Ford 5000 Diesel or Nuffield 10/60?
Which should you choose?
On performance, every comparable figure that differs favours the Nuffield 10/60: hydraulic flow. It is also ahead on forward gears.
- The Nuffield 10/60 suits loader and hydraulic implement work better on this data: 56% (12.6 L/min / 3.3 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 | 5000 Diesel | 10/60 | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 32.0 kW (42.9 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 5000 Diesel” | 32.2 kW (43.2 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Nuffield 10/60 (1964-1967)” | 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 5000 Diesel and the 10/60. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the 5000 Diesel and the 10/60. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | 22.4 L/min (5.9 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 5000 Diesel” | 35.0 L/min (9.2 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Nuffield 10/60 (1964-1967)” | AheadThe Nuffield 10/60 has 56% more hydraulic flow (12.6 L/min / 3.3 gpm) than the Ford 5000 Diesel (both pump flow, as stated by the source). |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | 1,400 kg (3,086 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 5000 Diesel” | — | No figureNo call on three-point lift: no figure on record for the 10/60. |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 2,519 kg (5,553 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 5000 Diesel” | 2,660 kg (5,864 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Nuffield 10/60 (1964-1967)” | 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? | 4,000 kg (8,818 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 5000 Diesel” | — | No figureNo call on maximum permissible mass: no figure on record for the 10/60. |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 6Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 5000 Diesel” | 10Traktorenlexikon, “Nuffield 10/60 (1964-1967)” | AheadThe Nuffield 10/60 has 67% more forward gears (4 gears) than the Ford 5000 Diesel (both forward gears, as stated by the source). |
| Which offers a creeper range? | — | — | No figureNo call on a creeper range: not stated for the 5000 Diesel and the 10/60. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 25 km/h (15.5 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 5000 Diesel” | 25 km/h (15.5 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Nuffield 10/60 (1964-1967)” | 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 5000 Diesel” | 540 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Nuffield 10/60 (1964-1967)” | 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 5000 Diesel and the 10/60. |
| Which drives on both axles? | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Ford 5000 Diesel” | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Nuffield 10/60 (1964-1967)” | EvenEven on drive: all two-wheel drive. |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1962–1964 | 1964–1967 | 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 Nuffield 10/60 has 56% more hydraulic flow (12.6 L/min / 3.3 gpm) than the Ford 5000 Diesel (both pump flow, as stated by the source).
- The Nuffield 10/60 has 67% more forward gears (4 gears) than the Ford 5000 Diesel (both forward gears, as stated by the source).
- 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 weight (both unladen weight, as stated by the source): the difference is under the 10% 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).
- 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.
- 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