Güldner A 28 or International Harvester Super FC-C?
Which should you choose?
On performance, no comparable figure differs by more than its threshold: on this data the machines are level. On features, the Güldner A 28 is ahead on top speed.
- The Güldner A 28 suits road haulage better on this data: 18% (3.0 km/h / 1.9 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 | A 28 | Super FC-C | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 18.4 kW (25 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Güldner A 28” | 18.0 kW (24.2 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “McCormick Super FC-C” | 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 28 and the Super FC-C. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the A 28 and the Super FC-C. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | — | 17.3 L/min (4.6 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “McCormick Super FC-C” | No figureNo call on hydraulic flow: no figure on record for the A 28. |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | — | 700 kg (1,543 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “McCormick Super FC-C” | No figureNo call on three-point lift: no figure on record for the A 28. |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 1,825 kg (4,023 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Güldner A 28” | 1,440 kg (3,175 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “McCormick Super FC-C” | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The Güldner A 28 is 27% heavier (385 kg / 849 lb) than the International Harvester Super FC-C (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 A 28 and the Super FC-C. |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 4Traktorenlexikon, “Güldner A 28” | 4Traktorenlexikon, “McCormick Super FC-C” | 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 28 and the Super FC-C. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 20 km/h (12.4 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Güldner A 28” | 17 km/h (10.6 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “McCormick Super FC-C” | AheadThe Güldner A 28 has 18% more top speed (3.0 km/h / 1.9 mph) than the International Harvester Super FC-C (both top speed forward, as stated by the source). |
| Which offers more PTO speeds? | 540 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Güldner A 28” | 539 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “McCormick Super FC-C” | No figureNo call on PTO speeds: no standard PTO speed stated for the Super FC-C. |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | — | dependent (stops with the clutch)Traktorenlexikon, “McCormick Super FC-C” | No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the A 28. |
| Which drives on both axles? | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Güldner A 28” | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “McCormick Super FC-C” | EvenEven on drive: all two-wheel drive. |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1946–1950 | 1952–1957 | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The International Harvester Super FC-C is newer: production began 6 years later. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts. |
What does this mean in plain words?
- The Güldner A 28 is 27% heavier (385 kg / 849 lb) than the International Harvester Super FC-C (both unladen weight, as stated by the source).
- The Güldner A 28 has 18% more top speed (3.0 km/h / 1.9 mph) than the International Harvester Super FC-C (both top speed forward, as stated by the source).
- The International Harvester Super FC-C is newer: production began 6 years later. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts.
- 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 forward gears (both forward gears, as stated by the source): the difference is under the 25% threshold, too small to call.
- Even on drive: all two-wheel drive.
- No figure on record for every machine, so no call on: fuel efficiency at the shaft, drawbar power, hydraulic flow, three-point lift, maximum permissible mass, a creeper range, PTO speeds and PTO independence.
← Every figure for both machines, side by side, with sources