Ford 1320 (A) or International Harvester 184?
Which should you choose?
The data can’t decide this. Power at the PTO shaft cannot be compared: the 1320 (A) has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 184 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft.
- The Ford 1320 (A) suits loader and hydraulic implement work better on this data: 218% (16.6 L/min / 4.4 gpm) more hydraulic flow.
- The Ford 1320 (A) suits heavy draft work (ploughing, cultivating) better on this data: 30% (219 kg / 483 lb) heavier and four-wheel drive.
- The Ford 1320 (A) suits road haulage better on this data: 67% (8.0 km/h / 5.0 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 | 1320 (A) | 184 | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 14 kW (19 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 1320” | 13.2 kW (17.7 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “IHC International 184” | Not comparableNot comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the 1320 (A) has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 184 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 1320 (A) and the 184. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the 1320 (A) and the 184. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | 24.2 L/min (6.4 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 1320” | 7.6 L/min (2.0 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “IHC International 184” | AheadThe Ford 1320 (A) has 218% more hydraulic flow (16.6 L/min / 4.4 gpm) than the International Harvester 184 (both pump flow, as stated by the source). |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | 790 kg (1,742 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 1320” | — | No figureNo call on three-point lift: no figure on record for the 184. |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 953 kg (2,101 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 1320” | 734 kg (1,618 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “IHC International 184” | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The Ford 1320 (A) is 30% heavier (219 kg / 483 lb) than the International Harvester 184 (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 1320 (A) and the 184. |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 9Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 1320” | 3 to 6Traktorenlexikon, “IHC International 184” | AheadThe Ford 1320 (A) has 50% more forward gears (3 gears) than the International Harvester 184 (both forward gears, as stated by the source). |
| Which offers a creeper range? | — | — | No figureNo call on a creeper range: not stated for the 1320 (A) and the 184. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 20 km/h (12.4 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 1320” | 12 km/h (7.5 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “IHC International 184” | AheadThe Ford 1320 (A) has 67% more top speed (8.0 km/h / 5.0 mph) than the International Harvester 184 (both top speed forward, as stated by the source). |
| Which offers more PTO speeds? | 540 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Ford 1320” | 1800 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “IHC International 184” | No figureNo call on PTO speeds: no standard PTO speed stated for the 184. |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | independentTraktorenlexikon, “Ford 1320” | — | No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the 184. |
| Which drives on both axles? | Two-wheel or four-wheel driveTraktorenlexikon, “Ford 1320” | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “IHC International 184” | AheadThe Ford 1320 (A) is available with four-wheel drive; the International Harvester 184 is two-wheel drive (as stated by the sources). |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1987–1998 | 1977–1980 | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The Ford 1320 (A) is newer: production began 10 years later. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts. |
What does this mean in plain words?
- The Ford 1320 (A) has 218% more hydraulic flow (16.6 L/min / 4.4 gpm) than the International Harvester 184 (both pump flow, as stated by the source).
- The Ford 1320 (A) is 30% heavier (219 kg / 483 lb) than the International Harvester 184 (both unladen weight, as stated by the source).
- The Ford 1320 (A) has 50% more forward gears (3 gears) than the International Harvester 184 (both forward gears, as stated by the source).
- The Ford 1320 (A) has 67% more top speed (8.0 km/h / 5.0 mph) than the International Harvester 184 (both top speed forward, as stated by the source).
- The Ford 1320 (A) is available with four-wheel drive; the International Harvester 184 is two-wheel drive (as stated by the sources).
- The Ford 1320 (A) is newer: production began 10 years later. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts.
- Not comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the 1320 (A) has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 184 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, PTO speeds and PTO independence.
← Every figure for both machines, side by side, with sources