David Brown 1690 (A) or Hürlimann H-496 Turbo (A)?
Which should you choose?
On performance, every comparable figure that differs favours the Hürlimann H-496 Turbo (A): hydraulic flow. It is also ahead on forward gears.
- The Hürlimann H-496 Turbo (A) suits loader and hydraulic implement work better on this data: 60% (25.4 L/min / 6.7 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 | 1690 (A) | H-496 Turbo (A) | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 64.7 kW (86.8 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “David Brown 1690” | 64.3 kW (86.2 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Hürlimann H 496” | 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 1690 (A) and the H-496 Turbo (A). |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the 1690 (A) and the H-496 Turbo (A). |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | 42.6 L/min (11.3 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “David Brown 1690” | 68.0 L/min (18.0 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Hürlimann H 496” | AheadThe Hürlimann H-496 Turbo (A) has 60% more hydraulic flow (25.4 L/min / 6.7 gpm) than the David Brown 1690 (A) (both pump flow, as stated by the source). |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | — | 3,151 kg (6,947 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Hürlimann H 496” | No figureNo call on three-point lift: no figure on record for the 1690 (A). |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 3,855 kg (8,499 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “David Brown 1690” | 3,860 kg (8,510 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Hürlimann H 496” | 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? | — | — | No figureNo call on maximum permissible mass: no figure on record for the 1690 (A) and the H-496 Turbo (A). |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 12Traktorenlexikon, “David Brown 1690” | 24Traktorenlexikon, “Hürlimann H 496” | AheadThe Hürlimann H-496 Turbo (A) has 100% more forward gears (12 gears) than the David Brown 1690 (A) (both forward gears, as stated by the source). |
| Which offers a creeper range? | — | — | No figureNo call on a creeper range: not stated for the 1690 (A) and the H-496 Turbo (A). |
| Which is faster on the road? | 25 km/h (15.5 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “David Brown 1690” | 25 km/h (15.5 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Hürlimann H 496” | 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? | 540/1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “David Brown 1690” | 540/1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Hürlimann H 496” | EvenEven on PTO speeds: the same speeds (540, 1000 rpm). |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | independentTraktorenlexikon, “David Brown 1690” | — | No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the H-496 Turbo (A). |
| Which drives on both axles? | 2WD / 4WDTraktorenlexikon, “David Brown 1690” | 2WD / 4WDTraktorenlexikon, “Hürlimann H 496” | EvenEven on drive: every machine is available with four-wheel drive. |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1980–1984 | 1984–1989 | 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 Hürlimann H-496 Turbo (A) has 60% more hydraulic flow (25.4 L/min / 6.7 gpm) than the David Brown 1690 (A) (both pump flow, as stated by the source).
- The Hürlimann H-496 Turbo (A) has 100% more forward gears (12 gears) than the David Brown 1690 (A) (both forward gears, 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 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, 1000 rpm).
- Even on drive: every machine is available with four-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 and PTO independence.
← Every figure for both machines, side by side, with sources