Ford 2120 (A) or IMT 539?
Which should you choose?
The data can’t decide this. Power at the PTO shaft cannot be compared: the 2120 (A) has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 539 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft.
- The Ford 2120 (A) suits loader and hydraulic implement work better on this data: 134% (21.5 L/min / 5.7 gpm) more hydraulic flow and 110% (1,120 kg / 2,469 lb) more three-point lift.
Generated by rule set compare@4 from the figures on the side-by-side table, allowed by route “similar machines”. 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 | 2120 (A) | 539 | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 29.4 kW (39.4 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 2120” | 28.7 kW (38.5 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “IMT 539” | Not comparableNot comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the 2120 (A) has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 539 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 2120 (A) and the 539. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the 2120 (A) and the 539. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | 37.5 L/min (9.9 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 2120” | 16.0 L/min (4.2 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “IMT 539” | AheadThe Ford 2120 (A) has 134% more hydraulic flow (21.5 L/min / 5.7 gpm) than the IMT 539 (both pump flow, as stated by the source). |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | 2,140 kg (4,718 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 2120” | 1,020 kg (2,249 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “IMT 539” | AheadThe Ford 2120 (A) has 110% more lift (1,120 kg / 2,469 lb) than the IMT 539 (both lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source). |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 1,620 kg (3,571 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 2120” | 1,440 kg (3,175 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “IMT 539” | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The Ford 2120 (A) is 13% heavier (180 kg / 397 lb) than the IMT 539 (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 2120 (A) and the 539. |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 12Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 2120” | 6Traktorenlexikon, “IMT 539” | AheadThe Ford 2120 (A) has 100% more forward gears (6 gears) than the IMT 539 (both forward gears, as stated by the source). |
| Which offers a creeper range? | — | — | No figureNo call on a creeper range: not stated for the 2120 (A) and the 539. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 25 km/h (15.5 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 2120” | 24 km/h (14.9 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “IMT 539” | 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 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Ford 2120” | 540 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “IMT 539” | EvenEven on PTO speeds: the same speeds (540 rpm). |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | independentTraktorenlexikon, “Ford 2120” | — | No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the 539. |
| Which drives on both axles? | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Ford 2120” | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “IMT 539” | EvenEven on drive: all two-wheel drive. |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1987–1991 | 1980–1990 | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The Ford 2120 (A) is newer: production began 7 years later. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts. |
What does this mean in plain words?
- The Ford 2120 (A) has 134% more hydraulic flow (21.5 L/min / 5.7 gpm) than the IMT 539 (both pump flow, as stated by the source).
- The Ford 2120 (A) has 110% more lift (1,120 kg / 2,469 lb) than the IMT 539 (both lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source).
- The Ford 2120 (A) is 13% heavier (180 kg / 397 lb) than the IMT 539 (both unladen weight, as stated by the source).
- The Ford 2120 (A) has 100% more forward gears (6 gears) than the IMT 539 (both forward gears, as stated by the source).
- The Ford 2120 (A) is newer: production began 7 years later. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts.
- 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 rpm).
- Even on drive: all two-wheel drive.
- Not comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the 2120 (A) has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 539 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, maximum permissible mass, a creeper range and PTO independence.
← Every figure for both machines, side by side, with sources