Ford 1720 (A) or UTB U-300?
Which should you choose?
The data can’t decide this. Power at the PTO shaft cannot be compared: the 1720 (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 1720 (A) suits loader and hydraulic implement work better on this data: 37% (8.1 L/min / 2.1 gpm) more hydraulic flow.
- The UTB U-300 suits heavy draft work (ploughing, cultivating) better on this data: 41% (461 kg / 1,016 lb) heavier and four-wheel drive.
- The UTB U-300 suits road haulage better on this data: 14% (3.0 km/h / 1.9 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 | 1720 (A) | U-300 | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 19.5 kW (26.1 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 1720” | 19.9 kW (26.7 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “UTB U 300” | Not comparableNot comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the 1720 (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 1720 (A) and the U-300. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the 1720 (A) and the U-300. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | 29.9 L/min (7.9 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 1720” | 21.8 L/min (5.8 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “UTB U 300” | AheadThe Ford 1720 (A) has 37% more hydraulic flow (8.1 L/min / 2.1 gpm) than the UTB U-300 (both pump flow, as stated by the source). |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | 1,107 kg (2,441 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 1720” | — | No figureNo call on three-point lift: no figure on record for the U-300. |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 1,130 kg (2,491 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 1720” | 1,591 kg (3,508 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “UTB U 300” | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The UTB U-300 is 41% heavier (461 kg / 1,016 lb) than the Ford 1720 (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 1720 (A) and the U-300. |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 12Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 1720” | 6 to 9Traktorenlexikon, “UTB U 300” | AheadThe Ford 1720 (A) has 33% more forward gears (3 gears) than the UTB U-300 (both forward gears, as stated by the source). |
| Which offers a creeper range? | — | — | No figureNo call on a creeper range: not stated for the 1720 (A) and the U-300. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 22 km/h (13.7 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 1720” | 25 km/h (15.5 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “UTB U 300” | AheadThe UTB U-300 has 14% more top speed (3.0 km/h / 1.9 mph) than the Ford 1720 (A) (both top speed forward, as stated by the source). |
| Which offers more PTO speeds? | 540 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Ford 1720” | 540 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “UTB U 300” | 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 U-300. |
| Which drives on both axles? | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Ford 1720” | Two-wheel or four-wheel driveTraktorenlexikon, “UTB U 300” | AheadThe UTB U-300 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? | 1987–2000 | 1980–1991 | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The Ford 1720 (A) is newer: production began 7 years later. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts. |
What does this mean in plain words?
- The Ford 1720 (A) has 37% more hydraulic flow (8.1 L/min / 2.1 gpm) than the UTB U-300 (both pump flow, as stated by the source).
- The UTB U-300 is 41% heavier (461 kg / 1,016 lb) than the Ford 1720 (A) (both unladen weight, as stated by the source).
- The Ford 1720 (A) has 33% more forward gears (3 gears) than the UTB U-300 (both forward gears, as stated by the source).
- The UTB U-300 has 14% more top speed (3.0 km/h / 1.9 mph) than the Ford 1720 (A) (both top speed forward, as stated by the source).
- The UTB U-300 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 7 years later. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts.
- Even on PTO speeds: the same speeds (540 rpm).
- Not comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the 1720 (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