Ford 1900 (A) or Renault 53?
Which should you choose?
The data can’t decide this. Power at the PTO shaft cannot be compared: the 1900 (A) has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 53 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft.
- The Renault 53 suits loader and hydraulic implement work better on this data: 16% (272 kg / 600 lb) more three-point lift.
- The Renault 53 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 | 1900 (A) | 53 | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 21.1 kW (28.3 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 1900” | 20.6 kW (27.6 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Renault 53 R7211” | Not comparableNot comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the 1900 (A) has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 53 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 1900 (A) and the 53. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the 1900 (A) and the 53. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | 29.5 L/min (7.8 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 1900” | — | No figureNo call on hydraulic flow: no figure on record for the 53. |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | 1,728 kg (3,810 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 1900” | 2,000 kg (4,409 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Renault 53 R7211” | AheadThe Renault 53 has 16% more lift (272 kg / 600 lb) than the Ford 1900 (A) (both lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source). |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 1,220 kg (2,690 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 1900” | 1,600 kg (3,527 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Renault 53 R7211” | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The Renault 53 is 31% heavier (380 kg / 838 lb) than the Ford 1900 (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 1900 (A) and the 53. |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 12Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 1900” | 6 to 10Traktorenlexikon, “Renault 53 R7211” | 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 1900 (A) and the 53. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 22 km/h (13.7 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 1900” | 25 km/h (15.5 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Renault 53 R7211” | AheadThe Renault 53 has 14% more top speed (3.0 km/h / 1.9 mph) than the Ford 1900 (A) (both top speed forward, as stated by the source). |
| Which offers more PTO speeds? | 540 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Ford 1900” | 540 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Renault 53 R7211” | EvenEven on PTO speeds: the same speeds (540 rpm). |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | — | independentTraktorenlexikon, “Renault 53 R7211” | No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the 1900 (A). |
| Which drives on both axles? | Two-wheel or four-wheel driveTraktorenlexikon, “Ford 1900” | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Renault 53 R7211” | AheadThe Ford 1900 (A) is available with four-wheel drive; the Renault 53 is two-wheel drive (as stated by the sources). |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1979–1983 | 1967–1973 | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The Ford 1900 (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 53 has 16% more lift (272 kg / 600 lb) than the Ford 1900 (A) (both lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source).
- The Renault 53 is 31% heavier (380 kg / 838 lb) than the Ford 1900 (A) (both unladen weight, as stated by the source).
- The Renault 53 has 14% more top speed (3.0 km/h / 1.9 mph) than the Ford 1900 (A) (both top speed forward, as stated by the source).
- The Ford 1900 (A) is available with four-wheel drive; the Renault 53 is two-wheel drive (as stated by the sources).
- The Ford 1900 (A) is newer: production began 12 years later. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts.
- 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 PTO speeds: the same speeds (540 rpm).
- Not comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the 1900 (A) has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 53 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, hydraulic flow, maximum permissible mass, a creeper range and PTO independence.
← Every figure for both machines, side by side, with sources