Ford 2000 (USA) or Warchalowski WT-40?
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 WT-40 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) | WT-40 | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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, “Warchalowski WT 40” | 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 WT-40 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 WT-40. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the 2000 (USA) and the WT-40. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | — | — | No figureNo call on hydraulic flow: no figure on record for the 2000 (USA) and the WT-40. |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | 567 kg (1,250 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 2000 (USA)” | 1,200 kg (2,646 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Warchalowski WT 40” | 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 WT-40: lift at an unstated point, as stated by the source (Traktorenlexikon, “Warchalowski WT 40”) — not the same quantity, basis and condition. |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 1,369 kg (3,018 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 2000 (USA)” | 1,380 kg (3,042 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Warchalowski WT 40” | EvenEven on weight (both unladen weight, as stated by the source): the difference is under the 10% threshold, too small to call. |
| Which may carry more ballast and load? | — | — | No figureNo call on maximum permissible mass: no figure on record for the 2000 (USA) and the WT-40. |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 4 to 12Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 2000 (USA)” | 8Traktorenlexikon, “Warchalowski WT 40” | 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 WT-40. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 28 km/h (17.4 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 2000 (USA)” | 29 km/h (18.0 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Warchalowski WT 40” | EvenEven on top speed (both top speed forward, as stated by the source): the difference is under the 10% threshold, too small to call. |
| Which offers more PTO speeds? | 540/1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Ford 2000 (USA)” | 540/1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Warchalowski WT 40” | EvenEven on PTO speeds: the same speeds (540, 1000 rpm). |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | independentTraktorenlexikon, “Ford 2000 (USA)” | independentTraktorenlexikon, “Warchalowski WT 40” | EvenEven on PTO independence: every PTO is independent. |
| Which drives on both axles? | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Ford 2000 (USA)” | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Warchalowski WT 40” | EvenEven on drive: all two-wheel drive. |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1962–1965 | 1958–1961 | 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?
- Even on weight (both unladen weight, as stated by the source): the difference is under the 10% threshold, too small to call.
- 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 difference is under the 10% threshold, too small to call.
- Even on PTO speeds: the same speeds (540, 1000 rpm).
- 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 WT-40 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 WT-40: lift at an unstated point, as stated by the source (Traktorenlexikon, “Warchalowski WT 40”) — 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