Ford 6600 (A) or Renault 80-14 TX?
Which should you choose?
The data can’t decide this. Power at the PTO shaft cannot be compared: the 6600 (A) has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 80-14 TX has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft.
- The Renault 80-14 TX suits loader and hydraulic implement work better on this data: 18% (6.4 L/min / 1.7 gpm) more hydraulic flow and 78% (1,670 kg / 3,682 lb) more three-point lift.
- The Renault 80-14 TX suits road haulage better on this data: 20% (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 “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 | 6600 (A) | 80-14 TX | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 57.4 kW (77.0 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 6600” | 57.4 kW (77.0 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Renault 80-14 TX R7762” | Not comparableNot comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the 6600 (A) has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 80-14 TX 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 6600 (A) and the 80-14 TX. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the 6600 (A) and the 80-14 TX. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | 35.0 L/min (9.2 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 6600” | 41.4 L/min (10.9 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Renault 80-14 TX R7762” | AheadThe Renault 80-14 TX has 18% more hydraulic flow (6.4 L/min / 1.7 gpm) than the Ford 6600 (A) (both pump flow, as stated by the source). |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | 2,150 kg (4,740 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 6600” | 3,820 kg (8,422 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Renault 80-14 TX R7762” | AheadThe Renault 80-14 TX has 78% more lift (1,670 kg / 3,682 lb) than the Ford 6600 (A) (both lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source). |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 3,250 kg (7,165 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 6600” | 3,800 kg (8,378 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Renault 80-14 TX R7762” | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The Renault 80-14 TX is 17% heavier (550 kg / 1,213 lb) than the Ford 6600 (A) (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 6600 (A) and the 80-14 TX. |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 8 to 16Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 6600” | 8 to 16Traktorenlexikon, “Renault 80-14 TX R7762” | 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 6600 (A) and the 80-14 TX. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 25 km/h (15.5 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 6600” | 30 km/h (18.6 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Renault 80-14 TX R7762” | AheadThe Renault 80-14 TX has 20% more top speed (5.0 km/h / 3.1 mph) than the Ford 6600 (A) (both top speed forward, as stated by the source). |
| Which offers more PTO speeds? | 540/1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Ford 6600” | 540/1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Renault 80-14 TX R7762” | EvenEven on PTO speeds: the same speeds (540, 1000 rpm). |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | independentTraktorenlexikon, “Ford 6600” | — | No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the 80-14 TX. |
| Which drives on both axles? | Two-wheel or four-wheel driveTraktorenlexikon, “Ford 6600” | 4WDTraktorenlexikon, “Renault 80-14 TX R7762” | EvenEven on drive: every machine is available with four-wheel drive. |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1975–1981 | 1984–1987 | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The Renault 80-14 TX is newer: production began 9 years later. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts. |
What does this mean in plain words?
- The Renault 80-14 TX has 18% more hydraulic flow (6.4 L/min / 1.7 gpm) than the Ford 6600 (A) (both pump flow, as stated by the source).
- The Renault 80-14 TX has 78% more lift (1,670 kg / 3,682 lb) than the Ford 6600 (A) (both lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source).
- The Renault 80-14 TX is 17% heavier (550 kg / 1,213 lb) than the Ford 6600 (A) (both unladen weight, as stated by the source).
- The Renault 80-14 TX has 20% more top speed (5.0 km/h / 3.1 mph) than the Ford 6600 (A) (both top speed forward, as stated by the source).
- The Renault 80-14 TX is newer: production began 9 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 PTO speeds: the same speeds (540, 1000 rpm).
- Even on drive: every machine is available with four-wheel drive.
- Not comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the 6600 (A) has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 80-14 TX 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, maximum permissible mass, a creeper range and PTO independence.
← Every figure for both machines, side by side, with sources