ALLIS-CHALMERS 200 or Ford 5095?
Which should you choose?
The data can’t decide this. Power at the PTO shaft cannot be compared: the 200 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 5095 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft.
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 | 200 | 5095 | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 69.9 kW (93.7 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Allis-Chalmers 200” | 69.9 kW (93.7 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 5095” | Not comparableNot comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the 200 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 5095 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 200 and the 5095. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the 200 and the 5095. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | 65.1 L/min (17.2 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Allis-Chalmers 200” | 22.7 L/min (6.0 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 5095” | AheadThe ALLIS-CHALMERS 200 has 187% more hydraulic flow (42.4 L/min / 11.2 gpm) than the Ford 5095 (both pump flow, as stated by the source). |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | 2,085 kg (4,597 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Allis-Chalmers 200” | 3,100 kg (6,834 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 5095” | AheadThe Ford 5095 has 49% more lift (1,015 kg / 2,238 lb) than the ALLIS-CHALMERS 200 (both lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source). |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 4,012 kg (8,845 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Allis-Chalmers 200” | 3,000 kg (6,614 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 5095” | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The ALLIS-CHALMERS 200 is 34% heavier (1,012 kg / 2,231 lb) than the Ford 5095 (both unladen weight, as stated by the source). |
| Which may carry more ballast and load? | — | — | No figureNo call on maximum permissible mass: no figure on record for the 200 and the 5095. |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 8Traktorenlexikon, “Allis-Chalmers 200” | 8Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 5095” | EvenEven on forward gears (both forward gears, as stated by the source): the difference is under the 25% threshold, too small to call. |
| Which offers a creeper range? | — | — | No figureNo call on a creeper range: not stated for the 200 and the 5095. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 25 km/h (15.5 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Allis-Chalmers 200” | 25 km/h (15.5 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 5095” | EvenEven on top speed (both top speed forward, as stated by the source): the difference is under the 10% threshold, too small to call. |
| Which offers more PTO speeds? | 540 rpm / 1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Allis-Chalmers 200” | 540 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Ford 5095” | AheadThe ALLIS-CHALMERS 200 offers 1000 rpm at the PTO, which the Ford 5095 does not (as stated by the sources). |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | — | independentTraktorenlexikon, “Ford 5095” | No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the 200. |
| Which drives on both axles? | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Allis-Chalmers 200” | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Ford 5095” | EvenEven on drive: all two-wheel drive. |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1972–1975 | 1968–1975 | 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 ALLIS-CHALMERS 200 has 187% more hydraulic flow (42.4 L/min / 11.2 gpm) than the Ford 5095 (both pump flow, as stated by the source).
- The Ford 5095 has 49% more lift (1,015 kg / 2,238 lb) than the ALLIS-CHALMERS 200 (both lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source).
- The ALLIS-CHALMERS 200 is 34% heavier (1,012 kg / 2,231 lb) than the Ford 5095 (both unladen weight, as stated by the source).
- The ALLIS-CHALMERS 200 offers 1000 rpm at the PTO, which the Ford 5095 does not (as stated by the sources).
- Even on forward gears (both forward gears, as stated by the source): the difference is under the 25% threshold, too small to call.
- Even on top speed (both top speed forward, as stated by the source): the difference is under the 10% threshold, too small to call.
- Even on drive: all two-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 200 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 5095 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, maximum permissible mass, a creeper range and PTO independence.
← Every figure for both machines, side by side, with sources