Ford 4000 (A) 6X/6Y or International Harvester Farmall 544?
Which should you choose?
The data can’t decide this. Power at the PTO shaft cannot be compared: the 4000 (A) 6X/6Y has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the Farmall 544 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft.
- The International Harvester Farmall 544 suits loader and hydraulic implement work better on this data: 126% (25.3 L/min / 6.7 gpm) more hydraulic flow.
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 | 4000 (A) 6X/6Y | Farmall 544 | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 38.2 kW (51.2 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 4000” | 38.2 kW (51.2 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Farmall Farmall 544” | Not comparableNot comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the 4000 (A) 6X/6Y has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the Farmall 544 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 4000 (A) 6X/6Y and the Farmall 544. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the 4000 (A) 6X/6Y and the Farmall 544. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | 20.1 L/min (5.3 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 4000” | 45.4 L/min (12.0 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Farmall Farmall 544” | AheadThe International Harvester Farmall 544 has 126% more hydraulic flow (25.3 L/min / 6.7 gpm) than the Ford 4000 (A) 6X/6Y (both pump flow, as stated by the source). |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | 1,452 kg (3,201 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 4000” | — | No figureNo call on three-point lift: no figure on record for the Farmall 544. |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 2,077 kg (4,579 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 4000” | 2,766 kg (6,098 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Farmall Farmall 544” | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The International Harvester Farmall 544 is 33% heavier (689 kg / 1,519 lb) than the Ford 4000 (A) 6X/6Y (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 4000 (A) 6X/6Y and the Farmall 544. |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 8 to 10 forwardTraktorenlexikon, “Ford 4000” | Stepless (CVT)Traktorenlexikon, “Farmall Farmall 544” | DifferTransmissions differ in kind: the Ford 4000 (A) 6X/6Y has 8 to 10 forward gears and the International Harvester Farmall 544 is stepless (CVT) — not called. |
| Which offers a creeper range? | — | — | No figureNo call on a creeper range: not stated for the 4000 (A) 6X/6Y and the Farmall 544. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 20 km/h (12.4 mph) to 30 km/h (18.6 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 4000” | 30 km/h (18.6 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Farmall Farmall 544” | 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 4000” | 540/1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Farmall Farmall 544” | AheadThe International Harvester Farmall 544 offers 1000 rpm at the PTO, which the Ford 4000 (A) 6X/6Y does not (as stated by the sources). |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | — | dependent (stops with the clutch)Traktorenlexikon, “Farmall Farmall 544” | No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the 4000 (A) 6X/6Y. |
| Which drives on both axles? | 2WD / 4WDTraktorenlexikon, “Ford 4000” | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Farmall Farmall 544” | AheadThe Ford 4000 (A) 6X/6Y is available with four-wheel drive; the International Harvester Farmall 544 is two-wheel drive (as stated by the sources). |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1964–1975 | 1968–1973 | 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?
- The International Harvester Farmall 544 has 126% more hydraulic flow (25.3 L/min / 6.7 gpm) than the Ford 4000 (A) 6X/6Y (both pump flow, as stated by the source).
- The International Harvester Farmall 544 is 33% heavier (689 kg / 1,519 lb) than the Ford 4000 (A) 6X/6Y (both unladen weight, as stated by the source).
- The International Harvester Farmall 544 offers 1000 rpm at the PTO, which the Ford 4000 (A) 6X/6Y does not (as stated by the sources).
- The Ford 4000 (A) 6X/6Y is available with four-wheel drive; the International Harvester Farmall 544 is two-wheel drive (as stated by the sources).
- Transmissions differ in kind: the Ford 4000 (A) 6X/6Y has 8 to 10 forward gears and the International Harvester Farmall 544 is stepless (CVT) — not called.
- Even on top speed (both top speed forward, as stated by the source): the figures vary by configuration and the ranges overlap.
- 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 4000 (A) 6X/6Y has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the Farmall 544 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, three-point lift, maximum permissible mass, a creeper range and PTO independence.
← Every figure for both machines, side by side, with sources