Ford 5610 or International Harvester Hydro 86?
Which should you choose?
The data can’t decide this. Power at the PTO shaft cannot be compared: the 5610 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the Hydro 86 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft.
- The International Harvester Hydro 86 suits loader and hydraulic implement work better on this data: 25% (9.1 L/min / 2.4 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 | 5610 | Hydro 86 | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 53 kW (71 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 5610” | 53 kW (71 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “IHC Hydro 86” | Not comparableNot comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the 5610 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the Hydro 86 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 5610 and the Hydro 86. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the 5610 and the Hydro 86. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | 36.4 L/min (9.6 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 5610” | 45.5 L/min (12.0 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “IHC Hydro 86” | AheadThe International Harvester Hydro 86 has 25% more hydraulic flow (9.1 L/min / 2.4 gpm) than the Ford 5610 (both pump flow, as stated by the source). |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | — | — | No figureNo call on three-point lift: no figure on record for the 5610 and the Hydro 86. |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 2,743 kg (6,047 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 5610” | 3,704 kg (8,166 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “IHC Hydro 86” | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The International Harvester Hydro 86 is 35% heavier (961 kg / 2,119 lb) than the Ford 5610 (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 5610 and the Hydro 86. |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 8 to 16 forwardTraktorenlexikon, “Ford 5610” | Stepless (CVT)Traktorenlexikon, “IHC Hydro 86” | DifferTransmissions differ in kind: the Ford 5610 has 8 to 16 forward gears and the International Harvester Hydro 86 is stepless (CVT) — not called. |
| Which offers a creeper range? | — | — | No figureNo call on a creeper range: not stated for the 5610 and the Hydro 86. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 30 km/h (18.6 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 5610” | 30 km/h (18.6 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “IHC Hydro 86” | 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? | 540/1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Ford 5610” | 540 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “IHC Hydro 86” | AheadThe Ford 5610 offers 1000 rpm at the PTO, which the International Harvester Hydro 86 does not (as stated by the sources). |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | independentTraktorenlexikon, “Ford 5610” | — | No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the Hydro 86. |
| Which drives on both axles? | 2WD / 4WDTraktorenlexikon, “Ford 5610” | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “IHC Hydro 86” | AheadThe Ford 5610 is available with four-wheel drive; the International Harvester Hydro 86 is two-wheel drive (as stated by the sources). |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1981–1991 | 1976–1980 | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The Ford 5610 is newer: production began 5 years later. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts. |
What does this mean in plain words?
- The International Harvester Hydro 86 has 25% more hydraulic flow (9.1 L/min / 2.4 gpm) than the Ford 5610 (both pump flow, as stated by the source).
- The International Harvester Hydro 86 is 35% heavier (961 kg / 2,119 lb) than the Ford 5610 (both unladen weight, as stated by the source).
- The Ford 5610 offers 1000 rpm at the PTO, which the International Harvester Hydro 86 does not (as stated by the sources).
- The Ford 5610 is available with four-wheel drive; the International Harvester Hydro 86 is two-wheel drive (as stated by the sources).
- The Ford 5610 is newer: production began 5 years later. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts.
- Transmissions differ in kind: the Ford 5610 has 8 to 16 forward gears and the International Harvester Hydro 86 is stepless (CVT) — not called.
- Even on top speed (both top speed forward, as stated by the source): the difference is under the 10% threshold, too small to call.
- Not comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the 5610 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the Hydro 86 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