Fiat 70-56 LM (DT or Renault 75-32 MX?

Which should you choose?

The data can’t decide this. Power at the PTO shaft cannot be compared: the 70-56 LM (DT has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 75-32 MX has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft.

  • The Renault 75-32 MX suits loader and hydraulic implement work better on this data: 32% (10.6 L/min / 2.8 gpm) more hydraulic flow and 80% (2,030 kg / 4,475 lb) more three-point lift.

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 Fiat 70-56 LM (DT and Renault 75-32 MX, with the call on each
Question70-56 LM (DT75-32 MXCall
Which puts more power through the PTO shaft?51.5 kW (69.1 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Fiatagri 70-56 LM (DT)”51.5 kW (69.1 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Renault 75-32 ME/MA/MS/MX R3141”Not comparableNot comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the 70-56 LM (DT has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 75-32 MX 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 70-56 LM (DT and the 75-32 MX.
Which pulls harder at the drawbar?——No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the 70-56 LM (DT and the 75-32 MX.
Which pumps more oil for implements?32.8 L/min (8.7 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Fiatagri 70-56 LM (DT)”43.4 L/min (11.5 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Renault 75-32 ME/MA/MS/MX R3141”AheadThe Renault 75-32 MX has 32% more hydraulic flow (10.6 L/min / 2.8 gpm) than the Fiat 70-56 LM (DT (both pump flow, as stated by the source).
Which lifts more on the three-point hitch?2,540 kg (5,600 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Fiatagri 70-56 LM (DT)”4,570 kg (10,075 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Renault 75-32 ME/MA/MS/MX R3141”AheadThe Renault 75-32 MX has 80% more lift (2,030 kg / 4,475 lb) than the Fiat 70-56 LM (DT (both lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source).
Which is heavier, for traction?2,430 kg (5,357 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Fiatagri 70-56 LM (DT)”3,200 kg (7,055 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Renault 75-32 ME/MA/MS/MX R3141”Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The Renault 75-32 MX is 32% heavier (770 kg / 1,698 lb) than the Fiat 70-56 LM (DT (both unladen weight, as stated by the source).
Which may carry more ballast and load?—5,620 kg (12,390 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Renault 75-32 ME/MA/MS/MX R3141”No figureNo call on maximum permissible mass: no figure on record for the 70-56 LM (DT.
Which has the wider choice of gears?8 to 12Traktorenlexikon, “Fiatagri 70-56 LM (DT)”12 to 24Traktorenlexikon, “Renault 75-32 ME/MA/MS/MX R3141”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 70-56 LM (DT and the 75-32 MX.
Which is faster on the road?30 km/h (18.6 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Fiatagri 70-56 LM (DT)”30 km/h (18.6 mph) to 40 km/h (24.9 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Renault 75-32 ME/MA/MS/MX R3141”EvenEven on top speed (both top speed forward, as stated by the source): the figures vary by configuration and the ranges overlap.
Which offers more PTO speeds?540 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Fiatagri 70-56 LM (DT)”540/1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Renault 75-32 ME/MA/MS/MX R3141”AheadThe Renault 75-32 MX offers 1000 rpm at the PTO, which the Fiat 70-56 LM (DT does not (as stated by the sources).
Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive?independentTraktorenlexikon, “Fiatagri 70-56 LM (DT)”—No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the 75-32 MX.
Which drives on both axles?Two-wheel or four-wheel driveTraktorenlexikon, “Fiatagri 70-56 LM (DT)”2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Renault 75-32 ME/MA/MS/MX R3141”AheadThe Fiat 70-56 LM (DT is available with four-wheel drive; the Renault 75-32 MX is two-wheel drive (as stated by the sources).
Which is newer, and what about parts?1988–1989–1993EvenSame 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 Renault 75-32 MX has 32% more hydraulic flow (10.6 L/min / 2.8 gpm) than the Fiat 70-56 LM (DT (both pump flow, as stated by the source).
  • The Renault 75-32 MX has 80% more lift (2,030 kg / 4,475 lb) than the Fiat 70-56 LM (DT (both lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source).
  • The Renault 75-32 MX is 32% heavier (770 kg / 1,698 lb) than the Fiat 70-56 LM (DT (both unladen weight, as stated by the source).
  • The Renault 75-32 MX offers 1000 rpm at the PTO, which the Fiat 70-56 LM (DT does not (as stated by the sources).
  • The Fiat 70-56 LM (DT is available with four-wheel drive; the Renault 75-32 MX is two-wheel drive (as stated by the sources).
  • Even on forward gears (both forward gears, as stated by the source): the figures vary by configuration and the ranges overlap.
  • Even on top speed (both top speed forward, as stated by the source): the figures vary by configuration and the ranges overlap.
  • 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 70-56 LM (DT has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 75-32 MX 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, maximum permissible mass, a creeper range and PTO independence.

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