Hanomag C 112 or MASSEY-HARRIS Pony 11?
Which should you choose?
The data can’t decide this. Power at the PTO shaft cannot be compared: the C 112 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the Pony 11 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft.
- The Hanomag C 112 suits road haulage better on this data: 58% (7.0 km/h / 4.3 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 | C 112 | Pony 11 | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 8.8 kW (11.8 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Hanomag C 112” | 8.2 kW (11.0 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Massey-Harris Massey-Harris Pony 11” | Not comparableNot comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the C 112 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the Pony 11 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 C 112 and the Pony 11. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the C 112 and the Pony 11. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | 9.0 L/min (2.4 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Hanomag C 112” | 9.5 L/min (2.5 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Massey-Harris Massey-Harris Pony 11” | EvenEven on hydraulic flow (both pump flow, as stated by the source): the difference is under the 10% threshold, too small to call. |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | — | — | No figureNo call on three-point lift: no figure on record for the C 112 and the Pony 11. |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 800 kg (1,764 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Hanomag C 112” | 857 kg (1,889 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Massey-Harris Massey-Harris Pony 11” | 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? | — | — | No figureNo call on maximum permissible mass: no figure on record for the C 112 and the Pony 11. |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 6Traktorenlexikon, “Hanomag C 112” | 5Traktorenlexikon, “Massey-Harris Massey-Harris Pony 11” | 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 C 112 and the Pony 11. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 19 km/h (11.8 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Hanomag C 112” | 12 km/h (7.5 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Massey-Harris Massey-Harris Pony 11” | AheadThe Hanomag C 112 has 58% more top speed (7.0 km/h / 4.3 mph) than the MASSEY-HARRIS Pony 11 (both top speed forward, as stated by the source). |
| Which offers more PTO speeds? | 1484Traktorenlexikon, “Hanomag C 112” | 534 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Massey-Harris Massey-Harris Pony 11” | No figureNo call on PTO speeds: no standard PTO speed stated for the C 112 and the Pony 11. |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | — | — | No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the C 112 and the Pony 11. |
| Which drives on both axles? | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Hanomag C 112” | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Massey-Harris Massey-Harris Pony 11” | EvenEven on drive: all two-wheel drive. |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1957–1960 | 1947–1957 | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The Hanomag C 112 is newer: production began 10 years later. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts. |
What does this mean in plain words?
- The Hanomag C 112 has 58% more top speed (7.0 km/h / 4.3 mph) than the MASSEY-HARRIS Pony 11 (both top speed forward, as stated by the source).
- The Hanomag C 112 is newer: production began 10 years later. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts.
- Even on hydraulic flow (both pump flow, as stated by the source): the difference is under the 10% threshold, too small to call.
- Even on weight (both unladen weight, 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 drive: all two-wheel drive.
- Not comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the C 112 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the Pony 11 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, three-point lift, maximum permissible mass, a creeper range, PTO speeds and PTO independence.
← Every figure for both machines, side by side, with sources