International Harvester D-439 or Volvo T-32?
Which should you choose?
The data can’t decide this. Power at the PTO shaft cannot be compared: the D-439 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the T-32 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft.
- The Volvo T-32 suits road haulage better on this data: 50% (10.0 km/h / 6.2 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 | D-439 | T-32 | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 28.7 kW (38.5 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “McCormick D-439” | 28.7 kW (38.5 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Volvo T 32” | Not comparableNot comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the D-439 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the T-32 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 D-439 and the T-32. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the D-439 and the T-32. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | 24.0 L/min (6.3 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “McCormick D-439” | 23.8 L/min (6.3 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Volvo T 32” | EvenEven on hydraulic flow (both pump flow, as stated by the source): the difference is under the 10% threshold, too small to call. |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | 900 kg (1,984 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “McCormick D-439” | 850 kg (1,874 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Volvo T 32” | Not comparableNot comparable on three-point lift: the D-439: lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source (Traktorenlexikon, “McCormick D-439”); the T-32: lift at an unstated point, as stated by the source (Traktorenlexikon, “Volvo T 32”) — not the same quantity, basis and condition. |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 1,758 kg (3,876 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “McCormick D-439” | 2,295 kg (5,060 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Volvo T 32” | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The Volvo T-32 is 31% heavier (537 kg / 1,184 lb) than the International Harvester D-439 (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 D-439 and the T-32. |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 8Traktorenlexikon, “McCormick D-439” | 5Traktorenlexikon, “Volvo T 32” | AheadThe International Harvester D-439 has 60% more forward gears (3 gears) than the Volvo T-32 (both forward gears, as stated by the source). |
| Which offers a creeper range? | — | — | No figureNo call on a creeper range: not stated for the D-439 and the T-32. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 20 km/h (12.4 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “McCormick D-439” | 30 km/h (18.6 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Volvo T 32” | AheadThe Volvo T-32 has 50% more top speed (10.0 km/h / 6.2 mph) than the International Harvester D-439 (both top speed forward, as stated by the source). |
| Which offers more PTO speeds? | 540 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “McCormick D-439” | 540 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Volvo T 32” | EvenEven on PTO speeds: the same speeds (540 rpm). |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | independentTraktorenlexikon, “McCormick D-439” | — | No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the T-32. |
| Which drives on both axles? | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “McCormick D-439” | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Volvo T 32” | EvenEven on drive: all two-wheel drive. |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1962–1966 | 1950–1957 | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The International Harvester D-439 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 Volvo T-32 is 31% heavier (537 kg / 1,184 lb) than the International Harvester D-439 (both unladen weight, as stated by the source).
- The International Harvester D-439 has 60% more forward gears (3 gears) than the Volvo T-32 (both forward gears, as stated by the source).
- The Volvo T-32 has 50% more top speed (10.0 km/h / 6.2 mph) than the International Harvester D-439 (both top speed forward, as stated by the source).
- The International Harvester D-439 is newer: production began 12 years later. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts.
- Even on hydraulic flow (both pump flow, 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.
- Not comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the D-439 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the T-32 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 D-439: lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source (Traktorenlexikon, “McCormick D-439”); the T-32: lift at an unstated point, as stated by the source (Traktorenlexikon, “Volvo T 32”) — 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