Ford 2600 or Güldner G 40 (S)?
Which should you choose?
The data can’t decide this. Power at the PTO shaft cannot be compared: the 2600 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the G 40 (S) has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft.
- The Güldner G 40 (S) suits loader and hydraulic implement work better on this data: 17% (220 kg / 485 lb) more three-point lift.
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 | G 40 (S) | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 27.9 kW (37.4 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 2600” | 27.8 kW (37.3 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Güldner G 40” | Not comparableNot comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the 2600 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the G 40 (S) 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 2600 and the G 40 (S). |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the 2600 and the G 40 (S). |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | 31.4 L/min (8.3 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 2600” | — | No figureNo call on hydraulic flow: no figure on record for the G 40 (S). |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | 1,270 kg (2,800 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 2600” | 1,490 kg (3,285 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Güldner G 40” | AheadThe Güldner G 40 (S) has 17% more lift (220 kg / 485 lb) than the Ford 2600 (both lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source). |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 1,731 kg (3,816 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 2600” | 2,345 kg (5,170 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Güldner G 40” | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The Güldner G 40 (S) is 35% heavier (614 kg / 1,354 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 G 40 (S). |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 8Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 2600” | 8Traktorenlexikon, “Güldner G 40” | 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? | — | YesTraktorenlexikon, “Güldner G 40” | No figureNo call on a creeper range: not stated for the 2600. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 30 km/h (18.6 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 2600” | 20 km/h (12.4 mph) to 30 km/h (18.6 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Güldner G 40” | 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 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Ford 2600” | 540/1150 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Güldner G 40” | EvenEven on PTO speeds: the same speeds (540 rpm). |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | — | — | No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the 2600 and the G 40 (S). |
| Which drives on both axles? | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Ford 2600” | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Güldner G 40” | EvenEven on drive: all two-wheel drive. |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1975–1981 | 1963–1969 | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The Ford 2600 is newer: production began 12 years later. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts. |
What does this mean in plain words?
- The Güldner G 40 (S) has 17% more lift (220 kg / 485 lb) than the Ford 2600 (both lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source).
- The Güldner G 40 (S) is 35% heavier (614 kg / 1,354 lb) than the Ford 2600 (both unladen weight, as stated by the source).
- The Ford 2600 is newer: production began 12 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 difference is under the 25% threshold, too small to call.
- 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 speeds: the same speeds (540 rpm).
- Even on drive: all two-wheel drive.
- Not comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the 2600 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the G 40 (S) 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, hydraulic flow, maximum permissible mass, a creeper range and PTO independence.
← Every figure for both machines, side by side, with sources