Ford 1910 (A) or WHITE 2-35?
Which should you choose?
The data can’t decide this. Power at the PTO shaft cannot be compared: the 1910 (A) has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 2-35 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft.
- The Ford 1910 (A) suits loader and hydraulic implement work better on this data: 30% (7.5 L/min / 2.0 gpm) more hydraulic flow.
- The Ford 1910 (A) suits heavy draft work (ploughing, cultivating) better on this data: 13% (159 kg / 351 lb) heavier and four-wheel drive.
- The WHITE 2-35 suits road haulage better on this data: 50% (10.0 km/h / 6.2 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 | 1910 (A) | 2-35 | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 23.5 kW (31.5 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 1910” | 22.8 kW (30.6 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “White 2-35” | Not comparableNot comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the 1910 (A) has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 2-35 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 1910 (A) and the 2-35. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the 1910 (A) and the 2-35. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | 32.5 L/min (8.6 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 1910” | 25.0 L/min (6.6 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “White 2-35” | AheadThe Ford 1910 (A) has 30% more hydraulic flow (7.5 L/min / 2.0 gpm) than the WHITE 2-35 (both pump flow, as stated by the source). |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | 1,731 kg (3,816 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 1910” | 500 kg (1,102 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “White 2-35” | Not comparableNot comparable on three-point lift: the 1910 (A): lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source (Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 1910”); the 2-35: lift 610 mm behind the hitch ends, as stated by the source (Traktorenlexikon, “White 2-35”) — not the same quantity, basis and condition. |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 1,379 kg (3,040 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 1910” | 1,220 kg (2,690 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “White 2-35” | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The Ford 1910 (A) is 13% heavier (159 kg / 351 lb) than the WHITE 2-35 (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 1910 (A) and the 2-35. |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 12Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 1910” | 8Traktorenlexikon, “White 2-35” | AheadThe Ford 1910 (A) has 50% more forward gears (4 gears) than the WHITE 2-35 (both forward gears, as stated by the source). |
| Which offers a creeper range? | — | — | No figureNo call on a creeper range: not stated for the 1910 (A) and the 2-35. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 20 km/h (12.4 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 1910” | 30 km/h (18.6 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “White 2-35” | AheadThe WHITE 2-35 has 50% more top speed (10.0 km/h / 6.2 mph) than the Ford 1910 (A) (both top speed forward, as stated by the source). |
| Which offers more PTO speeds? | 540 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Ford 1910” | 540 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “White 2-35” | EvenEven on PTO speeds: the same speeds (540 rpm). |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | — | — | No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the 1910 (A) and the 2-35. |
| Which drives on both axles? | Two-wheel or four-wheel driveTraktorenlexikon, “Ford 1910” | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “White 2-35” | AheadThe Ford 1910 (A) is available with four-wheel drive; the WHITE 2-35 is two-wheel drive (as stated by the sources). |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1983–1986 | 1979–1984 | EvenSame era: production began within 5 years of each other. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts. |
What does this mean in plain words?
- The Ford 1910 (A) has 30% more hydraulic flow (7.5 L/min / 2.0 gpm) than the WHITE 2-35 (both pump flow, as stated by the source).
- The Ford 1910 (A) is 13% heavier (159 kg / 351 lb) than the WHITE 2-35 (both unladen weight, as stated by the source).
- The Ford 1910 (A) has 50% more forward gears (4 gears) than the WHITE 2-35 (both forward gears, as stated by the source).
- The WHITE 2-35 has 50% more top speed (10.0 km/h / 6.2 mph) than the Ford 1910 (A) (both top speed forward, as stated by the source).
- The Ford 1910 (A) is available with four-wheel drive; the WHITE 2-35 is two-wheel drive (as stated by the sources).
- Even on PTO speeds: the same speeds (540 rpm).
- Same era: production began within 5 years of each other. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts.
- Not comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the 1910 (A) has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 2-35 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft.
- Not comparable on three-point lift: the 1910 (A): lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source (Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 1910”); the 2-35: lift 610 mm behind the hitch ends, as stated by the source (Traktorenlexikon, “White 2-35”) — not the same quantity, basis and condition.
- 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