Ford 1700 (A) or Ford 1720 (A)?
Which should you choose?
On performance, every comparable figure that differs favours the Ford 1700 (A): three-point lift. It is also ahead on drive.
- The Ford 1700 (A) suits loader and hydraulic implement work better on this data: 56% (623 kg / 1,373 lb) more three-point lift.
- The Ford 1700 (A) suits heavy draft work (ploughing, cultivating) better on this data: four-wheel drive.
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 | 1700 (A) | 1720 (A) | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 17.2 kW (23.1 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 1700” | 17.6 kW (23.6 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 1720” | 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 1700 (A) and the 1720 (A). |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the 1700 (A) and the 1720 (A). |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | 29.5 L/min (7.8 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 1700” | — | No figureNo call on hydraulic flow: no figure on record for the 1720 (A). |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | 1,730 kg (3,814 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 1700” | 1,107 kg (2,441 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 1720” | AheadThe Ford 1700 (A) has 56% more lift (623 kg / 1,373 lb) than the Ford 1720 (A) (both lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source). |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 1,110 kg (2,447 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 1700” | 1,130 kg (2,491 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 1720” | 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 1700 (A) and the 1720 (A). |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 12Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 1700” | 12Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 1720” | EvenEven on forward gears (both forward gears, as stated by the source): the difference is under the 25% threshold, too small to call. |
| Which offers a creeper range? | — | — | No figureNo call on a creeper range: not stated for the 1700 (A) and the 1720 (A). |
| Which is faster on the road? | 20 km/h (12.4 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 1700” | 22 km/h (13.7 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 1720” | 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 1700” | 540 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Ford 1720” | EvenEven on PTO speeds: the same speeds (540 rpm). |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | — | independentTraktorenlexikon, “Ford 1720” | No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the 1700 (A). |
| Which drives on both axles? | 2WD / 4WDTraktorenlexikon, “Ford 1700” | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Ford 1720” | AheadThe Ford 1700 (A) is available with four-wheel drive; the Ford 1720 (A) is two-wheel drive (as stated by the sources). |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1979–1982 | 1987–2000 | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The Ford 1720 (A) is newer: production began 8 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 56% more lift (623 kg / 1,373 lb) than the Ford 1720 (A) (both lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source).
- The Ford 1700 (A) is available with four-wheel drive; the Ford 1720 (A) is two-wheel drive (as stated by the sources).
- The Ford 1720 (A) is newer: production began 8 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.
- Even on forward gears (both forward gears, as stated by the source): the difference is under the 25% threshold, too small to call.
- 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).
- No figure on record for every machine, so no call on: fuel efficiency at the shaft, drawbar power, hydraulic flow, maximum permissible mass, a creeper range and PTO independence.
← Every figure for both machines, side by side, with sources