Hanomag R 35/45 or MAN 2P1?
Which should you choose?
The data can’t decide this. Power at the PTO shaft cannot be compared: the R 35/45 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 2P1 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 | R 35/45 | 2P1 | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 25.6 kW (34.3 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Hanomag R 35/45” | 25.6 kW (34.3 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “MAN 2P1” | Not comparableNot comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the R 35/45 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 2P1 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 R 35/45 and the 2P1. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the R 35/45 and the 2P1. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | 16.0 L/min (4.2 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Hanomag R 35/45” | 16 L/min (4.2 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “MAN 2P1” | 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? | 1,200 kg (2,646 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Hanomag R 35/45” | — | No figureNo call on three-point lift: no figure on record for the 2P1. |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 2,020 kg (4,453 lb) to 2,122 kg (4,678 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Hanomag R 35/45” | 1,670 kg (3,682 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “MAN 2P1” | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The Hanomag R 35/45 is 21% heavier (350 kg / 772 lb) than the MAN 2P1 (both unladen weight, as stated by the source). |
| Which may carry more ballast and load? | 2,600 kg (5,732 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Hanomag R 35/45” | — | No figureNo call on maximum permissible mass: no figure on record for the 2P1. |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 5Traktorenlexikon, “Hanomag R 35/45” | 8Traktorenlexikon, “MAN 2P1” | AheadThe MAN 2P1 has 60% more forward gears (3 gears) than the Hanomag R 35/45 (both forward gears, as stated by the source). |
| Which offers a creeper range? | — | YesTraktorenlexikon, “MAN 2P1” | No figureNo call on a creeper range: not stated for the R 35/45. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 19.2 km/h (11.9 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Hanomag R 35/45” | 18.4 km/h (11.4 mph) to 28.3 km/h (17.6 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “MAN 2P1” | 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? | 597 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Hanomag R 35/45” | 540 rpm / 1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “MAN 2P1” | No figureNo call on PTO speeds: no standard PTO speed stated for the R 35/45. |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | independentTraktorenlexikon, “Hanomag R 35/45” | — | No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the 2P1. |
| Which drives on both axles? | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Hanomag R 35/45” | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “MAN 2P1” | EvenEven on drive: all two-wheel drive. |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1955–1957 | 1960–1962 | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The MAN 2P1 is newer: production began 5 years later. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts. |
What does this mean in plain words?
- The Hanomag R 35/45 is 21% heavier (350 kg / 772 lb) than the MAN 2P1 (both unladen weight, as stated by the source).
- The MAN 2P1 has 60% more forward gears (3 gears) than the Hanomag R 35/45 (both forward gears, as stated by the source).
- The MAN 2P1 is newer: production began 5 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 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.
- Not comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the R 35/45 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 2P1 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