Güldner G 30 (S) or Warchalowski WT-33 B?

Which should you choose?

The data can’t decide this. Power at the PTO shaft cannot be compared: the G 30 (S) has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the WT-33 B has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft.

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 Güldner G 30 (S) and Warchalowski WT-33 B, with the call on each
QuestionG 30 (S)WT-33 BCall
Which puts more power through the PTO shaft?22.0 kW (29.5 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Güldner G 30”22.1 kW (29.6 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Warchalowski WT 33B”Not comparableNot comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the G 30 (S) has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the WT-33 B has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft.
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 G 30 (S) and the WT-33 B.
Which pulls harder at the drawbar?——No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the G 30 (S) and the WT-33 B.
Which pumps more oil for implements?——No figureNo call on hydraulic flow: no figure on record for the G 30 (S) and the WT-33 B.
Which lifts more on the three-point hitch?1,338 kg (2,950 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Güldner G 30”1,280 kg (2,822 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Warchalowski WT 33B”EvenEven on three-point lift (both lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source): the difference is under the 10% threshold, too small to call.
Which is heavier, for traction?1,865 kg (4,112 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Güldner G 30”1,380 kg (3,042 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Warchalowski WT 33B”Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The Güldner G 30 (S) is 35% heavier (485 kg / 1,069 lb) than the Warchalowski WT-33B (both unladen weight, as stated by the source).
Which may carry more ballast and load?3,750 kg (8,267 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Güldner G 30”—No figureNo call on maximum permissible mass: no figure on record for the WT-33 B.
Which has the wider choice of gears?8Traktorenlexikon, “Güldner G 30”8Traktorenlexikon, “Warchalowski WT 33B”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?—YesTraktorenlexikon, “Warchalowski WT 33B”No figureNo call on a creeper range: not stated for the G 30 (S).
Which is faster on the road?20 km/h (12.4 mph) to 30 km/h (18.6 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Güldner G 30”30 km/h (18.6 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Warchalowski WT 33B”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?540/1150 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Güldner G 30”540/1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Warchalowski WT 33B”AheadThe Warchalowski WT-33B offers 1000 rpm at the PTO, which the Güldner G 30 (S) 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 G 30 (S) and the WT-33 B.
Which drives on both axles?2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Güldner G 30”2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Warchalowski WT 33B”EvenEven on drive: all two-wheel drive.
Which is newer, and what about parts?1963–19691962EvenSame 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 G 30 (S) is 35% heavier (485 kg / 1,069 lb) than the Warchalowski WT-33B (both unladen weight, as stated by the source).
  • The Warchalowski WT-33B offers 1000 rpm at the PTO, which the Güldner G 30 (S) does not (as stated by the sources).
  • Even on three-point lift (both lift at the hitch ends, 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 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.
  • Not comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the G 30 (S) has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the WT-33 B has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft.
  • 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