International Harvester 353 or Massey-Harris-Ferguson FE 35 Spezial?

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 International Harvester 353 is ahead on forward gears.

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 International Harvester 353 and Massey-Harris-Ferguson FE 35 Spezial, with the call on each
Question353FE 35 SpezialCall
Which puts more power through the PTO shaft?25.4 kW (34.0 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “McCormick 353”25.2 kW (33.8 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Massey Ferguson FE 35 Spezial”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 353 and the FE 35 Spezial.
Which pulls harder at the drawbar?No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the 353 and the FE 35 Spezial.
Which pumps more oil for implements?26.2 L/min (6.9 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “McCormick 353”No figureNo call on hydraulic flow: no figure on record for the FE 35 Spezial.
Which lifts more on the three-point hitch?685 kg (1,510 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Massey Ferguson FE 35 Spezial”No figureNo call on three-point lift: no figure on record for the 353.
Which is heavier, for traction?2,076 kg (4,577 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “McCormick 353”1,455 kg (3,208 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Massey Ferguson FE 35 Spezial”Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The International Harvester 353 is 43% heavier (621 kg / 1,369 lb) than the Massey-Harris-Ferguson FE 35 Spezial (both unladen weight, as stated by the source).
Which may carry more ballast and load?3,440 kg (7,584 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “McCormick 353”No figureNo call on maximum permissible mass: no figure on record for the FE 35 Spezial.
Which has the wider choice of gears?8 to 16Traktorenlexikon, “McCormick 353”6Traktorenlexikon, “Massey Ferguson FE 35 Spezial”AheadThe International Harvester 353 has 33% more forward gears (2 gears) than the Massey-Harris-Ferguson FE 35 Spezial (both forward gears, as stated by the source).
Which offers a creeper range?No figureNo call on a creeper range: not stated for the 353 and the FE 35 Spezial.
Which is faster on the road?20 km/h (12.4 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “McCormick 353”20 km/h (12.4 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Massey Ferguson FE 35 Spezial”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 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “McCormick 353”540 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Massey Ferguson FE 35 Spezial”EvenEven on PTO speeds: the same speeds (540 rpm).
Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive?No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the 353 and the FE 35 Spezial.
Which drives on both axles?2WDTraktorenlexikon, “McCormick 353”2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Massey Ferguson FE 35 Spezial”EvenEven on drive: all two-wheel drive.
Which is newer, and what about parts?1967–19721956–1960Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The International Harvester 353 is newer: production began 11 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 353 is 43% heavier (621 kg / 1,369 lb) than the Massey-Harris-Ferguson FE 35 Spezial (both unladen weight, as stated by the source).
  • The International Harvester 353 has 33% more forward gears (2 gears) than the Massey-Harris-Ferguson FE 35 Spezial (both forward gears, as stated by the source).
  • The International Harvester 353 is newer: production began 11 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 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 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, three-point lift, maximum permissible mass, a creeper range and PTO independence.

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