Ford 2600 or Ford 3230 (A)?
Which should you choose?
On performance, no comparable figure differs by more than its threshold: on this data the machines are level. On features, the Ford 3230 (A) is ahead on drive.
- The Ford 3230 (A) suits heavy draft work (ploughing, cultivating) better on this data: 41% (706 kg / 1,556 lb) heavier and four-wheel drive.
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 | 2600 | 3230 (A) | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 22.8 kW (30.6 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 2600” | 23.1 kW (31.0 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 3230” | EvenEven on power at the PTO shaft (both power at the PTO, claimed): the difference is under the 10% threshold for claimed figures, too small to call. |
| 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 2600 and the 3230 (A). |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the 2600 and the 3230 (A). |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | 31.4 L/min (8.3 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 2600” | 30.3 L/min (8.0 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 3230” | EvenEven on hydraulic flow (both pump flow, as stated by the source): the difference is under the 10% threshold, too small to call. |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | 1,270 kg (2,800 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 2600” | 1,387 kg (3,058 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 3230” | Not comparableNot comparable on three-point lift: the 2600: lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source (Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 2600”); the 3230 (A): lift through the full range at an unstated point, as stated by the source (Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 3230”) — not the same quantity, basis and condition. |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 1,731 kg (3,816 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 2600” | 2,437 kg (5,373 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 3230” | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The Ford 3230 (A) is 41% heavier (706 kg / 1,556 lb) than the Ford 2600 (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 2600 and the 3230 (A). |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 8Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 2600” | 8Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 3230” | EvenEven on forward gears (both forward gears, as stated by the source): the difference is under the 25% threshold, too small to call. |
| Which offers a creeper range? | — | — | No figureNo call on a creeper range: not stated for the 2600 and the 3230 (A). |
| Which is faster on the road? | 30 km/h (18.6 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 2600” | 30 km/h (18.6 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 3230” | 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 2600” | 540 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Ford 3230” | EvenEven on PTO speeds: the same speeds (540 rpm). |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | — | independentTraktorenlexikon, “Ford 3230” | No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the 2600. |
| Which drives on both axles? | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Ford 2600” | 2WD / 4WDTraktorenlexikon, “Ford 3230” | AheadThe Ford 3230 (A) is available with four-wheel drive; the Ford 2600 is two-wheel drive (as stated by the sources). |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1975–1981 | 1990–1994 | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The Ford 3230 (A) is newer: production began 15 years later. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts. |
What does this mean in plain words?
- The Ford 3230 (A) is 41% heavier (706 kg / 1,556 lb) than the Ford 2600 (both unladen weight, as stated by the source).
- The Ford 3230 (A) is available with four-wheel drive; the Ford 2600 is two-wheel drive (as stated by the sources).
- The Ford 3230 (A) is newer: production began 15 years later. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts.
- Even on power at the PTO shaft (both power at the PTO, claimed): the difference is under the 10% threshold for claimed figures, too small to call.
- Even on hydraulic flow (both pump flow, 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 difference is under the 25% threshold, too small to call.
- 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).
- Not comparable on three-point lift: the 2600: lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source (Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 2600”); the 3230 (A): lift through the full range at an unstated point, as stated by the source (Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 3230”) — 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