Ford 5095 or Ford 9500?
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 9500 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft.
- The Ford 5095 suits road haulage better on this data: 25% (5.0 km/h / 3.1 mph) more top speed.
Generated by rule set compare@4 from the figures on the side-by-side table, allowed by route “similar machines”. 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 | 9500 | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 69.9 kW (93.7 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 5095” | 70 kW (94 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 9500” | 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 9500 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 9500. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the 5095 and the 9500. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | 22.7 L/min (6.0 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 5095” | 22.7 L/min (6.0 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 9500” | 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? | 3,100 kg (6,834 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 5095” | 3,500 kg (7,716 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 9500” | Not comparableNot comparable on three-point lift: the 5095: lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source (Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 5095”); the 9500: lift at an unstated point, as stated by the source (Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 9500”) — not the same quantity, basis and condition. |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 3,000 kg (6,614 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 5095” | 3,650 kg (8,047 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 9500” | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The Ford 9500 is 22% heavier (650 kg / 1,433 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 9500. |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 8Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 5095” | 7Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 9500” | 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 9500. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 25 km/h (15.5 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 5095” | 20 km/h (12.4 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 9500” | AheadThe Ford 5095 has 25% more top speed (5.0 km/h / 3.1 mph) than the Ford 9500 (both top speed forward, as stated by the source). |
| Which offers more PTO speeds? | 540 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Ford 5095” | 540 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Ford 9500” | EvenEven on PTO speeds: the same speeds (540 rpm). |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | independentTraktorenlexikon, “Ford 5095” | — | No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the 9500. |
| Which drives on both axles? | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Ford 5095” | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Ford 9500” | EvenEven on drive: all two-wheel drive. |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1968–1975 | 1968–1975 | 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 9500 is 22% heavier (650 kg / 1,433 lb) than the Ford 5095 (both unladen weight, as stated by the source).
- The Ford 5095 has 25% more top speed (5.0 km/h / 3.1 mph) than the Ford 9500 (both top speed forward, as stated by the source).
- 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 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.
- 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 9500 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft.
- Not comparable on three-point lift: the 5095: lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source (Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 5095”); the 9500: lift at an unstated point, as stated by the source (Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 9500”) — 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