IMT 539 or John Deere 5200 (A)?
Which should you choose?
The data can’t decide this. Power at the PTO shaft cannot be compared: the 539 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 5200 (A) has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft.
- The John Deere 5200 (A) suits loader and hydraulic implement work better on this data: 179% (28.7 L/min / 7.6 gpm) more hydraulic flow and 69% (705 kg / 1,554 lb) more three-point lift.
- The John Deere 5200 (A) suits heavy draft work (ploughing, cultivating) better on this data: 34% (487 kg / 1,074 lb) heavier and four-wheel drive.
- The John Deere 5200 (A) suits road haulage better on this data: 25% (6.0 km/h / 3.7 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 | 539 | 5200 (A) | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 28.7 kW (38.5 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “IMT 539” | 29.4 kW (39.4 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “John Deere 5200 (USA)” | Not comparableNot comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the 539 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 5200 (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 539 and the 5200 (A). |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the 539 and the 5200 (A). |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | 16.0 L/min (4.2 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “IMT 539” | 44.7 L/min (11.8 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “John Deere 5200 (USA)” | AheadThe John Deere 5200 (A) has 179% more hydraulic flow (28.7 L/min / 7.6 gpm) than the IMT 539 (both pump flow, as stated by the source). |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | 1,020 kg (2,249 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “IMT 539” | 1,725 kg (3,803 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “John Deere 5200 (USA)” | AheadThe John Deere 5200 (A) has 69% more lift (705 kg / 1,554 lb) than the IMT 539 (both lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source). |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 1,440 kg (3,175 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “IMT 539” | 1,927 kg (4,248 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “John Deere 5200 (USA)” | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The John Deere 5200 (A) is 34% heavier (487 kg / 1,074 lb) than the IMT 539 (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 539 and the 5200 (A). |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 6Traktorenlexikon, “IMT 539” | 9 to 12Traktorenlexikon, “John Deere 5200 (USA)” | AheadThe John Deere 5200 (A) has 50% more forward gears (3 gears) than the IMT 539 (both forward gears, as stated by the source). |
| Which offers a creeper range? | — | — | No figureNo call on a creeper range: not stated for the 539 and the 5200 (A). |
| Which is faster on the road? | 24 km/h (14.9 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “IMT 539” | 30 km/h (18.6 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “John Deere 5200 (USA)” | AheadThe John Deere 5200 (A) has 25% more top speed (6.0 km/h / 3.7 mph) than the IMT 539 (both top speed forward, as stated by the source). |
| Which offers more PTO speeds? | 540 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “IMT 539” | 540 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “John Deere 5200 (USA)” | EvenEven on PTO speeds: the same speeds (540 rpm). |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | — | independentTraktorenlexikon, “John Deere 5200 (USA)” | No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the 539. |
| Which drives on both axles? | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “IMT 539” | Two-wheel or four-wheel driveTraktorenlexikon, “John Deere 5200 (USA)” | AheadThe John Deere 5200 (A) is available with four-wheel drive; the IMT 539 is two-wheel drive (as stated by the sources). |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1980–1990 | 1992–1997 | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The John Deere 5200 (A) 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 John Deere 5200 (A) has 179% more hydraulic flow (28.7 L/min / 7.6 gpm) than the IMT 539 (both pump flow, as stated by the source).
- The John Deere 5200 (A) has 69% more lift (705 kg / 1,554 lb) than the IMT 539 (both lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source).
- The John Deere 5200 (A) is 34% heavier (487 kg / 1,074 lb) than the IMT 539 (both unladen weight, as stated by the source).
- The John Deere 5200 (A) has 50% more forward gears (3 gears) than the IMT 539 (both forward gears, as stated by the source).
- The John Deere 5200 (A) has 25% more top speed (6.0 km/h / 3.7 mph) than the IMT 539 (both top speed forward, as stated by the source).
- The John Deere 5200 (A) is available with four-wheel drive; the IMT 539 is two-wheel drive (as stated by the sources).
- The John Deere 5200 (A) is newer: production began 12 years later. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts.
- Even on PTO speeds: the same speeds (540 rpm).
- Not comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the 539 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 5200 (A) 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, maximum permissible mass, a creeper range and PTO independence.
← Every figure for both machines, side by side, with sources