ALLIS-CHALMERS Modell-WF or RÖHR R 24?
Which should you choose?
The data can’t decide this. Power at the PTO shaft cannot be compared: the Modell-WF has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the R 24 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft.
- The RÖHR R 24 suits road haulage better on this data: 25% (4.0 km/h / 2.5 mph) more top speed.
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 | Modell-WF | R 24 | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 18 kW (24 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Allis-Chalmers WF” | 17.7 kW (23.7 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Röhr R 24” | Not comparableNot comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the Modell-WF has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the R 24 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 Modell-WF and the R 24. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the Modell-WF and the R 24. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | — | — | No figureNo call on hydraulic flow: no figure on record for the Modell-WF and the R 24. |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | — | — | No figureNo call on three-point lift: no figure on record for the Modell-WF and the R 24. |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 1,583 kg (3,490 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Allis-Chalmers WF” | 1,720 kg (3,792 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Röhr R 24” | 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? | — | 1,950 kg (4,299 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Röhr R 24” | No figureNo call on maximum permissible mass: no figure on record for the Modell-WF. |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 4Traktorenlexikon, “Allis-Chalmers WF” | 4Traktorenlexikon, “Röhr R 24” | 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 Modell-WF and the R 24. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 16 km/h (9.9 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Allis-Chalmers WF” | 20 km/h (12.4 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Röhr R 24” | AheadThe RÖHR R 24 has 25% more top speed (4.0 km/h / 2.5 mph) than the ALLIS-CHALMERS Modell-WF (both top speed forward, as stated by the source). |
| Which offers more PTO speeds? | 535 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Allis-Chalmers WF” | 540 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Röhr R 24” | No figureNo call on PTO speeds: no standard PTO speed stated for the Modell-WF. |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | — | dependent (stops with the clutch)Traktorenlexikon, “Röhr R 24” | No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the Modell-WF. |
| Which drives on both axles? | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Allis-Chalmers WF” | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Röhr R 24” | EvenEven on drive: all two-wheel drive. |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1937–1951 | 1949 | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The RÖHR R 24 is newer: production began 12 years later. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts. |
What does this mean in plain words?
- The RÖHR R 24 has 25% more top speed (4.0 km/h / 2.5 mph) than the ALLIS-CHALMERS Modell-WF (both top speed forward, as stated by the source).
- The RÖHR R 24 is newer: production began 12 years later. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts.
- 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 difference is under the 25% threshold, too small to call.
- Even on drive: all two-wheel drive.
- Not comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the Modell-WF has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the R 24 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, three-point lift, maximum permissible mass, a creeper range, PTO speeds and PTO independence.
← Every figure for both machines, side by side, with sources