Ford 6000 or International Harvester 656?
Which should you choose?
The data can’t decide this. Power at the PTO shaft cannot be compared: the 6000 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 656 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft.
- The International Harvester 656 suits loader and hydraulic implement work better on this data: 168% (28.5 L/min / 7.5 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 | 6000 | 656 | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 48.1 kW (64.5 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 6000” | 47.8 kW (64.1 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “IHC 656” | Not comparableNot comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the 6000 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 656 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 6000 and the 656. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the 6000 and the 656. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | 17.0 L/min (4.5 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 6000” | 45.5 L/min (12.0 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “IHC 656” | AheadThe International Harvester 656 has 168% more hydraulic flow (28.5 L/min / 7.5 gpm) than the Ford 6000 (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 6000 and the 656. |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 3,277 kg (7,225 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 6000” | 2,630 kg (5,798 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “IHC 656” | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The Ford 6000 is 25% heavier (647 kg / 1,426 lb) than the International Harvester 656 (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 6000 and the 656. |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 10 forwardTraktorenlexikon, “Ford 6000” | Stepless (CVT)Traktorenlexikon, “IHC 656” | DifferTransmissions differ in kind: the Ford 6000 has 10 forward gears and the International Harvester 656 is stepless (CVT) — not called. |
| Which offers a creeper range? | — | — | No figureNo call on a creeper range: not stated for the 6000 and the 656. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 30 km/h (18.6 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 6000” | 25 km/h (15.5 mph) to 34 km/h (21.1 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “IHC 656” | EvenEven on top speed (both top speed forward, as stated by the source): the figures vary by configuration and the ranges overlap. |
| Which offers more PTO speeds? | 540 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Ford 6000” | 540/1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “IHC 656” | AheadThe International Harvester 656 offers 1000 rpm at the PTO, which the Ford 6000 does not (as stated by the sources). |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | — | dependent (stops with the clutch)Traktorenlexikon, “IHC 656” | No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the 6000. |
| Which drives on both axles? | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Ford 6000” | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “IHC 656” | EvenEven on drive: all two-wheel drive. |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1961–1964 | 1965–1972 | 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 International Harvester 656 has 168% more hydraulic flow (28.5 L/min / 7.5 gpm) than the Ford 6000 (both pump flow, as stated by the source).
- The Ford 6000 is 25% heavier (647 kg / 1,426 lb) than the International Harvester 656 (both unladen weight, as stated by the source).
- The International Harvester 656 offers 1000 rpm at the PTO, which the Ford 6000 does not (as stated by the sources).
- Transmissions differ in kind: the Ford 6000 has 10 forward gears and the International Harvester 656 is stepless (CVT) — not called.
- Even on top speed (both top speed forward, as stated by the source): the figures vary by configuration and the ranges overlap.
- 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 6000 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 656 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