Ford TW-20 (A) or Renault 155-54 TX?
Which should you choose?
The data can’t decide this. Power at the PTO shaft cannot be compared: the TW-20 (A) has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 155-54 TX has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft.
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 | TW-20 (A) | 155-54 TX | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 107.4 kW (144.0 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford TW 20” | 106.7 kW (143.1 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Renault 155-54 TE/TA/TS/TX/TZ R7952” | Not comparableNot comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the TW-20 (A) has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 155-54 TX 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 TW-20 (A) and the 155-54 TX. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the TW-20 (A) and the 155-54 TX. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | 60.6 L/min (16.0 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford TW 20” | 43.1 L/min (11.4 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Renault 155-54 TE/TA/TS/TX/TZ R7952” | AheadThe Ford TW-20 (A) has 41% more hydraulic flow (17.5 L/min / 4.6 gpm) than the Renault 155-54 TX (both pump flow, as stated by the source). |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | 3,680 kg (8,113 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford TW 20” | 8,850 kg (19,511 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Renault 155-54 TE/TA/TS/TX/TZ R7952” | AheadThe Renault 155-54 TX has 140% more lift (5,170 kg / 11,398 lb) than the Ford TW-20 (A) (both lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source). |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 5,828 kg (12,849 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford TW 20” | 6,750 kg (14,881 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Renault 155-54 TE/TA/TS/TX/TZ R7952” | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The Renault 155-54 TX is 16% heavier (922 kg / 2,033 lb) than the Ford TW-20 (A) (both unladen weight, as stated by the source). |
| Which may carry more ballast and load? | 8,165 kg (18,001 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford TW 20” | 8,500 kg (18,739 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Renault 155-54 TE/TA/TS/TX/TZ R7952” | EvenEven on maximum permissible mass (both maximum permissible mass, as stated by the source): the difference is under the 10% threshold, too small to call. |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 14 to 16Traktorenlexikon, “Ford TW 20” | 16Traktorenlexikon, “Renault 155-54 TE/TA/TS/TX/TZ R7952” | 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 TW-20 (A) and the 155-54 TX. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 25 km/h (15.5 mph) to 30 km/h (18.6 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford TW 20” | 30 km/h (18.6 mph) to 40 km/h (24.9 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Renault 155-54 TE/TA/TS/TX/TZ R7952” | EvenEven on top speed (both top speed forward, as stated by the source): the figures vary by configuration and the ranges overlap. |
| Which offers more PTO speeds? | 540/1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Ford TW 20” | 540/1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Renault 155-54 TE/TA/TS/TX/TZ R7952” | EvenEven on PTO speeds: the same speeds (540, 1000 rpm). |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | independentTraktorenlexikon, “Ford TW 20” | — | No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the 155-54 TX. |
| Which drives on both axles? | Two-wheel or four-wheel driveTraktorenlexikon, “Ford TW 20” | 4WDTraktorenlexikon, “Renault 155-54 TE/TA/TS/TX/TZ R7952” | EvenEven on drive: every machine is available with four-wheel drive. |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1979–1983 | 1989–1990 | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The Renault 155-54 TX is newer: production began 10 years later. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts. |
What does this mean in plain words?
- The Ford TW-20 (A) has 41% more hydraulic flow (17.5 L/min / 4.6 gpm) than the Renault 155-54 TX (both pump flow, as stated by the source).
- The Renault 155-54 TX has 140% more lift (5,170 kg / 11,398 lb) than the Ford TW-20 (A) (both lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source).
- The Renault 155-54 TX is 16% heavier (922 kg / 2,033 lb) than the Ford TW-20 (A) (both unladen weight, as stated by the source).
- The Renault 155-54 TX is newer: production began 10 years later. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts.
- Even on maximum permissible mass (both maximum permissible mass, 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 figures vary by configuration and the ranges overlap.
- Even on PTO speeds: the same speeds (540, 1000 rpm).
- Even on drive: every machine is available with four-wheel drive.
- Not comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the TW-20 (A) has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 155-54 TX 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, a creeper range and PTO independence.
← Every figure for both machines, side by side, with sources