IMT 560 or Leyland 255?
Which should you choose?
On performance, no comparable figure differs by more than its threshold: on this data the machines are level. On features, the Leyland 255 is ahead on forward gears; the IMT 560 is ahead on top speed.
- The IMT 560 suits road haulage better on this data: 15% (4.0 km/h / 2.5 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 | 560 | 255 | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 32.2 kW (43.2 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “IMT 560” | 31.8 kW (42.6 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Leyland 255” | 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 560 and the 255. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the 560 and the 255. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | — | 29.5 L/min (7.8 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Leyland 255” | No figureNo call on hydraulic flow: no figure on record for the 560. |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | 1,755 kg (3,869 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “IMT 560” | 1,875 kg (4,134 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Leyland 255” | EvenEven on three-point lift (both lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source): the difference is under the 10% threshold, too small to call. |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 2,470 kg (5,445 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “IMT 560” | 2,470 kg (5,445 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Leyland 255” | 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 560 and the 255. |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 6Traktorenlexikon, “IMT 560” | 10Traktorenlexikon, “Leyland 255” | AheadThe Leyland 255 has 67% more forward gears (4 gears) than the IMT 560 (both forward gears, as stated by the source). |
| Which offers a creeper range? | — | — | No figureNo call on a creeper range: not stated for the 560 and the 255. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 30 km/h (18.6 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “IMT 560” | 26 km/h (16.2 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Leyland 255” | AheadThe IMT 560 has 15% more top speed (4.0 km/h / 2.5 mph) than the Leyland 255 (both top speed forward, as stated by the source). |
| Which offers more PTO speeds? | 540 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “IMT 560” | 540 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Leyland 255” | EvenEven on PTO speeds: the same speeds (540 rpm). |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | — | independentTraktorenlexikon, “Leyland 255” | No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the 560. |
| Which drives on both axles? | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “IMT 560” | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Leyland 255” | EvenEven on drive: all two-wheel drive. |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1980–1986 | 1973–1975 | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The IMT 560 is newer: production began 7 years later. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts. |
What does this mean in plain words?
- The Leyland 255 has 67% more forward gears (4 gears) than the IMT 560 (both forward gears, as stated by the source).
- The IMT 560 has 15% more top speed (4.0 km/h / 2.5 mph) than the Leyland 255 (both top speed forward, as stated by the source).
- The IMT 560 is newer: production began 7 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 three-point lift (both lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source): the difference is under the 10% threshold, 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.
- Even on PTO speeds: the same speeds (540 rpm).
- Even on drive: all two-wheel drive.
- No figure on record for every machine, so no call on: fuel efficiency at the shaft, drawbar power, hydraulic flow, maximum permissible mass, a creeper range and PTO independence.
← Every figure for both machines, side by side, with sources