Güldner AF 15 or Warchalowski WT 14?
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 Warchalowski WT 14 is ahead on top speed and PTO independence.
- The Warchalowski WT 14 suits PTO-driven implements (mowers, balers, pumps) better on this data: an independent PTO.
- The Warchalowski WT 14 suits road haulage better on this data: 20% (4.0 km/h / 2.5 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 | AF 15 | WT 14 | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 9.6 kW (13 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Güldner AF 15” | 10.1 kW (13.6 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Warchalowski WT 14” | 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 AF 15 and the WT 14. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the AF 15 and the WT 14. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | — | — | No figureNo call on hydraulic flow: no figure on record for the AF 15 and the WT 14. |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | — | 800 kg (1,764 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Warchalowski WT 14” | No figureNo call on three-point lift: no figure on record for the AF 15. |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 1,225 kg (2,701 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Güldner AF 15” | 885 kg (1,951 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Warchalowski WT 14” | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The Güldner AF 15 is 38% heavier (340 kg / 750 lb) than the Warchalowski WT 14 (both unladen weight, as stated by the source). |
| Which may carry more ballast and load? | 1,500 kg (3,307 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Güldner AF 15” | — | No figureNo call on maximum permissible mass: no figure on record for the WT 14. |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 5Traktorenlexikon, “Güldner AF 15” | 5Traktorenlexikon, “Warchalowski WT 14” | 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 AF 15 and the WT 14. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 20 km/h (12.4 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Güldner AF 15” | 24 km/h (14.9 mph) to 28 km/h (17.4 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Warchalowski WT 14” | AheadThe Warchalowski WT 14 has 20% more top speed (4.0 km/h / 2.5 mph) than the Güldner AF 15 (both top speed forward, as stated by the source). |
| Which offers more PTO speeds? | 540 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Güldner AF 15” | 540 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Warchalowski WT 14” | EvenEven on PTO speeds: the same speeds (540 rpm). |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | dependent (stops with the clutch)Traktorenlexikon, “Güldner AF 15” | independentTraktorenlexikon, “Warchalowski WT 14” | AheadThe Warchalowski WT 14 has an independent PTO; the Güldner AF 15’s is dependent (stops with the clutch). |
| Which drives on both axles? | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Güldner AF 15” | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Warchalowski WT 14” | EvenEven on drive: all two-wheel drive. |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1949–1954 | 1956–1959 | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The Warchalowski WT 14 is newer: production began 7 years later. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts. |
What does this mean in plain words?
- The Güldner AF 15 is 38% heavier (340 kg / 750 lb) than the Warchalowski WT 14 (both unladen weight, as stated by the source).
- The Warchalowski WT 14 has 20% more top speed (4.0 km/h / 2.5 mph) than the Güldner AF 15 (both top speed forward, as stated by the source).
- The Warchalowski WT 14 has an independent PTO; the Güldner AF 15’s is dependent (stops with the clutch).
- The Warchalowski WT 14 is newer: production began 7 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 PTO speeds: the same speeds (540 rpm).
- 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 and a creeper range.
← Every figure for both machines, side by side, with sources