Fahr D 181 or International Harvester Super FC-C?

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 International Harvester Super FC-C is ahead on top speed.

  • The International Harvester Super FC-C suits road haulage better on this data: 33% (4.2 km/h / 2.6 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?

Buyer questions for Fahr D 181 and International Harvester Super FC-C, with the call on each
QuestionD 181Super FC-CCall
Which puts more power through the PTO shaft?17.7 kW (24 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Fahr D 181”18.0 kW (24.2 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “McCormick Super FC-C”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 181 and the Super FC-C.
Which pulls harder at the drawbar?No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the D 181 and the Super FC-C.
Which pumps more oil for implements?17.3 L/min (4.6 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “McCormick Super FC-C”No figureNo call on hydraulic flow: no figure on record for the D 181.
Which lifts more on the three-point hitch?690 kg (1,521 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Fahr D 181”700 kg (1,543 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “McCormick Super FC-C”EvenNo call on three-point lift: the sources do not state where the lift was measured, so the difference is not a reliable call.
Which is heavier, for traction?1,260 kg (2,778 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Fahr D 181”1,440 kg (3,175 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “McCormick Super FC-C”Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The International Harvester Super FC-C is 14% heavier (180 kg / 397 lb) than the Fahr D 181 (both unladen weight, as stated by the source).
Which may carry more ballast and load?1,950 kg (4,299 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Fahr D 181”No figureNo call on maximum permissible mass: no figure on record for the Super FC-C.
Which has the wider choice of gears?4 to 5Traktorenlexikon, “Fahr D 181”4Traktorenlexikon, “McCormick Super FC-C”EvenEven on forward gears (both forward gears, as stated by the source): the figures vary by configuration and the ranges overlap.
Which offers a creeper range?No figureNo call on a creeper range: not stated for the D 181 and the Super FC-C.
Which is faster on the road?12.8 km/h (8.0 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Fahr D 181”17 km/h (10.6 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “McCormick Super FC-C”AheadThe International Harvester Super FC-C has 33% more top speed (4.2 km/h / 2.6 mph) than the Fahr D 181 (both top speed forward, as stated by the source).
Which offers more PTO speeds?600 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Fahr D 181”539 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “McCormick Super FC-C”No figureNo call on PTO speeds: no standard PTO speed stated for the D 181 and the Super FC-C.
Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive?dependent (stops with the clutch)Traktorenlexikon, “McCormick Super FC-C”No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the D 181.
Which drives on both axles?2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Fahr D 181”2WDTraktorenlexikon, “McCormick Super FC-C”EvenEven on drive: all two-wheel drive.
Which is newer, and what about parts?1955–19581952–1957EvenSame 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 International Harvester Super FC-C is 14% heavier (180 kg / 397 lb) than the Fahr D 181 (both unladen weight, as stated by the source).
  • The International Harvester Super FC-C has 33% more top speed (4.2 km/h / 2.6 mph) than the Fahr D 181 (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.
  • No call on three-point lift: the sources do not state where the lift was measured, so the difference is not a reliable call.
  • Even on forward gears (both forward gears, as stated by the source): the figures vary by configuration and the ranges overlap.
  • 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, maximum permissible mass, a creeper range, PTO speeds and PTO independence.

← Every figure for both machines, side by side, with sources