Hürlimann SX-1500 or Renault 160-94 TZ/TX?

Which should you choose?

The data can’t decide this. Power at the PTO shaft cannot be compared: the SX-1500 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 160-94 TZ/TX has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft.

  • The Hürlimann SX-1500 suits loader and hydraulic implement work better on this data: 17% (10.2 L/min / 2.7 gpm) more hydraulic flow.

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?

Buyer questions for Hürlimann SX-1500 and Renault 160-94 TZ/TX, with the call on each
QuestionSX-1500160-94 TZ/TXCall
Which puts more power through the PTO shaft?110.4 kW (148.0 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Hürlimann SX 1500”110.4 kW (148.0 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Renault 160-94 TX/TZ R3842”Not comparableNot comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the SX-1500 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 160-94 TZ/TX 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 SX-1500 and the 160-94 TZ/TX.
Which pulls harder at the drawbar?No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the SX-1500 and the 160-94 TZ/TX.
Which pumps more oil for implements?68.9 L/min (18.2 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Hürlimann SX 1500”58.7 L/min (15.5 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Renault 160-94 TX/TZ R3842”AheadThe Hürlimann SX-1500 has 17% more hydraulic flow (10.2 L/min / 2.7 gpm) than the Renault 160-94 TZ/TX (both pump flow, as stated by the source).
Which lifts more on the three-point hitch?8,600 kg (18,960 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Hürlimann SX 1500”11,020 kg (24,295 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Renault 160-94 TX/TZ R3842”Not comparableNot comparable on three-point lift: the SX-1500: lift through the full range at an unstated point, as stated by the source (Traktorenlexikon, “Hürlimann SX 1500”); the 160-94 TZ/TX: lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source (Traktorenlexikon, “Renault 160-94 TX/TZ R3842”) — not the same quantity, basis and condition.
Which is heavier, for traction?6,845 kg (15,091 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Hürlimann SX 1500”6,275 kg (13,834 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Renault 160-94 TX/TZ R3842”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?9,750 kg (21,495 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Renault 160-94 TX/TZ R3842”No figureNo call on maximum permissible mass: no figure on record for the SX-1500.
Which has the wider choice of gears?18 to 27Traktorenlexikon, “Hürlimann SX 1500”27Traktorenlexikon, “Renault 160-94 TX/TZ R3842”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?YesTraktorenlexikon, “Hürlimann SX 1500”No figureNo call on a creeper range: not stated for the 160-94 TZ/TX.
Which is faster on the road?40 km/h (24.9 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Hürlimann SX 1500”40 km/h (24.9 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Renault 160-94 TX/TZ R3842”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 rpm / 1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Hürlimann SX 1500”540/1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Renault 160-94 TX/TZ R3842”EvenEven on PTO speeds: the same speeds (540, 1000 rpm).
Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive?independentTraktorenlexikon, “Hürlimann SX 1500”No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the 160-94 TZ/TX.
Which drives on both axles?4WDTraktorenlexikon, “Hürlimann SX 1500”4WDTraktorenlexikon, “Renault 160-94 TX/TZ R3842”EvenEven on drive: every machine is available with four-wheel drive.
Which is newer, and what about parts?1998–20041993–1997Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The Hürlimann SX-1500 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 Hürlimann SX-1500 has 17% more hydraulic flow (10.2 L/min / 2.7 gpm) than the Renault 160-94 TZ/TX (both pump flow, as stated by the source).
  • The Hürlimann SX-1500 is newer: production began 5 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 forward gears (both forward gears, as stated by the source): the figures vary by configuration and the ranges overlap.
  • 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 PTO speeds: the same speeds (540, 1000 rpm).
  • Even on drive: every machine is available with four-wheel drive.
  • Not comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the SX-1500 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 160-94 TZ/TX has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft.
  • Not comparable on three-point lift: the SX-1500: lift through the full range at an unstated point, as stated by the source (Traktorenlexikon, “Hürlimann SX 1500”); the 160-94 TZ/TX: lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source (Traktorenlexikon, “Renault 160-94 TX/TZ R3842”) — not the same quantity, basis and condition.
  • No figure on record for every machine, so no call on: fuel efficiency at the shaft, drawbar power, maximum permissible mass, a creeper range and PTO independence.

← Every figure for both machines, side by side, with sources