Ford 1620 (A) or UTB U-300?
Which should you choose?
The data can’t decide this. Power at the PTO shaft cannot be compared: the 1620 (A) has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the U-300 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft.
- The Ford 1620 (A) suits loader and hydraulic implement work better on this data: 23% (5.0 L/min / 1.3 gpm) more hydraulic flow.
- The UTB U-300 suits road haulage better on this data: 25% (5.0 km/h / 3.1 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 | 1620 (A) | U-300 | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 19.1 kW (25.6 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 1620” | 19.9 kW (26.7 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “UTB U 300” | Not comparableNot comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the 1620 (A) has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the U-300 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 1620 (A) and the U-300. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the 1620 (A) and the U-300. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | 26.8 L/min (7.1 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 1620” | 21.8 L/min (5.8 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “UTB U 300” | AheadThe Ford 1620 (A) has 23% more hydraulic flow (5.0 L/min / 1.3 gpm) than the UTB U-300 (both pump flow, as stated by the source). |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | 877 kg (1,933 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 1620” | — | No figureNo call on three-point lift: no figure on record for the U-300. |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 1,015 kg (2,238 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 1620” | 1,591 kg (3,508 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “UTB U 300” | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The UTB U-300 is 57% heavier (576 kg / 1,270 lb) than the Ford 1620 (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 1620 (A) and the U-300. |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | Stepless (hydrostatic)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 1620” | 6 to 9 forwardTraktorenlexikon, “UTB U 300” | DifferTransmissions differ in kind: the Ford 1620 (A) is stepless (hydrostatic) and the UTB U-300 has 6 to 9 forward gears — not called. |
| Which offers a creeper range? | — | — | No figureNo call on a creeper range: not stated for the 1620 (A) and the U-300. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 20 km/h (12.4 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 1620” | 25 km/h (15.5 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “UTB U 300” | AheadThe UTB U-300 has 25% more top speed (5.0 km/h / 3.1 mph) than the Ford 1620 (A) (both top speed forward, as stated by the source). |
| Which offers more PTO speeds? | 540 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Ford 1620” | 540 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “UTB U 300” | 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 U-300. |
| Which drives on both axles? | Two-wheel or four-wheel driveTraktorenlexikon, “Ford 1620” | Two-wheel or four-wheel driveTraktorenlexikon, “UTB U 300” | EvenEven on drive: every machine is available with four-wheel drive. |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1992–1997 | 1980–1991 | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The Ford 1620 (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 Ford 1620 (A) has 23% more hydraulic flow (5.0 L/min / 1.3 gpm) than the UTB U-300 (both pump flow, as stated by the source).
- The UTB U-300 is 57% heavier (576 kg / 1,270 lb) than the Ford 1620 (A) (both unladen weight, as stated by the source).
- The UTB U-300 has 25% more top speed (5.0 km/h / 3.1 mph) than the Ford 1620 (A) (both top speed forward, as stated by the source).
- The Ford 1620 (A) is newer: production began 12 years later. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts.
- Transmissions differ in kind: the Ford 1620 (A) is stepless (hydrostatic) and the UTB U-300 has 6 to 9 forward gears — not called.
- 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 1620 (A) has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the U-300 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