Ford 8000 or OLIVER 1865?
Which should you choose?
On performance, every comparable figure that differs favours the OLIVER 1865: hydraulic flow.
- The OLIVER 1865 suits loader and hydraulic implement work better on this data: 45% (20.6 L/min / 5.4 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 | 8000 | 1865 | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 70.4 kW (94.4 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 8000” | 71.9 kW (96.5 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Oliver 1865” | 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 1865. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the 8000 and the 1865. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | 45.4 L/min (12.0 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 8000” | 66.0 L/min (17.4 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Oliver 1865” | AheadThe OLIVER 1865 has 45% more hydraulic flow (20.6 L/min / 5.4 gpm) than the Ford 8000 (both pump flow, as stated by the source). |
| 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 1865. |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 4,526 kg (9,978 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 8000” | 4,686 kg (10,331 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Oliver 1865” | EvenEven on weight (both unladen weight, as stated by the source): the difference is under the 10% threshold, too small to call. |
| Which may carry more ballast and load? | — | — | No figureNo call on maximum permissible mass: no figure on record for the 8000 and the 1865. |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 8 to 16Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 8000” | 10Traktorenlexikon, “Oliver 1865” | 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 1865. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 30 km/h (18.6 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 8000” | 30 km/h (18.6 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Oliver 1865” | 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” | 1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Oliver 1865” | EvenEven on PTO speeds: the same speeds (1000 rpm). |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | independentTraktorenlexikon, “Ford 8000” | — | No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the 1865. |
| Which drives on both axles? | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Ford 8000” | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Oliver 1865” | EvenEven on drive: all two-wheel drive. |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1968–1972 | 1969–1972 | 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 OLIVER 1865 has 45% more hydraulic flow (20.6 L/min / 5.4 gpm) than the Ford 8000 (both pump flow, as stated by the source).
- 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 weight (both unladen weight, 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 PTO speeds: the same speeds (1000 rpm).
- 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