Fahr D 177 or International Harvester Farmall 240?

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 Fahr D 177 is ahead on forward gears; the International Harvester Farmall 240 is ahead on top speed.

  • The International Harvester Farmall 240 suits road haulage better on this data: 17% (3.4 km/h / 2.1 mph) more top speed.

Generated by rule set compare@4 from the figures on the side-by-side table, allowed by route “similar machines”. 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?

Buyer questions for Fahr D 177 and International Harvester Farmall 240, with the call on each
QuestionD 177Farmall 240Call
Which puts more power through the PTO shaft?23.5 kW (32 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Fahr D 177”24.1 kW (32.3 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Farmall Farmall 240”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 D 177 and the Farmall 240.
Which pulls harder at the drawbar?No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the D 177 and the Farmall 240.
Which pumps more oil for implements?22.8 L/min (6.0 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Farmall Farmall 240”No figureNo call on hydraulic flow: no figure on record for the D 177.
Which lifts more on the three-point hitch?1,300 kg (2,866 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Fahr D 177”No figureNo call on three-point lift: no figure on record for the Farmall 240.
Which is heavier, for traction?1,650 kg (3,638 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Fahr D 177”1,707 kg (3,763 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “IHC Farmall 240”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?2,600 kg (5,732 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Fahr D 177”No figureNo call on maximum permissible mass: no figure on record for the Farmall 240.
Which has the wider choice of gears?8Traktorenlexikon, “Fahr D 177”4Traktorenlexikon, “IHC Farmall 240”AheadThe Fahr D 177 has 100% more forward gears (4 gears) than the International Harvester Farmall 240 (both forward gears, as stated by the source).
Which offers a creeper range?YesTraktorenlexikon, “Fahr D 177”No figureNo call on a creeper range: not stated for the Farmall 240.
Which is faster on the road?19.6 km/h (12.2 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Fahr D 177”23 km/h (14.3 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Farmall Farmall 240”AheadThe International Harvester Farmall 240 has 17% more top speed (3.4 km/h / 2.1 mph) than the Fahr D 177 (both top speed forward, as stated by the source).
Which offers more PTO speeds?539 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Farmall Farmall 240”No figureNo call on PTO speeds: no standard PTO speed stated for the D 177 and the Farmall 240.
Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive?independentTraktorenlexikon, “Fahr D 177”No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the Farmall 240.
Which drives on both axles?2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Fahr D 177”; Traktorenlexikon, “Fahr D 177 S”2WDTraktorenlexikon, “IHC Farmall 240”; Traktorenlexikon, “Farmall Farmall 240”EvenEven on drive: all two-wheel drive.
Which is newer, and what about parts?1958–19611958–1961EvenSame 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 Fahr D 177 has 100% more forward gears (4 gears) than the International Harvester Farmall 240 (both forward gears, as stated by the source).
  • The International Harvester Farmall 240 has 17% more top speed (3.4 km/h / 2.1 mph) than the Fahr D 177 (both top speed forward, 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 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, 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