Powerstarâ„¢ Posted June 28, 2009 Share Posted June 28, 2009 Well where do we start, Britains intoduced the Massey Ferguson 590 in 1977, A year after the real 500 series were produced. The range consisted of the 550,565,575,590 and 595 and from 1978 onwards the latter three were available with a 4WD option In the Britains catalogue, The first 595 appeared in 1976 and the 590 appeared a year later in 1977. It only featured in the catalogue for one year which makes it quite rare and a model high up on the collectors wanted list The 590 recieved the Perkins A4 248s Engine, which produced a respectable 79 hp at 2200 engine rpm. The 590 had a top speed of 26.7 km/h And weighed 4.515 KG. The transmission on the 590 consisted of 4 forward, 1 reverse with high/low range or multi-power, some 500 series tractors were later converted to Multi-Power which is basically Massey Fergusons on-the-go gear change. When you move the lever on the tractors dash the tractor changes gear (up or down) and you do not need to depress the clutch pedal for this gear shift to work (I think i'm sort of right on that one!) The back end of the 590 had a 3 point linkage which was category 2 (I think) and it's maximum lift was 2,227 kg And the real deal The view from the cab was relitively good too Here's a few pictures of the Britains 590 And last but not least, the Brochure front covers for the 590 & 590 4WD and a Spec sheet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Powerstarâ„¢ Posted June 28, 2009 Author Share Posted June 28, 2009 The Britains 590 was issued in a straw box and shared the same casting as the 595. It came with a driver in coat and boots wearing a blue shirt, cream trousers and black boots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murray Posted June 28, 2009 Share Posted June 28, 2009 that guy better go steady rolling that field nice presentation on the model there Luke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nathan Posted June 28, 2009 Share Posted June 28, 2009 i've drove alot of these over the years , i enjoy driving them now and i think the britains 590/595 is still one of the best models out there and is a must for any collection .the only thing i didn't like was the height of the seat in the cab when you were out in the steep ground ,it didn't feel as safe as the 290/390. even the 290 was a taller tractor than the 590 but with the 290 seat being lower it felt safer. they made good veg field working tractors compared to the fords and jds we tried . a basic all round of a tractor . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Ferguson Posted June 28, 2009 Share Posted June 28, 2009 Nice one Luke E baby... the backend shot of the real deal is a 550 though budeeeee... drum brakes and small trumpet housing gives it away Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Powerstarâ„¢ Posted June 28, 2009 Author Share Posted June 28, 2009 Nice one Luke E baby... the backend shot of the real deal is a 550 though budeeeee... drum brakes and small trumpet housing gives it away Ruin my moment Where I 'burrowed' it from, it said 590 It's like copying peoples wrong answers in a school test Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nashmach Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 Ruin my moment Where I 'burrowed' it from, it said 590 It's like copying peoples wrong answers in a school test It is straight from Classic Tractor :D Even I noticed that : Good job Flowerbra Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rich.new holland Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 at placement they had a 565 on the scraper what a tractor it would turn on a nail fair play and it had nippy gears too which is good for scraping Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Ferguson Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 at placement they had a 565 on the scraper what a tractor it would turn on a nail fair play and it had nippy gears too which is good for scraping In all honesty that's about all a 565 was good for... pretty gutless machine the 565... same engine .236 engine in the 575 with a bit more Oooomph from the pump - much beter weapon. The 590 had the .248 engine which was even better... it was effectively a long stroking .236 engine.... superb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rich.new holland Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 ye she felt a bit gutless pushing the muck \ we had to scrape a yard and then push it all down the cubicle to the pit , once it was in pool it struggled and you could feel it dying while pushing then it would spin a wheel as if ive had it but an amazing lock on it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJB1 Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 missed this MOTM luke , well done mate about time the 590 was done & as lord fergo pointed out the real deal backend belongs to a 550 but no big deal there mate as so does your real deal engine shot couple of things you could have pointed out though the gear box fitted in these tractors were optional , most common were the 8 speed , or the 6 speed multipower. post 1980 tractors could be spec'd with the ever popular 12speed synchro although it could test you patience when trying to change 3 gear sticks at any one time i think most people used the main gears as normal & used the final fast gear change like an overdrive gear cab update around 1981 to give the driver two doors to fall out of , but in reality the second door was added for no other reason than to take away the pain from having your fingers being amputated by the top hinged side window & so the cab floor could be swept out properly on the 550 /565 models (the 575 & 590 you could just manage) although , it did make it awkward having to undo the skanky rope needed to pull the trip for the non power loader version of the 80 loader , after the electric trip spool failed as soon as it was delivered to the farm . also updated was the front grill which went from a two peice removable top part to a one fully removeable one peice grill , the reason for this was that the grills fell out regularly & mf realised they could make more money if the farmer had to replace his lights as well as the grill ! bingo more revenue. french cabs had two steps & brit cabs had one step is a common misconception british cabs were also built with two steps although missing one step can give you a nasty grazed shin just as much as two steps , even worse if you just try hopping up to the cab & miss the step (steps) completely & smack you shin & kneecap making carry on smiling like the brave little soldiers we were pah of course it didn't hurt 8) :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( i'm sure there's more i can't remember from driving these brilliant tractors but i'll leave it there for now , when the fog in my head clears i may jot some more down , i think the 500 series were great tractors ..... no ... seriously Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Ferguson Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 Now then Mr Barrett... I can assure you that I've seen two steppers (590's) that have been Banner Lane built I reckon I've got some photo's somewhere at home to prove it too post amended to spell my name right Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJB1 Posted August 15, 2009 Share Posted August 15, 2009 also updated was the front grill which went from a two peice removable top part to a one fully removeable one peice grill , the reason for this was that the grills fell out regularly & mf realised they could make more money if the farmer had to replace his lights as well as the grill ! bingo more revenue. french cabs had two steps & brit cabs had one step is a common misconception british cabs were also built with two steps although missing one step can give you a nasty grazed shin just as much as two seps , Now then Mr Barrett... I can assure you that I've seen two steppers (590's) that have been Banner Lane built I reckon I've got some photo's somewhere at home to prove it too yes i think i have already made that bit clear matter of fact luke the funniest part about this MOTM is that your model looks like the real deal more than your real deal pics of the deal deal :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D this week i r mostly larfin too much :D *in jessie's diet stylee* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IH885XLMAN Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 just wondering markie weather or not it would be a good idea if you could post up the britains and the UH versions of these if u have both ;) :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Ferguson Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 just wondering markie weather or not it would be a good idea if you could post up the britains and the UH versions of these if u have both ;) :) I do.. and I will Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jakescot Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 i loved our old 565,it was a single door, silver topped cab version.........as you say , turn on a sixpence. the A4.236 engine I`m told had superb oil flow through the engine which made it extremely suitable for adding the turbo to it.......we took the wee fat dumpy 12 x 28 wheels off it and bought an old set of 12 x 36 for it, they helped it a lot.the front grill too eh..........dad baled one once so it had a nice curve longways.lost another one on the way to bale for a fella a few miles away........just so happened mum was coming back from shopping, met dad almost ready to turn into the farm,only when she got nearer home,saw something lying on the road........she passed by and thought , hang on thats the front off the tractor , so turned round and picked it up we changed the 565 to a 575 and it was not half the tractor ........590 backend 565 engine with the tweaked pump..........to me it didnt make a lot of difference other than to suck up more fuel.......perhaps i`m wrong on that but it`s how it seemed to me. I wish i had the old girl now osm 646 s was the reg number and it headed over to ireland oh back in 90 or 91. I love the 590 we have but yes agree the 390 did seem more stable and a 2wd one i borrowed did too.....it`s useless in the wet however, you could stick it on a big cowpat.one day perhaps i`ll get it done up . typical isnt it , both brother and i had proper britains 590`s and both no longer exisit due to play wear GGGGGGGRRRRRRRRRR > . I hope that UH make a 2wd version eh lads? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tractorbob Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 years ago ,a contractor by us ,used to pull 10 tonne griffiths silage trailers with a 565... so not a bad tractor ,ehh .. that tractor would go anywere Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Ferguson Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 that's interesting John.. I've learnt something tonight... I always thought the 575 was a much better machine to the 565 with all that extra HP... but it's good to get the opinion of a 'proper pilot' and not an armchair driver like myself.. I can understand how that bigger backend sapped the extra power... the 590 had some beefy final drives as well Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jakescot Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 if i remember rightly mark it wasnt that much extra hp was it? 67 instead of was it 62? i`ve just forgotten now but thats how i felt about it.oh and our 575 had the different configuration gearbox 2nd and 3rd were the opposite way round with the 3rd over to the right hand side in line with 4th. can i just say also , we had the 590 by the time the 575 came , ( the mf 80 loader went off the 565 onto the 575 too) we were doing the heavier work with the 590 so the 575 wasnt getting all the abuse the 565 was. I`m no expert but is it possible with these two particular machines rather than a comparison in general, was due to the way the 565 was run in, it did all the main work when it came new( except the loader work) this was a lot less back in 1978 as we weren`t round baling . I know where the 575 came from, it was a stockman`s tractor and spent its days just pottering around except when needed for silage in summer ....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Ferguson Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 ah... that explains a lot I guess John... my one regret with my tractors is the fact that they don't do any 'real work' when they are new Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick a Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 Perkins engines always did need working hard and bedding in too makethem perform well, the biggest issue with them was work them hard and bed them in or they would glaze up very easily . Not uncommomn for AD3.152/ A4.236 AND A4,248 engines to be gutless blue smokers and require new rings and glaze busting. get a good one well bedded in good engines with a nice healthy bit of brown n black smoke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick a Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 quite a few A4.236 engines got turbocharged and never seemed to do them much harm - a few blown headgaskets and sheared head bolts and studs , rarely any bottom end problems. these engines later became factory turbo charged especially in telescopic handlers and small loading shovels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jakescot Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 I think it was the A4.236 they used in the 390T wasn`t it..........we never had a 200 series ....I think they rated the 590 at 75 hp, the 290 at 77hp and the 390 at 80hp and if i am correct they were able to do this without making changes as virtually every engine during testing produced 80hp plus...........someone may know better than me and please correct me if thats not the case. I remember a 590 2wd nearby getting traded in for a late version 298T 4wd, the change lasted just over a year. when the 399 came out they took one of them and were much happier with it compared to these virtually bullet proof old girls (500 series ) the 4200 and 4300 around here at least got a very bad name being far less reliable , many were changed to other makes........fair comment all round???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJB1 Posted December 6, 2009 Share Posted December 6, 2009 i think the A4.236 was probably MF's / perkins most adaptable engine . was used on tractors such as the 168, 565,575, 265 675,698t etc............ the 675 was powered by the A.,236 & when the 698T came around the decision to use the 236 was because of it's better cooloing properties than that of the A4.248 A4.3182 engine's got to remember a 236 was also boosted to 1000hp on the MF works stock tractor puller , the 265 nipper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Ferguson Posted December 6, 2009 Share Posted December 6, 2009 The A4.212, 236 and 248 were all the same engine 'famly' ... just differing cc's which was (I believe) all in the throw of the crankshart.. making the 248 a lovely 'long stroking' engine with plenty of grunt. you can't beat a long stoking engine in my opinion... Hattie is a long stroking 4 pot... and she's got some grunt as a result of it.. for example.. the 6470 is the same sisu lump... but looses 500cc (it's 4.4ltr) on the stroke making it a lot less powerful than my 4.9ltr lump in my 5480. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.