BUKH DZ-30 or Güldner AW?
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 AW is ahead on forward gears.
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 | DZ-30 | AW | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 14.1 kW (18.9 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Bukh DZ-30” | 14.0 kW (19 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Güldner A W” | 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 DZ-30 and the AW. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the DZ-30 and the AW. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | 13.5 L/min (3.6 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Bukh DZ-30” | — | No figureNo call on hydraulic flow: no figure on record for the AW. |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | 670 kg (1,477 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Bukh DZ-30” | 850 kg (1,874 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Güldner A W” | Not comparableNot comparable on three-point lift: the DZ-30: lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source (Traktorenlexikon, “Bukh DZ-30”); the AW: lift at an unstated point, as stated by the source (Traktorenlexikon, “Güldner A W”) — not the same quantity, basis and condition. |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 1,620 kg (3,571 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Bukh DZ-30” | 1,340 kg (2,954 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Güldner A W” | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The BUKH DZ-30 is 21% heavier (280 kg / 617 lb) than the Güldner AW (both unladen weight, as stated by the source). |
| Which may carry more ballast and load? | — | 2,000 kg (4,409 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Güldner A W” | No figureNo call on maximum permissible mass: no figure on record for the DZ-30. |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 6Traktorenlexikon, “Bukh DZ-30” | 8Traktorenlexikon, “Güldner A W” | AheadThe Güldner AW has 33% more forward gears (2 gears) than the BUKH DZ-30 (both forward gears, as stated by the source). |
| Which offers a creeper range? | — | — | No figureNo call on a creeper range: not stated for the DZ-30 and the AW. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 20 km/h (12.4 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Bukh DZ-30” | 20 km/h (12.4 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Güldner A W” | 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 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Bukh DZ-30” | 540 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Güldner A W” | EvenEven on PTO speeds: the same speeds (540 rpm). |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | dependent (stops with the clutch)Traktorenlexikon, “Bukh DZ-30” | dependent (stops with the clutch)Traktorenlexikon, “Güldner A W” | EvenEven on PTO independence: every PTO is dependent. |
| Which drives on both axles? | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Bukh DZ-30” | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Güldner A W” | EvenEven on drive: all two-wheel drive. |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1956–1958 | 1962 | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The Güldner AW is newer: production began 6 years later. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts. |
What does this mean in plain words?
- The BUKH DZ-30 is 21% heavier (280 kg / 617 lb) than the Güldner AW (both unladen weight, as stated by the source).
- The Güldner AW has 33% more forward gears (2 gears) than the BUKH DZ-30 (both forward gears, as stated by the source).
- The Güldner AW is newer: production began 6 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 top speed (both top speed forward, as stated by the source): the difference is under the 10% threshold, too small to call.
- Even on PTO speeds: the same speeds (540 rpm).
- Even on PTO independence: every PTO is dependent.
- Even on drive: all two-wheel drive.
- Not comparable on three-point lift: the DZ-30: lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source (Traktorenlexikon, “Bukh DZ-30”); the AW: lift at an unstated point, as stated by the source (Traktorenlexikon, “Güldner A W”) — not the same quantity, basis and condition.
- 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