Ford 5095 or Ford 6.500 (A)?
Which should you choose?
The data can’t decide this. Power at the PTO shaft cannot be compared: the 5095 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 6.500 (A) has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft.
- The Ford 6.500 (A) suits loader and hydraulic implement work better on this data: 13% (400 kg / 882 lb) more three-point lift.
- The Ford 6.500 (A) suits heavy draft work (ploughing, cultivating) better on this data: 18% (550 kg / 1,213 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 | 5095 | 6.500 (A) | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 69.9 kW (93.7 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 5095” | 69.9 kW (93.7 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 6500” | Not comparableNot comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the 5095 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 6.500 (A) 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 5095 and the 6.500 (A). |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the 5095 and the 6.500 (A). |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | 22.7 L/min (6.0 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 5095” | — | No figureNo call on hydraulic flow: no figure on record for the 6.500 (A). |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | 3,100 kg (6,834 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 5095” | 3,500 kg (7,716 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 6500” | AheadThe Ford 6.500 (A) has 13% more lift (400 kg / 882 lb) than the Ford 5095 (both lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source). |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 3,000 kg (6,614 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 5095” | 3,550 kg (7,826 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 6500” | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The Ford 6.500 (A) is 18% heavier (550 kg / 1,213 lb) than the Ford 5095 (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 5095 and the 6.500 (A). |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 8Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 5095” | 8Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 6500” | 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 5095 and the 6.500 (A). |
| Which is faster on the road? | 25 km/h (15.5 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 5095” | 27 km/h (16.8 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 6500” | 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 5095” | 540 rpm / 1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Ford 6500” | AheadThe Ford 6.500 (A) offers 1000 rpm at the PTO, which the Ford 5095 does not (as stated by the sources). |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | independentTraktorenlexikon, “Ford 5095” | independentTraktorenlexikon, “Ford 6500” | EvenEven on PTO independence: every PTO is independent. |
| Which drives on both axles? | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Ford 5095” | Two-wheel or four-wheel driveTraktorenlexikon, “Ford 6500” | AheadThe Ford 6.500 (A) is available with four-wheel drive; the Ford 5095 is two-wheel drive (as stated by the sources). |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1968–1975 | 1968–1974 | 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 Ford 6.500 (A) has 13% more lift (400 kg / 882 lb) than the Ford 5095 (both lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source).
- The Ford 6.500 (A) is 18% heavier (550 kg / 1,213 lb) than the Ford 5095 (both unladen weight, as stated by the source).
- The Ford 6.500 (A) offers 1000 rpm at the PTO, which the Ford 5095 does not (as stated by the sources).
- The Ford 6.500 (A) is available with four-wheel drive; the Ford 5095 is two-wheel drive (as stated by the sources).
- 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 independence: every PTO is independent.
- 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 5095 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 6.500 (A) 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 and a creeper range.
← Every figure for both machines, side by side, with sources