Hermann Lanz Samson 2 or Hermann Zanker KG M 1?
Which should you choose?
The data can’t decide this. Power at the PTO shaft cannot be compared: the Samson 2 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the M 1 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft.
- The Hermann Zanker KG M 1 suits road haulage better on this data: 42% (5.0 km/h / 3.1 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 | Samson 2 | M 1 | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 8.1 kW (10.9 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “HELA Samson 2” | 8.8 kW (11.8 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Zanker M1” | Not comparableNot comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the Samson 2 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the M 1 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 Samson 2 and the M 1. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the Samson 2 and the M 1. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | — | — | No figureNo call on hydraulic flow: no figure on record for the Samson 2 and the M 1. |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | — | — | No figureNo call on three-point lift: no figure on record for the Samson 2 and the M 1. |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 1,350 kg (2,976 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “HELA Samson 2” | 1,185 kg (2,612 lb) to 1,390 kg (3,064 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Zanker M1” | EvenEven on weight (both unladen weight, as stated by the source): the figures vary by configuration and the ranges overlap. |
| Which may carry more ballast and load? | — | 1,700 kg (3,748 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Zanker M1” | No figureNo call on maximum permissible mass: no figure on record for the Samson 2. |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 4Traktorenlexikon, “HELA Samson 2” | 4Traktorenlexikon, “Zanker M1” | 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 Samson 2 and the M 1. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 12 km/h (7.5 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “HELA Samson 2” | 17 km/h (10.6 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Zanker M1” | AheadThe Hermann Zanker KG M 1 has 42% more top speed (5.0 km/h / 3.1 mph) than the Hermann Lanz Samson 2 (both top speed forward, as stated by the source). |
| Which offers more PTO speeds? | 1500Traktorenlexikon, “HELA Samson 2” | 540 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Zanker M1” | No figureNo call on PTO speeds: no standard PTO speed stated for the Samson 2. |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | — | — | No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the Samson 2 and the M 1. |
| Which drives on both axles? | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “HELA Samson 2” | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Zanker M1” | EvenEven on drive: all two-wheel drive. |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1936–1937 | 1949–1951 | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The Hermann Zanker KG M 1 is newer: production began 13 years later. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts. |
What does this mean in plain words?
- The Hermann Zanker KG M 1 has 42% more top speed (5.0 km/h / 3.1 mph) than the Hermann Lanz Samson 2 (both top speed forward, as stated by the source).
- The Hermann Zanker KG M 1 is newer: production began 13 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 figures vary by configuration and the ranges overlap.
- 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 Samson 2 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the M 1 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