Very nice to see one still going strong , basically the same engine , but retuned , found it's way into the few Marshall 100 - 4 & 125 - 4's that were built at Gainsborough I believe . Lovely sounding engine , & much under respected tractors . An old mate who was the parts storeman at the dealer I used once offered me a very special 125 - 4 , always wish I,d stuck my neck out & bought it . Leyland engines ran on next to nothing unless really thrashed .
Yes, I agree! I don't know much about tractors but some brand names get all the glory. Good advertising is a big winner. The battle field of the customers mind. That's where sales are made. I personally am a big Gleaner combine enthusiast. Most people don't give them a second glance but I really like them.
I used to nick one of these for transport round the factory at Bathgate while doing overtime at the weekends. I think it was an old prototype as it didn't have a convential model number but it had a 6/98 and the same frame and tramnsmission. I particularly remember the 2x5 transmission because by time the current models were 3x3 synchro.
Its actually the same engine in a 285 and 2100, just different fuel pump settings. (same with 262 and 272) There are other option diferences on the tractor but you can easily turn a 285 into a 2100 by recalibrating the injection pump.Brilliant engines in thier day, and very sweet runners with exellent low down torque, but stronger than the 10 speed transmission
@@rbharvesters7404 Modern six cylinder tractors just don't have the same sound and character. I had an Ursus 1224 120hp straight six on a farm brand new on a H plate. The engine was a stunner with shed loads of low down torque. Gearbox took some mastering, often best not to use the clutch once moving.
@@09amusement i agree! Modern machines don't have the same character. They have far to much electrical junk. I do think that modern driver comfort is a vast improvement but i think most of the modern electronics just need to be chucked in the bin. Why do you need a combine that can drive itself.
@@rbharvesters7404 6/98 engine? I drove light trucks (12 - 14 tonnes) with that engine. I preferred it to the Ford, Bedford and Perkins equivalents but they used or rather leaked oil (cork gaskets)
its actually the sa,e engine in a 285 and 2100, just different fuel pump settings. (same with 262 and 272) There are other option diferences on the tractor but you can easily turn a 285 into a 2100.Brilliant engines, but stronger than the 10 speed transmission
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #25 ТАЙНАЯ КОМНАТА [Секреты Религии] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/nCukf32HXgw/mqdefault.jpg)
I,ve watched this again , there,s nothing like the "Bathgate Tiger"s roar .
Ace. Im just uploading another video this morning. Nothing much just a little update
Very nice to see one still going strong , basically the same engine , but retuned , found it's way into the few Marshall 100 - 4 & 125 - 4's that were built at Gainsborough I believe . Lovely sounding engine , & much under respected tractors . An old mate who was the parts storeman at the dealer I used once offered me a very special 125 - 4 , always wish I,d stuck my neck out & bought it . Leyland engines ran on next to nothing unless really thrashed .
Beautiful tractor. Leyland is overhated sure it has some flaws but its a amazing tractors
Yes, I agree! I don't know much about tractors but some brand names get all the glory. Good advertising is a big winner. The battle field of the customers mind. That's where sales are made.
I personally am a big Gleaner combine enthusiast. Most people don't give them a second glance but I really like them.
I used to nick one of these for transport round the factory at Bathgate while doing overtime at the weekends. I think it was an old prototype as it didn't have a convential model number but it had a 6/98 and the same frame and tramnsmission. I particularly remember the 2x5 transmission because by time the current models were 3x3 synchro.
Its actually the same engine in a 285 and 2100, just different fuel pump settings. (same with 262 and 272) There are other option diferences on the tractor but you can easily turn a 285 into a 2100 by recalibrating the injection pump.Brilliant engines in thier day, and very sweet runners with exellent low down torque, but stronger than the 10 speed transmission
It sounds like the 3 cylinder did. I loved our leylands. A shame we had to let them all go
They are nice, very but were underrated, considering. This one is a 6 cylinder.
Why did you get rid of them?
Really nice.
Thanks, it was a nice surprise for me. A very nice simplistic machine.
@@rbharvesters7404 Modern six cylinder tractors just don't have the same sound and character.
I had an Ursus 1224 120hp straight six on a farm brand new on a H plate. The engine was a stunner with shed loads of low down torque. Gearbox took some mastering, often best not to use the clutch once moving.
@@09amusement i agree! Modern machines don't have the same character. They have far to much electrical junk. I do think that modern driver comfort is a vast improvement but i think most of the modern electronics just need to be chucked in the bin. Why do you need a combine that can drive itself.
@@rbharvesters7404 because the tables are so bloody wide, the driver can't see the end where the last cut was taken. 😂
@@09amusement well thats a point
There was 21 thousand 285s made. And 7 thousand 2100s made
285 or 2100 ?
Im not entirely sure! I will find out.
He says its a 285
@@rbharvesters7404 6/98 engine? I drove light trucks (12 - 14 tonnes) with that engine. I preferred it to the Ford, Bedford and Perkins equivalents but they used or rather leaked oil (cork gaskets)
its actually the sa,e engine in a 285 and 2100, just different fuel pump settings. (same with 262 and 272) There are other option diferences on the tractor but you can easily turn a 285 into a 2100.Brilliant engines, but stronger than the 10 speed transmission