Ford 2000 (USA) or Güldner G 40 (Toledo)?
Which should you choose?
The data can’t decide this. Power at the PTO shaft cannot be compared: the 2000 (USA) has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the G 40 (Toledo) has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft.
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 | 2000 (USA) | G 40 (Toledo) | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 26.3 kW (35.3 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 2000 (USA)” | 26.35 kW (35.34 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Güldner G 40 Toledo” | Not comparableNot comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the 2000 (USA) has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the G 40 (Toledo) 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 2000 (USA) and the G 40 (Toledo). |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the 2000 (USA) and the G 40 (Toledo). |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | — | 16.0 L/min (4.2 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Güldner G 40 Toledo” | No figureNo call on hydraulic flow: no figure on record for the 2000 (USA). |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | 567 kg (1,250 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 2000 (USA)” | 1,700 kg (3,748 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Güldner G 40 Toledo” | Not comparableNot comparable on three-point lift: the 2000 (USA): lift through the full range at the hitch ends, as stated by the source (Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 2000 (USA)”); the G 40 (Toledo): lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source (Traktorenlexikon, “Güldner G 40 Toledo”) — not the same quantity, basis and condition. |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 1,369 kg (3,018 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 2000 (USA)” | 2,015 kg (4,442 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Güldner G 40 Toledo” | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The Güldner G 40 (Toledo) is 47% heavier (646 kg / 1,424 lb) than the Ford 2000 (USA) (both unladen weight, as stated by the source). |
| Which may carry more ballast and load? | — | 2,053 kg (4,526 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Güldner G 40 Toledo” | No figureNo call on maximum permissible mass: no figure on record for the 2000 (USA). |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 4 to 12Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 2000 (USA)” | 8Traktorenlexikon, “Güldner G 40 Toledo” | EvenEven on forward gears (both forward gears, as stated by the source): the figures vary by configuration and the ranges overlap. |
| Which offers a creeper range? | — | — | No figureNo call on a creeper range: not stated for the 2000 (USA) and the G 40 (Toledo). |
| Which is faster on the road? | 28 km/h (17.4 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 2000 (USA)” | 20 km/h (12.4 mph) to 30 km/h (18.6 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Güldner G 40 Toledo” | EvenEven on top speed (both top speed forward, as stated by the source): the figures vary by configuration and the ranges overlap. |
| Which offers more PTO speeds? | 540/1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Ford 2000 (USA)” | 540/1150 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Güldner G 40 Toledo” | AheadThe Ford 2000 (USA) offers 1000 rpm at the PTO, which the Güldner G 40 (Toledo) does not (as stated by the sources). |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | independentTraktorenlexikon, “Ford 2000 (USA)” | independentTraktorenlexikon, “Güldner G 40 Toledo” | EvenEven on PTO independence: every PTO is independent. |
| Which drives on both axles? | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Ford 2000 (USA)” | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Güldner G 40 Toledo” | EvenEven on drive: all two-wheel drive. |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1962–1965 | 1962 | 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 Güldner G 40 (Toledo) is 47% heavier (646 kg / 1,424 lb) than the Ford 2000 (USA) (both unladen weight, as stated by the source).
- The Ford 2000 (USA) offers 1000 rpm at the PTO, which the Güldner G 40 (Toledo) does not (as stated by the sources).
- Even on forward gears (both forward gears, as stated by the source): the figures vary by configuration and the ranges overlap.
- Even on top speed (both top speed forward, as stated by the source): the figures vary by configuration and the ranges overlap.
- Even on PTO independence: every PTO is independent.
- Even on drive: all two-wheel drive.
- 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 2000 (USA) has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the G 40 (Toledo) 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 2000 (USA): lift through the full range at the hitch ends, as stated by the source (Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 2000 (USA)”); the G 40 (Toledo): lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source (Traktorenlexikon, “Güldner G 40 Toledo”) — 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, hydraulic flow, maximum permissible mass and a creeper range.
← Every figure for both machines, side by side, with sources