Eicher 3708 or WARCHALOWSKI-MC CORMICK WT-32 B?
Which should you choose?
The data can’t decide this. Power at the PTO shaft cannot be compared: the 3708 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the WT-32 B has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft.
- The Eicher 3708 suits heavy draft work (ploughing, cultivating) better on this data: four-wheel drive.
- The WARCHALOWSKI-MC CORMICK WT-32 B suits road haulage better on this data: 22% (5.4 km/h / 3.4 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 | 3708 | WT-32 B | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 22.1 kW (29.6 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Eicher 3708” | 22.1 kW (29.6 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Warchalowski WT 32B” | Not comparableNot comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the 3708 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the WT-32 B 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 3708 and the WT-32 B. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the 3708 and the WT-32 B. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | 15.4 L/min (4.1 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Eicher 3708” | — | No figureNo call on hydraulic flow: no figure on record for the WT-32 B. |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | — | 1,800 kg (3,968 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Warchalowski WT 32B” | No figureNo call on three-point lift: no figure on record for the 3708. |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 1,600 kg (3,527 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Eicher 3708” | 1,550 kg (3,417 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Warchalowski WT 32B” | 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? | 2,500 kg (5,512 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Eicher 3708” | — | No figureNo call on maximum permissible mass: no figure on record for the WT-32 B. |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 8Traktorenlexikon, “Eicher 3708” | 8Traktorenlexikon, “Warchalowski WT 32B” | 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? | — | YesTraktorenlexikon, “Warchalowski WT 32B” | No figureNo call on a creeper range: not stated for the 3708. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 24.6 km/h (15.3 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Eicher 3708” | 30 km/h (18.6 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Warchalowski WT 32B” | AheadThe WARCHALOWSKI-MC CORMICK WT-32 B has 22% more top speed (5.4 km/h / 3.4 mph) than the Eicher 3708 (both top speed forward, as stated by the source). |
| Which offers more PTO speeds? | 602/1143 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Eicher 3708” | 540 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Warchalowski WT 32B” | No figureNo call on PTO speeds: no standard PTO speed stated for the 3708. |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | — | independentTraktorenlexikon, “Warchalowski WT 32B” | No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the 3708. |
| Which drives on both axles? | 4WDTraktorenlexikon, “Eicher 3708” | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Warchalowski WT 32B” | AheadThe Eicher 3708 is available with four-wheel drive; the WARCHALOWSKI-MC CORMICK WT-32 B is two-wheel drive (as stated by the sources). |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1970–1971 | 1968–1971 | 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 WARCHALOWSKI-MC CORMICK WT-32 B has 22% more top speed (5.4 km/h / 3.4 mph) than the Eicher 3708 (both top speed forward, as stated by the source).
- The Eicher 3708 is available with four-wheel drive; the WARCHALOWSKI-MC CORMICK WT-32 B is two-wheel drive (as stated by the sources).
- 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.
- Same era: production began within 5 years of each other. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts.
- Not comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the 3708 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the WT-32 B 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