AGCO-ALLIS 8765 or Renault Ceres 340 (A)?
Which should you choose?
The data can’t decide this. Power at the PTO shaft cannot be compared: the 8765 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the Ceres 340 (A) has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft.
- The Renault Ceres 340 (A) suits loader and hydraulic implement work better on this data: 100% (2,610 kg / 5,754 lb) more three-point lift.
Generated by rule set compare@4 from the figures on the side-by-side table, allowed by route “the same stated configuration”. Measured figures are compared only with measured, claimed only with claimed, at the same test condition; differences within each figure’s tolerance are not called.
What decides it, question by question?
| Question | 8765 | Ceres 340 (A) | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 63.3 kW (84.9 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “AGCO-Allis 8765” | 62.6 kW (83.9 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Renault Ceres 340” | Not comparableNot comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the 8765 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the Ceres 340 (A) has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft. |
| Which turns a litre of fuel into more work at the shaft? | — | — | No figureNo call on fuel efficiency at the shaft: no figure on record for the 8765 and the Ceres 340 (A). |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the 8765 and the Ceres 340 (A). |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | — | — | No figureNo call on hydraulic flow: no figure on record for the 8765 and the Ceres 340 (A). |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | 2,600 kg (5,732 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “AGCO-Allis 8765” | 5,210 kg (11,486 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Renault Ceres 340” | AheadThe Renault Ceres 340 (A) has 100% more lift (2,610 kg / 5,754 lb) than the AGCO-ALLIS 8765 (both lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source). |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 3,908 kg (8,616 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “AGCO-Allis 8765” | 3,535 kg (7,793 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Renault Ceres 340” | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The AGCO-ALLIS 8765 is 11% heavier (373 kg / 822 lb) than the Renault Ceres 340 (A) (both unladen weight, as stated by the source). |
| Which may carry more ballast and load? | — | 5,735 kg (12,644 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Renault Ceres 340” | No figureNo call on maximum permissible mass: no figure on record for the 8765. |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 12Traktorenlexikon, “AGCO-Allis 8765” | 18 to 20Traktorenlexikon, “Renault Ceres 340” | AheadThe Renault Ceres 340 (A) has 50% more forward gears (6 gears) than the AGCO-ALLIS 8765 (both forward gears, as stated by the source). |
| Which offers a creeper range? | — | — | No figureNo call on a creeper range: not stated for the 8765 and the Ceres 340 (A). |
| Which is faster on the road? | 30 km/h (18.6 mph) to 40 km/h (24.9 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “AGCO-Allis 8765” | 30 km/h (18.6 mph) to 40 km/h (24.9 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Renault Ceres 340” | EvenEven on top speed (both top speed forward, as stated by the source): the figures vary by configuration and the ranges overlap. |
| Which offers more PTO speeds? | 540/1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “AGCO-Allis 8765” | 540/1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Renault Ceres 340” | EvenEven on PTO speeds: the same speeds (540, 1000 rpm). |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | independentTraktorenlexikon, “AGCO-Allis 8765” | independentTraktorenlexikon, “Renault Ceres 340” | EvenEven on PTO independence: every PTO is independent. |
| Which drives on both axles? | Two-wheel or four-wheel driveTraktorenlexikon, “AGCO-Allis 8765” | 2WD / 4WDTraktorenlexikon, “Renault Ceres 340” | EvenEven on drive: every machine is available with four-wheel drive. |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1998–1999 | 1998–2001 | EvenSame era: production began within 5 years of each other. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts. |
What does this mean in plain words?
- The Renault Ceres 340 (A) has 100% more lift (2,610 kg / 5,754 lb) than the AGCO-ALLIS 8765 (both lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source).
- The AGCO-ALLIS 8765 is 11% heavier (373 kg / 822 lb) than the Renault Ceres 340 (A) (both unladen weight, as stated by the source).
- The Renault Ceres 340 (A) has 50% more forward gears (6 gears) than the AGCO-ALLIS 8765 (both forward gears, as stated by the source).
- Even on top speed (both top speed forward, as stated by the source): the figures vary by configuration and the ranges overlap.
- Even on PTO speeds: the same speeds (540, 1000 rpm).
- Even on PTO independence: every PTO is independent.
- Even on drive: every machine is available with four-wheel drive.
- Same era: production began within 5 years of each other. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts.
- Not comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the 8765 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the Ceres 340 (A) has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft.
- No figure on record for every machine, so no call on: fuel efficiency at the shaft, drawbar power, hydraulic flow, maximum permissible mass and a creeper range.
← Every figure for both machines, side by side, with sources