Ford 1620 (A) or Ford 1700 (A)?
Which should you choose?
On performance, every comparable figure that differs favours the Ford 1700 (A): hydraulic flow and three-point lift.
- The Ford 1700 (A) suits loader and hydraulic implement work better on this data: 10% (2.7 L/min / 0.7 gpm) more hydraulic flow and 97% (853 kg / 1,881 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?
| Question | 1620 (A) | 1700 (A) | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 16.4 kW (22.0 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 1620” | 17.2 kW (23.1 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 1700” | 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 1620 (A) and the 1700 (A). |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the 1620 (A) and the 1700 (A). |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | 26.8 L/min (7.1 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 1620” | 29.5 L/min (7.8 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 1700” | AheadThe Ford 1700 (A) has 10% more hydraulic flow (2.7 L/min / 0.7 gpm) than the Ford 1620 (A) (both pump flow, as stated by the source). |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | 877 kg (1,933 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 1620” | 1,730 kg (3,814 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 1700” | AheadThe Ford 1700 (A) has 97% more lift (853 kg / 1,881 lb) than the Ford 1620 (A) (both lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source). |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 1,015 kg (2,238 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 1620” | 1,110 kg (2,447 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 1700” | EvenEven on weight (both unladen weight, as stated by the source): the difference is under the 10% threshold, too small to call. |
| Which may carry more ballast and load? | — | — | No figureNo call on maximum permissible mass: no figure on record for the 1620 (A) and the 1700 (A). |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | Stepless (hydrostatic)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 1620” | 12 forwardTraktorenlexikon, “Ford 1700” | DifferTransmissions differ in kind: the Ford 1620 (A) is stepless (hydrostatic) and the Ford 1700 (A) has 12 forward gears — not called. |
| Which offers a creeper range? | — | — | No figureNo call on a creeper range: not stated for the 1620 (A) and the 1700 (A). |
| Which is faster on the road? | 20 km/h (12.4 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 1620” | 20 km/h (12.4 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 1700” | 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, “Ford 1620” | 540 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Ford 1700” | EvenEven on PTO speeds: the same speeds (540 rpm). |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | independentTraktorenlexikon, “Ford 1620” | — | No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the 1700 (A). |
| Which drives on both axles? | 2WD / 4WDTraktorenlexikon, “Ford 1620” | 2WD / 4WDTraktorenlexikon, “Ford 1700” | EvenEven on drive: every machine is available with four-wheel drive. |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1992–1997 | 1979–1982 | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The Ford 1620 (A) is newer: production began 13 years later. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts. |
What does this mean in plain words?
- The Ford 1700 (A) has 10% more hydraulic flow (2.7 L/min / 0.7 gpm) than the Ford 1620 (A) (both pump flow, as stated by the source).
- The Ford 1700 (A) has 97% more lift (853 kg / 1,881 lb) than the Ford 1620 (A) (both lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source).
- The Ford 1620 (A) is newer: production began 13 years later. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts.
- 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.
- Even on weight (both unladen weight, as stated by the source): the difference is under the 10% threshold, too small to call.
- Transmissions differ in kind: the Ford 1620 (A) is stepless (hydrostatic) and the Ford 1700 (A) has 12 forward gears — not called.
- 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.
- 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