disagreements and thank you for sharing and help so meny people on these forums.

    [Back] [Return to Top of Forum]