Ford 640 or MASSEY-HARRIS 203?
Which should you choose?
The data can’t decide this. Power at the PTO shaft cannot be compared: the 640 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 203 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft.
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 | 640 | 203 | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 23.8 kW (31.9 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 600” | 23.8 kW (31.9 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Massey-Harris Massey-Harris 203” | Not comparableNot comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the 640 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 203 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 640 and the 203. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the 640 and the 203. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | 10.2 L/min (2.7 gpm) to 22.7 L/min (6.0 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 600” | — | No figureNo call on hydraulic flow: no figure on record for the 203. |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | 567 kg (1,250 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 600” | — | No figureNo call on three-point lift: no figure on record for the 203. |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 1,369 kg (3,018 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 600” | 2,996 kg (6,605 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Massey-Harris Massey-Harris 203” | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The MASSEY-HARRIS 203 is 119% heavier (1,627 kg / 3,587 lb) than the Ford 640 (also listed as 600) (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 640 and the 203. |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 4 to 5Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 600” | 4Traktorenlexikon, “Massey-Harris Massey-Harris 203” | EvenEven on forward gears (both forward gears, as stated by the source): the figures vary by configuration and the ranges overlap. |
| Which offers a creeper range? | — | — | No figureNo call on a creeper range: not stated for the 640 and the 203. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 20 km/h (12.4 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 600” | 20 km/h (12.4 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Massey-Harris Massey-Harris 203” | 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 600” | 540 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Massey-Harris Massey-Harris 203” | 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 640 and the 203. |
| Which drives on both axles? | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Ford 600” | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Massey-Harris Massey-Harris 203” | EvenEven on drive: all two-wheel drive. |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1954–1957 | 1940–1947 | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The Ford 640 (also listed as 600) is newer: production began 14 years later. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts. |
What does this mean in plain words?
- The MASSEY-HARRIS 203 is 119% heavier (1,627 kg / 3,587 lb) than the Ford 640 (also listed as 600) (both unladen weight, as stated by the source).
- The Ford 640 (also listed as 600) is newer: production began 14 years later. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts.
- Even on forward gears (both forward gears, as stated by the source): the figures vary by configuration and the ranges overlap.
- 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.
- Not comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the 640 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 203 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, three-point lift, maximum permissible mass, a creeper range and PTO independence.
← Every figure for both machines, side by side, with sources