Ford 8000 or International Harvester Farmall 856 (A)?
Which should you choose?
On performance, no comparable figure differs by more than its threshold: on this data the machines are level. On features, the International Harvester Farmall 856 (A) is ahead on PTO speeds.
- The International Harvester Farmall 856 (A) suits PTO-driven implements (mowers, balers, pumps) better on this data: offers 540 rpm.
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 | 8000 | Farmall 856 (A) | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 70.4 kW (94.4 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 8000” | 70.3 kW (94.3 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Farmall Farmall 856” | EvenEven on power at the PTO shaft (both power at the PTO, claimed): the difference is under the 10% threshold for claimed figures, too small to call. |
| 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 8000 and the Farmall 856 (A). |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the 8000 and the Farmall 856 (A). |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | 45.4 L/min (12.0 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 8000” | 45.5 L/min (12.0 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Farmall Farmall 856” | EvenEven on hydraulic flow (both pump flow, as stated by the source): the difference is under the 10% threshold, too small to call. |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | 3,200 kg (7,055 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 8000” | — | No figureNo call on three-point lift: no figure on record for the Farmall 856 (A). |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 4,526 kg (9,978 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 8000” | 3,856 kg (8,501 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Farmall Farmall 856” | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The Ford 8000 is 17% heavier (670 kg / 1,477 lb) than the International Harvester Farmall 856 (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 8000 and the Farmall 856 (A). |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 8 to 16Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 8000” | 8 to 16Traktorenlexikon, “Farmall Farmall 856” | 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 8000 and the Farmall 856 (A). |
| Which is faster on the road? | 30 km/h (18.6 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 8000” | 30 km/h (18.6 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Farmall Farmall 856” | 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? | 1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Ford 8000” | 540/1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Farmall Farmall 856” | AheadThe International Harvester Farmall 856 (A) offers 540 rpm at the PTO, which the Ford 8000 does not (as stated by the sources). |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | independentTraktorenlexikon, “Ford 8000” | — | No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the Farmall 856 (A). |
| Which drives on both axles? | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Ford 8000” | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Farmall Farmall 856” | EvenEven on drive: all two-wheel drive. |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1968–1972 | 1967–1971 | 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 Ford 8000 is 17% heavier (670 kg / 1,477 lb) than the International Harvester Farmall 856 (A) (both unladen weight, as stated by the source).
- The International Harvester Farmall 856 (A) offers 540 rpm at the PTO, which the Ford 8000 does not (as stated by the sources).
- Even on power at the PTO shaft (both power at the PTO, claimed): the difference is under the 10% threshold for claimed figures, too small to call.
- Even on hydraulic flow (both pump flow, 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 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 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.
- 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