Ford 9000 or OLIVER 2655?
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 OLIVER 2655 is ahead on top speed and drive.
- The OLIVER 2655 suits heavy draft work (ploughing, cultivating) better on this data: 103% (4,559 kg / 10,051 lb) heavier and four-wheel drive.
- The OLIVER 2655 suits road haulage better on this data: 27% (8.0 km/h / 5.0 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 | 9000 | 2655 | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 94.0 kW (126.1 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 9000” | 93.5 kW (125.4 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Oliver 2655” | 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 9000 and the 2655. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the 9000 and the 2655. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | 60.6 L/min (16.0 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 9000” | 64.3 L/min (17.0 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Oliver 2655” | 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 9000” | — | No figureNo call on three-point lift: no figure on record for the 2655. |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 4,445 kg (9,800 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 9000” | 9,004 kg (19,850 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Oliver 2655” | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The OLIVER 2655 is 103% heavier (4,559 kg / 10,051 lb) than the Ford 9000 (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 9000 and the 2655. |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 8 to 16Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 9000” | 10Traktorenlexikon, “Oliver 2655” | 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 9000 and the 2655. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 30 km/h (18.6 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 9000” | 38 km/h (23.6 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Oliver 2655” | AheadThe OLIVER 2655 has 27% more top speed (8.0 km/h / 5.0 mph) than the Ford 9000 (both top speed forward, as stated by the source). |
| Which offers more PTO speeds? | 1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Ford 9000” | 1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Oliver 2655” | EvenEven on PTO speeds: the same speeds (1000 rpm). |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | independentTraktorenlexikon, “Ford 9000” | — | No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the 2655. |
| Which drives on both axles? | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Ford 9000” | 4WDTraktorenlexikon, “Oliver 2655” | AheadThe OLIVER 2655 is available with four-wheel drive; the Ford 9000 is two-wheel drive (as stated by the sources). |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1969–1972 | 1971–1972 | 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 2655 is 103% heavier (4,559 kg / 10,051 lb) than the Ford 9000 (both unladen weight, as stated by the source).
- The OLIVER 2655 has 27% more top speed (8.0 km/h / 5.0 mph) than the Ford 9000 (both top speed forward, as stated by the source).
- The OLIVER 2655 is available with four-wheel drive; the Ford 9000 is two-wheel drive (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 PTO speeds: the same speeds (1000 rpm).
- 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