BUKH DZ-30 or Kramer KW 220?
Which should you choose?
On performance, every comparable figure that differs favours the Kramer KW 220: hydraulic flow.
- The Kramer KW 220 suits loader and hydraulic implement work better on this data: 19% (2.5 L/min / 0.7 gpm) more hydraulic flow.
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 | KW 220 | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 14.1 kW (18.9 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Bukh DZ-30” | 14.7 kW (20 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Kramer KW 220” | 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 KW 220. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the DZ-30 and the KW 220. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | 13.5 L/min (3.6 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Bukh DZ-30” | 16.0 L/min (4.2 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Kramer KW 220” | AheadThe Kramer KW 220 has 19% more hydraulic flow (2.5 L/min / 0.7 gpm) than the BUKH DZ-30 (both pump flow, as stated by the source). |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | 670 kg (1,477 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Bukh DZ-30” | — | No figureNo call on three-point lift: no figure on record for the KW 220. |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 1,620 kg (3,571 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Bukh DZ-30” | 1,500 kg (3,307 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Kramer KW 220” | 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? | — | 1,800 kg (3,968 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Kramer KW 220” | 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” | 5Traktorenlexikon, “Kramer KW 220” | 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 DZ-30 and the KW 220. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 20 km/h (12.4 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Bukh DZ-30” | 20 km/h (12.4 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Kramer KW 220” | 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” | 545 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Kramer KW 220” | No figureNo call on PTO speeds: no standard PTO speed stated for the KW 220. |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | dependent (stops with the clutch)Traktorenlexikon, “Bukh DZ-30” | — | No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the KW 220. |
| Which drives on both axles? | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Bukh DZ-30” | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Kramer KW 220” | EvenEven on drive: all two-wheel drive. |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1956–1958 | 1958–1959 | 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 Kramer KW 220 has 19% more hydraulic flow (2.5 L/min / 0.7 gpm) than the BUKH DZ-30 (both pump flow, as stated by the source).
- 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 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 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.
- No figure on record for every machine, so no call on: fuel efficiency at the shaft, drawbar power, three-point lift, maximum permissible mass, a creeper range, PTO speeds and PTO independence.
← Every figure for both machines, side by side, with sources