Hürlimann H-481 XF or Massey Ferguson MF 6120 (A)?

Which should you choose?

The data can’t decide this. Power at the PTO shaft cannot be compared: the H-481 XF has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the MF 6120 (A) has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft.

  • The Massey Ferguson 6120 (A) suits loader and hydraulic implement work better on this data: 91% (24.5 L/min / 6.5 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 H-481 XF and Massey Ferguson MF 6120 (A), with the call on each
QuestionH-481 XFMF 6120 (A)Call
Which puts more power through the PTO shaft?58.9 kW (79.0 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Hürlimann XF 481”58.9 kW (79.0 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Massey Ferguson MF 6120(F)”Not comparableNot comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the H-481 XF has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the MF 6120 (A) 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 H-481 XF and the MF 6120 (A).
Which pulls harder at the drawbar?——No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the H-481 XF and the MF 6120 (A).
Which pumps more oil for implements?27.0 L/min (7.1 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Hürlimann XF 481”51.5 L/min (13.6 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Massey Ferguson MF 6120(F)”AheadThe Massey Ferguson 6120 (A) has 91% more hydraulic flow (24.5 L/min / 6.5 gpm) than the Hürlimann H-481 XF (both pump flow, as stated by the source).
Which lifts more on the three-point hitch?2,280 kg (5,027 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Hürlimann XF 481”3,350 kg (7,385 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Massey Ferguson MF 6120(F)”Not comparableNot comparable on three-point lift: the H-481 XF: lift through the full range at an unstated point, as stated by the source (Traktorenlexikon, “Hürlimann XF 481”); the MF 6120 (A): lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source (Traktorenlexikon, “Massey Ferguson MF 6120(F)”) — not the same quantity, basis and condition.
Which is heavier, for traction?2,700 kg (5,952 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Hürlimann XF 481”3,570 kg (7,871 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Massey Ferguson MF 6120(F)”Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The Massey Ferguson 6120 (A) is 32% heavier (870 kg / 1,918 lb) than the Hürlimann H-481 XF (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 H-481 XF and the MF 6120 (A).
Which has the wider choice of gears?16Traktorenlexikon, “Hürlimann XF 481”16Traktorenlexikon, “Massey Ferguson MF 6120(F)”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 H-481 XF and the MF 6120 (A).
Which is faster on the road?40 km/h (24.9 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Hürlimann XF 481”30 km/h (18.6 mph) to 40 km/h (24.9 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Massey Ferguson MF 6120(F)”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?540/1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Hürlimann XF 481”540/1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Massey Ferguson MF 6120(F)”EvenEven on PTO speeds: the same speeds (540, 1000 rpm).
Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive?—independentTraktorenlexikon, “Massey Ferguson MF 6120(F)”No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the H-481 XF.
Which drives on both axles?4WDTraktorenlexikon, “Hürlimann XF 481”Two-wheel or four-wheel driveTraktorenlexikon, “Massey Ferguson MF 6120(F)”EvenEven on drive: every machine is available with four-wheel drive.
Which is newer, and what about parts?1992–20001995–1999EvenSame 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 Massey Ferguson 6120 (A) has 91% more hydraulic flow (24.5 L/min / 6.5 gpm) than the Hürlimann H-481 XF (both pump flow, as stated by the source).
  • The Massey Ferguson 6120 (A) is 32% heavier (870 kg / 1,918 lb) than the Hürlimann H-481 XF (both unladen weight, as stated by the source).
  • 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 top speed (both top speed forward, as stated by the source): the figures vary by configuration and the ranges overlap.
  • Even on PTO speeds: the same speeds (540, 1000 rpm).
  • Even on drive: every machine is available with four-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 H-481 XF has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the MF 6120 (A) 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 H-481 XF: lift through the full range at an unstated point, as stated by the source (Traktorenlexikon, “Hürlimann XF 481”); the MF 6120 (A): lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source (Traktorenlexikon, “Massey Ferguson MF 6120(F)”) — 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