Ford 9 N or International Harvester Super FC-D?
Which should you choose?
The data can’t decide this. Power at the PTO shaft cannot be compared: the 9 N has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the Super FC-D has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft.
- The International Harvester Super FC-D suits loader and hydraulic implement work better on this data: 44% (5.3 L/min / 1.4 gpm) more hydraulic flow.
- The Ford 9N suits road haulage better on this data: 12% (2.0 km/h / 1.2 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 | 9 N | Super FC-D | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 17.6 kW (23.6 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 9N” | 18 kW (24 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “McCormick Super-FC-D” | Not comparableNot comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the 9 N has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the Super FC-D 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 9 N and the Super FC-D. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the 9 N and the Super FC-D. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | 12.0 L/min (3.2 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 9N” | 17.3 L/min (4.6 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “McCormick Super-FC-D” | AheadThe International Harvester Super FC-D has 44% more hydraulic flow (5.3 L/min / 1.4 gpm) than the Ford 9N (both pump flow, as stated by the source). |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | 362 kg (798 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 9N” | — | No figureNo call on three-point lift: no figure on record for the Super FC-D. |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 1,061 kg (2,339 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 9N” | 1,630 kg (3,594 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “McCormick Super-FC-D” | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The International Harvester Super FC-D is 54% heavier (569 kg / 1,254 lb) than the Ford 9N (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 9 N and the Super FC-D. |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 3Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 9N” | 4Traktorenlexikon, “McCormick Super-FC-D” | EvenEven on forward gears (both forward gears, as stated by the source): fewer than 2 gears apart. |
| Which offers a creeper range? | — | — | No figureNo call on a creeper range: not stated for the 9 N and the Super FC-D. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 19 km/h (11.8 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 9N” | 17 km/h (10.6 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “McCormick Super-FC-D” | AheadThe Ford 9N has 12% more top speed (2.0 km/h / 1.2 mph) than the International Harvester Super FC-D (both top speed forward, as stated by the source). |
| Which offers more PTO speeds? | 540 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Ford 9N” | 539 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “McCormick Super-FC-D” | No figureNo call on PTO speeds: no standard PTO speed stated for the Super FC-D. |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | — | dependent (stops with the clutch)Traktorenlexikon, “McCormick Super-FC-D” | No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the 9 N. |
| Which drives on both axles? | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Ford 9N” | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “McCormick Super-FC-D” | EvenEven on drive: all two-wheel drive. |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1939–1942 | 1953–1957 | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The International Harvester Super FC-D is newer: production began 14 years later. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts. |
What does this mean in plain words?
- The International Harvester Super FC-D has 44% more hydraulic flow (5.3 L/min / 1.4 gpm) than the Ford 9N (both pump flow, as stated by the source).
- The International Harvester Super FC-D is 54% heavier (569 kg / 1,254 lb) than the Ford 9N (both unladen weight, as stated by the source).
- The Ford 9N has 12% more top speed (2.0 km/h / 1.2 mph) than the International Harvester Super FC-D (both top speed forward, as stated by the source).
- The International Harvester Super FC-D is newer: production began 14 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): fewer than 2 gears apart.
- Even on drive: all two-wheel drive.
- Not comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the 9 N has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the Super FC-D 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, three-point lift, maximum permissible mass, a creeper range, PTO speeds and PTO independence.
← Every figure for both machines, side by side, with sources