Ford TW-30 (A) or International Harvester 1586?

Which should you choose?

On performance, every comparable figure that differs favours the Ford TW-30 (A): three-point lift.

  • The Ford TW-30 (A) suits loader and hydraulic implement work better on this data: 37% (1,200 kg / 2,646 lb) more three-point lift.

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?

Buyer questions for Ford TW-30 (A) and International Harvester 1586, with the call on each
QuestionTW-30 (A)1586Call
Which puts more power through the PTO shaft?117.1 kW (157.0 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford TW 30”116.4 kW (156.1 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “IHC 1586”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 TW-30 (A) and the 1586.
Which pulls harder at the drawbar?No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the TW-30 (A) and the 1586.
Which pumps more oil for implements?45.4 L/min (12.0 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “IHC 1586”No figureNo call on hydraulic flow: no figure on record for the TW-30 (A).
Which lifts more on the three-point hitch?4,410 kg (9,722 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford TW 30”3,210 kg (7,077 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “IHC 1586”AheadThe Ford TW-30 (A) has 37% more lift (1,200 kg / 2,646 lb) than the International Harvester 1586 (both lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source).
Which is heavier, for traction?6,634 kg (14,625 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford TW 30”6,858 kg (15,119 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “IHC 1586”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?8,990 kg (19,820 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford TW 30”No figureNo call on maximum permissible mass: no figure on record for the 1586.
Which has the wider choice of gears?14Traktorenlexikon, “Ford TW 30”6 to 12Traktorenlexikon, “IHC 1586”EvenEven on forward gears (both forward gears, as stated by the source): the difference is under the 25% threshold, too small to call.
Which offers a creeper range?No figureNo call on a creeper range: not stated for the TW-30 (A) and the 1586.
Which is faster on the road?25 km/h (15.5 mph) to 30 km/h (18.6 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford TW 30”30 km/h (18.6 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “IHC 1586”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?1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Ford TW 30”1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “IHC 1586”EvenEven on PTO speeds: the same speeds (1000 rpm).
Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive?independentTraktorenlexikon, “Ford TW 30”No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the 1586.
Which drives on both axles?2WD / 4WDTraktorenlexikon, “Ford TW 30”Two-wheel or four-wheel driveTraktorenlexikon, “IHC 1586”EvenEven on drive: every machine is available with four-wheel drive.
Which is newer, and what about parts?1979–19831976–1981EvenSame 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 TW-30 (A) has 37% more lift (1,200 kg / 2,646 lb) than the International Harvester 1586 (both lift at the hitch ends, 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 difference is under the 25% threshold, too small to call.
  • 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 (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.
  • No figure on record for every machine, so no call on: fuel efficiency at the shaft, drawbar power, hydraulic flow, maximum permissible mass, a creeper range and PTO independence.

← Every figure for both machines, side by side, with sources