Ford 1600 (A) or Renault Super 3?
Which should you choose?
The data can’t decide this. Power at the PTO shaft cannot be compared: the 1600 (A) has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the Super 3 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft.
- The Renault Super 3 suits road haulage better on this data: 67% (10.0 km/h / 6.2 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 | 1600 (A) | Super 3 | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 18.4 kW (24.7 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 1600” | 18.4 kW (24.7 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Renault Super 3/R 7052” | Not comparableNot comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the 1600 (A) has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the Super 3 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 1600 (A) and the Super 3. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the 1600 (A) and the Super 3. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | 15.9 L/min (4.2 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 1600” | 15.0 L/min (4.0 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Renault Super 3/R 7052” | EvenEven on hydraulic flow (both pump flow, as stated by the source): the difference is under the 10% threshold, too small to call. |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | 772 kg (1,702 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 1600” | — | No figureNo call on three-point lift: no figure on record for the Super 3. |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 1,040 kg (2,293 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 1600” | 1,480 kg (3,263 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Renault Super 3/R 7052” | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The Renault Super 3 is 42% heavier (440 kg / 970 lb) than the Ford 1600 (A) (both unladen weight, as stated by the source). |
| Which may carry more ballast and load? | 1,745 kg (3,847 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 1600” | — | No figureNo call on maximum permissible mass: no figure on record for the Super 3. |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 9Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 1600” | 6 to 10Traktorenlexikon, “Renault Super 3/R 7052” | 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? | — | YesTraktorenlexikon, “Renault Super 3/R 7052” | No figureNo call on a creeper range: not stated for the 1600 (A). |
| Which is faster on the road? | 15 km/h (9.3 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 1600” | 25 km/h (15.5 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Renault Super 3/R 7052” | AheadThe Renault Super 3 has 67% more top speed (10.0 km/h / 6.2 mph) than the Ford 1600 (A) (both top speed forward, as stated by the source). |
| Which offers more PTO speeds? | 540 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Ford 1600” | 540 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Renault Super 3/R 7052” | 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 1600 (A) and the Super 3. |
| Which drives on both axles? | Two-wheel or four-wheel driveTraktorenlexikon, “Ford 1600” | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Renault Super 3/R 7052” | AheadThe Ford 1600 (A) is available with four-wheel drive; the Renault Super 3 is two-wheel drive (as stated by the sources). |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1976–1979 | 1964–1965 | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The Ford 1600 (A) is newer: production began 12 years later. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts. |
What does this mean in plain words?
- The Renault Super 3 is 42% heavier (440 kg / 970 lb) than the Ford 1600 (A) (both unladen weight, as stated by the source).
- The Renault Super 3 has 67% more top speed (10.0 km/h / 6.2 mph) than the Ford 1600 (A) (both top speed forward, as stated by the source).
- The Ford 1600 (A) is available with four-wheel drive; the Renault Super 3 is two-wheel drive (as stated by the sources).
- The Ford 1600 (A) is newer: production began 12 years later. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts.
- Even on hydraulic flow (both pump flow, as stated by the source): the difference is under the 10% threshold, too small to call.
- Even on forward gears (both forward gears, as stated by the source): the figures vary by configuration and the ranges overlap.
- Even on PTO speeds: the same speeds (540 rpm).
- Not comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the 1600 (A) has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the Super 3 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