Güldner AF 30 or MAN 4N2?
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 MAN 4N2 is ahead on forward gears, PTO speeds and drive.
- The MAN 4N2 suits PTO-driven implements (mowers, balers, pumps) better on this data: offers 1000 rpm.
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 30 | 4N2 | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 20.6 kW (28 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Güldner AF 30” | 20.6 kW (28 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “MAN 4N2” | 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 30 and the 4N2. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the AF 30 and the 4N2. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | — | — | No figureNo call on hydraulic flow: no figure on record for the AF 30 and the 4N2. |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | — | 1,700 kg (3,748 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “MAN 4N2” | No figureNo call on three-point lift: no figure on record for the AF 30. |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 2,040 kg (4,497 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Güldner AF 30” | 1,720 kg (3,792 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “MAN 4N2” | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The Güldner AF 30 is 19% heavier (320 kg / 705 lb) than the MAN 4N2 (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 AF 30 and the 4N2. |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 5Traktorenlexikon, “Güldner AF 30” | 8Traktorenlexikon, “MAN 4N2” | AheadThe MAN 4N2 has 60% more forward gears (3 gears) than the Güldner AF 30 (both forward gears, as stated by the source). |
| Which offers a creeper range? | — | YesTraktorenlexikon, “MAN 4N2” | No figureNo call on a creeper range: not stated for the AF 30. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 20 km/h (12.4 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Güldner AF 30” | 19.9 km/h (12.4 mph) to 27.1 km/h (16.8 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “MAN 4N2” | 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 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Güldner AF 30” | 540/1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “MAN 4N2” | AheadThe MAN 4N2 offers 1000 rpm at the PTO, which the Güldner AF 30 does not (as stated by the sources). |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | — | — | No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the AF 30 and the 4N2. |
| Which drives on both axles? | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Güldner AF 30” | 4WDTraktorenlexikon, “MAN 4N2” | AheadThe MAN 4N2 is available with four-wheel drive; the Güldner AF 30 is two-wheel drive (as stated by the sources). |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1948–1951 | 1961–1963 | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The MAN 4N2 is newer: production began 13 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 30 is 19% heavier (320 kg / 705 lb) than the MAN 4N2 (both unladen weight, as stated by the source).
- The MAN 4N2 has 60% more forward gears (3 gears) than the Güldner AF 30 (both forward gears, as stated by the source).
- The MAN 4N2 offers 1000 rpm at the PTO, which the Güldner AF 30 does not (as stated by the sources).
- The MAN 4N2 is available with four-wheel drive; the Güldner AF 30 is two-wheel drive (as stated by the sources).
- The MAN 4N2 is newer: production began 13 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 top speed (both top speed forward, as stated by the source): the figures vary by configuration and the ranges overlap.
- 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 and PTO independence.
← Every figure for both machines, side by side, with sources