Ford FW-30 or International Harvester 4786?
Which should you choose?
The data can’t decide this. Power at the PTO shaft cannot be compared: the FW-30 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 4786 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft.
- The Ford FW-30 suits road haulage better on this data: 20% (5.0 km/h / 3.1 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 | FW-30 | 4786 | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 197.7 kW (265.1 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford FW-30” | 192.7 kW (258.4 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “IHC 4786” | Not comparableNot comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the FW-30 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 4786 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 FW-30 and the 4786. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the FW-30 and the 4786. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | 75.7 L/min (20.0 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford FW-30” | 71.9 L/min (19.0 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “IHC 4786” | 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? | 5,670 kg (12,500 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford FW-30” | — | No figureNo call on three-point lift: no figure on record for the 4786. |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 14,200 kg (31,306 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford FW-30” | 13,699 kg (30,201 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “IHC 4786” | 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 FW-30 and the 4786. |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 10 to 20Traktorenlexikon, “Ford FW-30” | 10Traktorenlexikon, “IHC 4786” | 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 FW-30 and the 4786. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 30 km/h (18.6 mph) to 35 km/h (21.7 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford FW-30” | 25 km/h (15.5 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “IHC 4786” | AheadThe Ford FW-30 has 20% more top speed (5.0 km/h / 3.1 mph) than the International Harvester 4786 (both top speed forward, as stated by the source). |
| Which offers more PTO speeds? | 1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Ford FW-30” | 1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “IHC 4786” | EvenEven on PTO speeds: the same speeds (1000 rpm). |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | — | — | No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the FW-30 and the 4786. |
| Which drives on both axles? | 4WDTraktorenlexikon, “Ford FW-30” | 4WDTraktorenlexikon, “IHC 4786” | EvenEven on drive: every machine is available with four-wheel drive. |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1977–1982 | 1978–1981 | 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 FW-30 has 20% more top speed (5.0 km/h / 3.1 mph) than the International Harvester 4786 (both top speed forward, as stated by the source).
- 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 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 PTO speeds: the same speeds (1000 rpm).
- Even on drive: every machine is available with four-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.
- Not comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the FW-30 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 4786 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 and PTO independence.
← Every figure for both machines, side by side, with sources