Ford 7840 (A) or New Holland 8160?
Which should you choose?
The data can’t decide this. Power at the PTO shaft cannot be compared: the 7840 (A) has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 8160 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft.
- The New Holland 8160 suits loader and hydraulic implement work better on this data: 174% (63.2 L/min / 16.7 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 | 7840 (A) | 8160 | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 73.5 kW (98.6 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 7840” | 73.5 kW (98.6 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “New Holland 8160” | Not comparableNot comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the 7840 (A) has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 8160 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 7840 (A) and the 8160. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the 7840 (A) and the 8160. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | 36.4 L/min (9.6 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 7840” | 99.6 L/min (26.3 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “New Holland 8160” | AheadThe New Holland 8160 has 174% more hydraulic flow (63.2 L/min / 16.7 gpm) than the Ford 7840 (A) (both pump flow, as stated by the source). |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | 4,682 kg (10,322 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 7840” | 4,900 kg (10,803 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “New Holland 8160” | EvenEven on three-point lift (both lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source): the difference is under the 10% threshold, too small to call. |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 4,240 kg (9,348 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 7840” | 5,250 kg (11,574 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “New Holland 8160” | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The New Holland 8160 is 24% heavier (1,010 kg / 2,227 lb) than the Ford 7840 (A) (both unladen weight, as stated by the source). |
| Which may carry more ballast and load? | — | 7,500 kg (16,535 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “New Holland 8160” | No figureNo call on maximum permissible mass: no figure on record for the 7840 (A). |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 12 to 16Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 7840” | 18 to 24Traktorenlexikon, “New Holland 8160” | 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 7840 (A) and the 8160. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 30 km/h (18.6 mph) to 40 km/h (24.9 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 7840” | 30 km/h (18.6 mph) to 40 km/h (24.9 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “New Holland 8160” | 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 rpm / 1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Ford 7840” | 540/1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “New Holland 8160” | EvenEven on PTO speeds: the same speeds (540, 1000 rpm). |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | — | independentTraktorenlexikon, “New Holland 8160” | No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the 7840 (A). |
| Which drives on both axles? | Two-wheel or four-wheel driveTraktorenlexikon, “Ford 7840” | 4WDTraktorenlexikon, “New Holland 8160” | EvenEven on drive: every machine is available with four-wheel drive. |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1991–1998 | 1996–1999 | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The New Holland 8160 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 New Holland 8160 has 174% more hydraulic flow (63.2 L/min / 16.7 gpm) than the Ford 7840 (A) (both pump flow, as stated by the source).
- The New Holland 8160 is 24% heavier (1,010 kg / 2,227 lb) than the Ford 7840 (A) (both unladen weight, as stated by the source).
- The New Holland 8160 is newer: production began 5 years later. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts.
- Even on three-point lift (both lift at the hitch ends, 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 top speed (both top speed forward, 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 7840 (A) has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 8160 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