Hanomag C 218 or Warchalowski WT 20?
Which should you choose?
The data can’t decide this. Power at the PTO shaft cannot be compared: the C 218 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the WT 20 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft.
- The Warchalowski WT 20 suits road haulage better on this data: 35% (6.5 km/h / 4.0 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 218 | WT 20 | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 13.2 kW (17.7 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Hanomag C 218” | 13.2 kW (17.7 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Warchalowski WT 20” | Not comparableNot comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the C 218 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the WT 20 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 218 and the WT 20. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the C 218 and the WT 20. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | 14.0 L/min (3.7 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Hanomag C 218” | — | No figureNo call on hydraulic flow: no figure on record for the WT 20. |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | — | 1,280 kg (2,822 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Warchalowski WT 20” | No figureNo call on three-point lift: no figure on record for the C 218. |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 1,375 kg (3,031 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Hanomag C 218” | 885 kg (1,951 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Warchalowski WT 20” | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The Hanomag C 218 is 55% heavier (490 kg / 1,080 lb) than the Warchalowski WT 20 (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 C 218 and the WT 20. |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 6Traktorenlexikon, “Hanomag C 218” | 5 to 6Traktorenlexikon, “Warchalowski WT 20” | EvenEven on forward gears (both forward gears, as stated by the source): the figures vary by configuration and the ranges overlap. |
| Which offers a creeper range? | — | — | No figureNo call on a creeper range: not stated for the C 218 and the WT 20. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 18.5 km/h (11.5 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Hanomag C 218” | 25 km/h (15.5 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Warchalowski WT 20” | AheadThe Warchalowski WT 20 has 35% more top speed (6.5 km/h / 4.0 mph) than the Hanomag C 218 (both top speed forward, as stated by the source). |
| Which offers more PTO speeds? | 1211Traktorenlexikon, “Hanomag C 218” | 540 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Warchalowski WT 20” | No figureNo call on PTO speeds: no standard PTO speed stated for the C 218. |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | — | independentTraktorenlexikon, “Warchalowski WT 20” | No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the C 218. |
| Which drives on both axles? | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Hanomag C 218” | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Warchalowski WT 20” | EvenEven on drive: all two-wheel drive. |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1957–1959 | 1958–1968 | EvenSame 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 Hanomag C 218 is 55% heavier (490 kg / 1,080 lb) than the Warchalowski WT 20 (both unladen weight, as stated by the source).
- The Warchalowski WT 20 has 35% more top speed (6.5 km/h / 4.0 mph) than the Hanomag C 218 (both top speed forward, as stated by the source).
- Even on forward gears (both forward gears, 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 C 218 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the WT 20 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