Güldner A 2 D or Güldner A 2 L (Tessin)?
Which should you choose?
On performance, every comparable figure that differs favours the Güldner A 2 L (Tessin): hydraulic flow.
- The Güldner A 2 L (Tessin) suits loader and hydraulic implement work better on this data: 79% (5.5 L/min / 1.5 gpm) more hydraulic flow.
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 | A 2 D | A 2 L (Tessin) | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 14.0 kW (19 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Güldner A 2 D” | 14.0 kW (19 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Güldner A 2 L Tessin” | 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 A 2 D and the A 2 L (Tessin). |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the A 2 D and the A 2 L (Tessin). |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | 7.0 L/min (1.8 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Güldner A 2 D” | 12.5 L/min (3.3 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Güldner A 2 L Tessin” | AheadThe Güldner A 2 L (Tessin) has 79% more hydraulic flow (5.5 L/min / 1.5 gpm) than the Güldner A 2 D (both pump flow, as stated by the source). |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | 850 kg (1,874 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Güldner A 2 D” | 850 kg (1,874 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Güldner A 2 L Tessin” | EvenNo call on three-point lift: the sources do not state where the lift was measured, so the difference is not a reliable call. |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 1,340 kg (2,954 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Güldner A 2 D” | 1,340 kg (2,954 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Güldner A 2 L Tessin” | 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? | 2,000 kg (4,409 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Güldner A 2 D” | 2,000 kg (4,409 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Güldner A 2 L Tessin” | 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? | 8Traktorenlexikon, “Güldner A 2 D” | 8Traktorenlexikon, “Güldner A 2 L Tessin” | 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 A 2 D and the A 2 L (Tessin). |
| Which is faster on the road? | 19.6 km/h (12.2 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Güldner A 2 D” | 20.0 km/h (12.4 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Güldner A 2 L Tessin” | EvenEven on top speed (both top speed forward, as stated by the source): the difference is under the 10% threshold, too small to call. |
| Which offers more PTO speeds? | 540 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Güldner A 2 D” | 540 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Güldner A 2 L Tessin” | EvenEven on PTO speeds: the same speeds (540 rpm). |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | dependent (stops with the clutch)Traktorenlexikon, “Güldner A 2 D” | dependent (stops with the clutch)Traktorenlexikon, “Güldner A 2 L Tessin” | EvenEven on PTO independence: every PTO is dependent. |
| Which drives on both axles? | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Güldner A 2 D” | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Güldner A 2 L Tessin” | EvenEven on drive: all two-wheel drive. |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1959–1960 | 1959–1962 | 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 Güldner A 2 L (Tessin) has 79% more hydraulic flow (5.5 L/min / 1.5 gpm) than the Güldner A 2 D (both pump flow, 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.
- No call on three-point lift: the sources do not state where the lift was measured, so the difference is not a reliable 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 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 difference is under the 25% threshold, too small to call.
- Even on top speed (both top speed forward, as stated by the source): the difference is under the 10% threshold, too small to call.
- Even on PTO speeds: the same speeds (540 rpm).
- Even on PTO independence: every PTO is dependent.
- Even on drive: all two-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 and a creeper range.
← Every figure for both machines, side by side, with sources