Güldner G 35 (S) or International Harvester FU-265 D?
Which should you choose?
The data can’t decide this. Power at the PTO shaft cannot be compared: the G 35 (S) has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the FU-265 D 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?
| Question | G 35 (S) | FU-265 D | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 25.6 kW (34.3 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Güldner G 35” | 25.7 kW (34.5 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “McCormick FU-265 D” | Not comparableNot comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the G 35 (S) has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the FU-265 D 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 35 (S) and the FU-265 D. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the G 35 (S) and the FU-265 D. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | — | 18.6 L/min (4.9 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “McCormick FU-265 D” | No figureNo call on hydraulic flow: no figure on record for the G 35 (S). |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | 1,550 kg (3,417 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Güldner G 35” | — | No figureNo call on three-point lift: no figure on record for the FU-265 D. |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 1,895 kg (4,178 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Güldner G 35” | 1,820 kg (4,012 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “McCormick FU-265 D” | 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? | 3,200 kg (7,055 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Güldner G 35” | — | No figureNo call on maximum permissible mass: no figure on record for the FU-265 D. |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 8Traktorenlexikon, “Güldner G 35” | 6Traktorenlexikon, “McCormick FU-265 D” | AheadThe Güldner G 35 (S) has 33% more forward gears (2 gears) than the International Harvester FU-265 D (both forward gears, as stated by the source). |
| Which offers a creeper range? | — | — | No figureNo call on a creeper range: not stated for the G 35 (S) and the FU-265 D. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 20 km/h (12.4 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Güldner G 35” | 21 km/h (13.0 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “McCormick FU-265 D” | 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? | 540/1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Güldner G 35” | 549 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “McCormick FU-265 D” | No figureNo call on PTO speeds: no standard PTO speed stated for the FU-265 D. |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | independentTraktorenlexikon, “Güldner G 35” | — | No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the FU-265 D. |
| Which drives on both axles? | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Güldner G 35” | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “McCormick FU-265 D” | EvenEven on drive: all two-wheel drive. |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1967–1969 | 1959–1961 | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The Güldner G 35 (S) is newer: production began 8 years later. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts. |
What does this mean in plain words?
- The Güldner G 35 (S) has 33% more forward gears (2 gears) than the International Harvester FU-265 D (both forward gears, as stated by the source).
- The Güldner G 35 (S) is newer: production began 8 years later. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts.
- Even on weight (both unladen weight, as stated by the source): the difference is under the 10% 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 drive: all two-wheel drive.
- Not comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the G 35 (S) has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the FU-265 D 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, three-point lift, maximum permissible mass, a creeper range, PTO speeds and PTO independence.
← Every figure for both machines, side by side, with sources