BOLINDER-MUNKTELL BM-4 or Güldner AF 30?
Which should you choose?
On performance, no comparable figure differs by more than its threshold: on this data the machines are level. On features, the Güldner AF 30 is ahead on top speed.
- The Güldner AF 30 suits road haulage better on this data: 33% (5.0 km/h / 3.1 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 | BM-4 | AF 30 | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 22.1 kW (30 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Bolinder-Munktell BM 4” | 20.6 kW (28 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Güldner AF 30” | EvenEven on power at the PTO shaft (both power at the PTO, claimed): the difference is under the 10% threshold for claimed figures, too small to call. |
| 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 BM-4 and the AF 30. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the BM-4 and the AF 30. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | — | — | No figureNo call on hydraulic flow: no figure on record for the BM-4 and the AF 30. |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | — | — | No figureNo call on three-point lift: no figure on record for the BM-4 and the AF 30. |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 2,350 kg (5,181 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Bolinder-Munktell BM 4” | 2,040 kg (4,497 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Güldner AF 30” | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The BOLINDER-MUNKTELL BM-4 is 15% heavier (310 kg / 683 lb) than the Güldner AF 30 (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 BM-4 and the AF 30. |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 4Traktorenlexikon, “Bolinder-Munktell BM 4” | 5Traktorenlexikon, “Güldner AF 30” | 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 BM-4 and the AF 30. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 15 km/h (9.3 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Bolinder-Munktell BM 4” | 20 km/h (12.4 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Güldner AF 30” | AheadThe Güldner AF 30 has 33% more top speed (5.0 km/h / 3.1 mph) than the BOLINDER-MUNKTELL BM-4 (both top speed forward, as stated by the source). |
| Which offers more PTO speeds? | 610 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Bolinder-Munktell BM 4” | 540 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Güldner AF 30” | No figureNo call on PTO speeds: no standard PTO speed stated for the BM-4. |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | — | — | No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the BM-4 and the AF 30. |
| Which drives on both axles? | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Bolinder-Munktell BM 4” | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Güldner AF 30” | EvenEven on drive: all two-wheel drive. |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1939–1944 | 1948–1951 | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The Güldner AF 30 is newer: production began 9 years later. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts. |
What does this mean in plain words?
- The BOLINDER-MUNKTELL BM-4 is 15% heavier (310 kg / 683 lb) than the Güldner AF 30 (both unladen weight, as stated by the source).
- The Güldner AF 30 has 33% more top speed (5.0 km/h / 3.1 mph) than the BOLINDER-MUNKTELL BM-4 (both top speed forward, as stated by the source).
- The Güldner AF 30 is newer: production began 9 years later. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts.
- Even on power at the PTO shaft (both power at the PTO, claimed): the difference is under the 10% threshold for claimed figures, 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.
- 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