IMT 5130/5136 or International Harvester Farmall 1026?
Which should you choose?
On performance, every comparable figure that differs favours the International Harvester Farmall 1026: hydraulic flow.
- The International Harvester Farmall 1026 suits loader and hydraulic implement work better on this data: 17% (6.6 L/min / 1.7 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?
| Question | 5130/5136 | Farmall 1026 | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 84.2 kW (112.9 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “IMT 5130/5136” | 82.5 kW (110.7 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Farmall Farmall 1026” | EvenEven on power at the PTO shaft (both power at the PTO, claimed): the difference is under the 10% threshold for claimed figures, too small to call. |
| 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 5130/5136 and the Farmall 1026. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the 5130/5136 and the Farmall 1026. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | 38.8 L/min (10.2 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “IMT 5130/5136” | 45.4 L/min (12.0 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Farmall Farmall 1026” | AheadThe International Harvester Farmall 1026 has 17% more hydraulic flow (6.6 L/min / 1.7 gpm) than the IMT 5130/5136 (both pump flow, as stated by the source). |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | — | — | No figureNo call on three-point lift: no figure on record for the 5130/5136 and the Farmall 1026. |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 5,315 kg (11,718 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “IMT 5130/5136” | 5,035 kg (11,100 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Farmall Farmall 1026” | 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? | — | — | No figureNo call on maximum permissible mass: no figure on record for the 5130/5136 and the Farmall 1026. |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 10 to 12 forwardTraktorenlexikon, “IMT 5130/5136” | Stepless (CVT)Traktorenlexikon, “Farmall Farmall 1026” | DifferTransmissions differ in kind: the IMT 5130/5136 has 10 to 12 forward gears and the International Harvester Farmall 1026 is stepless (CVT) — not called. |
| Which offers a creeper range? | — | — | No figureNo call on a creeper range: not stated for the 5130/5136 and the Farmall 1026. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 30 km/h (18.6 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “IMT 5130/5136” | 28 km/h (17.4 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Farmall Farmall 1026” | 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? | 540/1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “IMT 5130/5136” | 540/1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Farmall Farmall 1026” | EvenEven on PTO speeds: the same speeds (540, 1000 rpm). |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | independentTraktorenlexikon, “IMT 5130/5136” | — | No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the Farmall 1026. |
| Which drives on both axles? | Two-wheel or four-wheel driveTraktorenlexikon, “IMT 5130/5136” | Two-wheel or four-wheel driveTraktorenlexikon, “Farmall Farmall 1026” | EvenEven on drive: every machine is available with four-wheel drive. |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1982–1992 | 1970–1971 | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The IMT 5130/5136 is newer: production began 12 years later. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts. |
What does this mean in plain words?
- The International Harvester Farmall 1026 has 17% more hydraulic flow (6.6 L/min / 1.7 gpm) than the IMT 5130/5136 (both pump flow, as stated by the source).
- The IMT 5130/5136 is newer: production began 12 years later. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts.
- Even on power at the PTO shaft (both power at the PTO, claimed): the difference is under the 10% threshold for claimed figures, too small to call.
- Even on weight (both unladen weight, as stated by the source): the difference is under the 10% threshold, too small to call.
- Transmissions differ in kind: the IMT 5130/5136 has 10 to 12 forward gears and the International Harvester Farmall 1026 is stepless (CVT) — not called.
- 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.
- 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 and PTO independence.
← Every figure for both machines, side by side, with sources