ALLIS-CHALMERS WD-45 or MASSEY-HARRIS 202?
Which should you choose?
The data can’t decide this. Power at the PTO shaft cannot be compared: the WD-45 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 202 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 | WD-45 | 202 | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 27.9 kW (37.4 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Allis-Chalmers WD 45” | 27.2 kW (36.5 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Massey-Harris Massey-Harris 202” | Not comparableNot comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the WD-45 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 202 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 WD-45 and the 202. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the WD-45 and the 202. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | — | — | No figureNo call on hydraulic flow: no figure on record for the WD-45 and the 202. |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | 1,630 kg (3,594 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Allis-Chalmers WD 45” | — | No figureNo call on three-point lift: no figure on record for the 202. |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 1,794 kg (3,955 lb) to 1,944 kg (4,286 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Allis-Chalmers WD 45” | 2,948 kg (6,499 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Massey-Harris Massey-Harris 202” | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The MASSEY-HARRIS 202 is 52% heavier (1,004 kg / 2,213 lb) than the ALLIS-CHALMERS WD-45 (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 WD-45 and the 202. |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 4Traktorenlexikon, “Allis-Chalmers WD 45” | 4Traktorenlexikon, “Massey-Harris Massey-Harris 202” | 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 WD-45 and the 202. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 19.3 km/h (12.0 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Allis-Chalmers WD 45” | 20 km/h (12.4 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Massey-Harris Massey-Harris 202” | 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? | 548 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Allis-Chalmers WD 45” | 540 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Massey-Harris Massey-Harris 202” | No figureNo call on PTO speeds: no standard PTO speed stated for the WD-45. |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | — | — | No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the WD-45 and the 202. |
| Which drives on both axles? | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Allis-Chalmers WD 45” | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Massey-Harris Massey-Harris 202” | EvenEven on drive: all two-wheel drive. |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1953–1957 | 1940–1942 | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The ALLIS-CHALMERS WD-45 is newer: production began 13 years later. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts. |
What does this mean in plain words?
- The MASSEY-HARRIS 202 is 52% heavier (1,004 kg / 2,213 lb) than the ALLIS-CHALMERS WD-45 (both unladen weight, as stated by the source).
- The ALLIS-CHALMERS WD-45 is newer: production began 13 years later. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts.
- 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.
- Not comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the WD-45 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 202 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