Fiat 312-R/342-R or Ford 1900 (A)?
Which should you choose?
The data can’t decide this. Power at the PTO shaft cannot be compared: the 312-R/342-R has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 1900 (A) has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft.
- The Ford 1900 (A) suits loader and hydraulic implement work better on this data: 79% (13.0 L/min / 3.4 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 | 312-R/342-R | 1900 (A) | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 21.3 kW (28.6 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Fiat 312 R/342 R” | 21.1 kW (28.3 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 1900” | Not comparableNot comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the 312-R/342-R has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 1900 (A) 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 312-R/342-R and the 1900 (A). |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the 312-R/342-R and the 1900 (A). |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | 16.5 L/min (4.4 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Fiat 312 R/342 R” | 29.5 L/min (7.8 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 1900” | AheadThe Ford 1900 (A) has 79% more hydraulic flow (13.0 L/min / 3.4 gpm) than the Fiat 312-R/342-R (both pump flow, as stated by the source). |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | — | 1,728 kg (3,810 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 1900” | No figureNo call on three-point lift: no figure on record for the 312-R/342-R. |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 1,420 kg (3,131 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Fiat 312 R/342 R” | 1,220 kg (2,690 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 1900” | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The Fiat 312-R/342-R is 16% heavier (200 kg / 441 lb) than the Ford 1900 (A) (both unladen weight, as stated by the source). |
| Which may carry more ballast and load? | — | — | No figureNo call on maximum permissible mass: no figure on record for the 312-R/342-R and the 1900 (A). |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 6Traktorenlexikon, “Fiat 312 R/342 R” | 12Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 1900” | AheadThe Ford 1900 (A) has 100% more forward gears (6 gears) than the Fiat 312-R/342-R (both forward gears, as stated by the source). |
| Which offers a creeper range? | — | — | No figureNo call on a creeper range: not stated for the 312-R/342-R and the 1900 (A). |
| Which is faster on the road? | 20 km/h (12.4 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Fiat 312 R/342 R” | 22 km/h (13.7 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 1900” | 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, “Fiat 312 R/342 R” | 540 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Ford 1900” | EvenEven on PTO speeds: the same speeds (540 rpm). |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | — | — | No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the 312-R/342-R and the 1900 (A). |
| Which drives on both axles? | Two-wheel or four-wheel driveTraktorenlexikon, “Fiat 312 R/342 R” | Two-wheel or four-wheel driveTraktorenlexikon, “Ford 1900” | EvenEven on drive: every machine is available with four-wheel drive. |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1964–1965 | 1979–1983 | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The Ford 1900 (A) is newer: production began 15 years later. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts. |
What does this mean in plain words?
- The Ford 1900 (A) has 79% more hydraulic flow (13.0 L/min / 3.4 gpm) than the Fiat 312-R/342-R (both pump flow, as stated by the source).
- The Fiat 312-R/342-R is 16% heavier (200 kg / 441 lb) than the Ford 1900 (A) (both unladen weight, as stated by the source).
- The Ford 1900 (A) has 100% more forward gears (6 gears) than the Fiat 312-R/342-R (both forward gears, as stated by the source).
- The Ford 1900 (A) is newer: production began 15 years later. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts.
- 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 rpm).
- Even on drive: every machine is available with four-wheel drive.
- Not comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the 312-R/342-R has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 1900 (A) 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, three-point lift, maximum permissible mass, a creeper range and PTO independence.
← Every figure for both machines, side by side, with sources