Ford 2000 (USA) or Renault 361?

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 361 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft.

  • The Ford 2000 (USA) suits road haulage better on this data: 12% (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?

Buyer questions for Ford 2000 (USA) and Renault 361, with the call on each
Question2000 (USA)361Call
Which puts more power through the PTO shaft?26.3 kW (35.3 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 2000 (USA)”26.5 kW (35.5 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Renault 361 R7421”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 361 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 361.
Which pulls harder at the drawbar?No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the 2000 (USA) and the 361.
Which pumps more oil for implements?25.9 L/min (6.8 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Renault 361 R7421”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)”2,040 kg (4,497 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Renault 361 R7421”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 361: lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source (Traktorenlexikon, “Renault 361 R7421”) — not the same quantity, basis and condition.
Which is heavier, for traction?1,369 kg (3,018 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 2000 (USA)”2,185 kg (4,817 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Renault 361 R7421”Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The Renault 361 is 60% heavier (816 kg / 1,799 lb) than the Ford 2000 (USA) (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 2000 (USA) and the 361.
Which has the wider choice of gears?4 to 12Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 2000 (USA)”10Traktorenlexikon, “Renault 361 R7421”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?YesTraktorenlexikon, “Renault 361 R7421”No figureNo call on a creeper range: not stated for the 2000 (USA).
Which is faster on the road?28 km/h (17.4 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 2000 (USA)”25 km/h (15.5 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Renault 361 R7421”AheadThe Ford 2000 (USA) has 12% more top speed (3.0 km/h / 1.9 mph) than the Renault 361 (both top speed forward, as stated by the source).
Which offers more PTO speeds?540/1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Ford 2000 (USA)”540 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Renault 361 R7421”AheadThe Ford 2000 (USA) offers 1000 rpm at the PTO, which the Renault 361 does not (as stated by the sources).
Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive?independentTraktorenlexikon, “Ford 2000 (USA)”independentTraktorenlexikon, “Renault 361 R7421”EvenEven on PTO independence: every PTO is independent.
Which drives on both axles?2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Ford 2000 (USA)”2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Renault 361 R7421”EvenEven on drive: all two-wheel drive.
Which is newer, and what about parts?1962–19651972–1977Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The Renault 361 is newer: production began 10 years later. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts.

What does this mean in plain words?

  • The Renault 361 is 60% heavier (816 kg / 1,799 lb) than the Ford 2000 (USA) (both unladen weight, as stated by the source).
  • The Ford 2000 (USA) has 12% more top speed (3.0 km/h / 1.9 mph) than the Renault 361 (both top speed forward, as stated by the source).
  • The Ford 2000 (USA) offers 1000 rpm at the PTO, which the Renault 361 does not (as stated by the sources).
  • The Renault 361 is newer: production began 10 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 figures vary by configuration and the ranges overlap.
  • Even on PTO independence: every PTO is independent.
  • Even on drive: all two-wheel drive.
  • 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 361 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 361: lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source (Traktorenlexikon, “Renault 361 R7421”) — 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