AGCO-ALLIS 8765 or WHITE 6510?
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 6510 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft.
- The AGCO-ALLIS 8765 suits loader and hydraulic implement work better on this data: 71% (1,080 kg / 2,381 lb) more three-point lift.
Generated by rule set compare@4 from the figures on the side-by-side table, allowed by route “similar machines”. 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 | 6510 | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 63.3 kW (84.9 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “AGCO-Allis 8765” | 64 kW (86 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “AGCO-White 6510” | 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 6510 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 6510. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the 8765 and the 6510. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | — | 40.9 L/min (10.8 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “White 6510” | No figureNo call on hydraulic flow: no figure on record for the 8765. |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | 2,600 kg (5,732 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “AGCO-Allis 8765” | 1,520 kg (3,351 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “AGCO-White 6510” | AheadThe AGCO-ALLIS 8765 has 71% more lift (1,080 kg / 2,381 lb) than the WHITE 6510 (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” | 3,908 kg (8,616 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “White 6510” | EvenEven on weight (both unladen weight, as stated by the source): the difference is under the 10% threshold, too small to call. |
| Which may carry more ballast and load? | — | — | No figureNo call on maximum permissible mass: no figure on record for the 8765 and the 6510. |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 12Traktorenlexikon, “AGCO-Allis 8765” | 12 to 24Traktorenlexikon, “AGCO-White 6510” | EvenEven on forward gears (both forward gears, as stated by the source): the figures vary by configuration and the ranges overlap. |
| Which offers a creeper range? | — | — | No figureNo call on a creeper range: not stated for the 8765 and the 6510. |
| 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, “AGCO-White 6510” | 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, “White 6510” | EvenEven on PTO speeds: the same speeds (540, 1000 rpm). |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | independentTraktorenlexikon, “AGCO-Allis 8765” | independentTraktorenlexikon, “AGCO-White 6510” | EvenEven on PTO independence: every PTO is independent. |
| Which drives on both axles? | Two-wheel or four-wheel driveTraktorenlexikon, “AGCO-Allis 8765” | Two-wheel or four-wheel driveTraktorenlexikon, “White 6510” | 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 AGCO-ALLIS 8765 has 71% more lift (1,080 kg / 2,381 lb) than the WHITE 6510 (both lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source).
- Even on weight (both unladen weight, as stated by the source): the difference is under the 10% threshold, too small to call.
- Even on forward gears (both forward gears, as stated by the source): the figures vary by configuration and the ranges overlap.
- 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 6510 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