International Harvester Farmall 1026 or International Harvester 3688?
Which should you choose?
On performance, every comparable figure that differs favours the International Harvester 3688: hydraulic flow. It is also ahead on top speed.
- The International Harvester 3688 suits loader and hydraulic implement work better on this data: 50% (22.7 L/min / 6.0 gpm) more hydraulic flow.
- The International Harvester 3688 suits road haulage better on this data: 14% (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 | Farmall 1026 | 3688 | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 82.5 kW (110.7 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Farmall Farmall 1026” | 83.8 kW (112.4 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “IHC 3688” | 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 Farmall 1026 and the 3688. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the Farmall 1026 and the 3688. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | 45.4 L/min (12.0 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Farmall Farmall 1026” | 68.1 L/min (18.0 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “IHC 3688” | AheadThe International Harvester 3688 has 50% more hydraulic flow (22.7 L/min / 6.0 gpm) than the International Harvester Farmall 1026 (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 Farmall 1026 and the 3688. |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 5,035 kg (11,100 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Farmall Farmall 1026” | 5,988 kg (13,201 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “IHC 3688” | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The International Harvester 3688 is 19% heavier (953 kg / 2,101 lb) than the International Harvester Farmall 1026 (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 Farmall 1026 and the 3688. |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | Stepless (CVT)Traktorenlexikon, “Farmall Farmall 1026” | 16 forwardTraktorenlexikon, “IHC 3688” | DifferTransmissions differ in kind: the International Harvester Farmall 1026 is stepless (CVT) and the International Harvester 3688 has 16 forward gears — not called. |
| Which offers a creeper range? | — | — | No figureNo call on a creeper range: not stated for the Farmall 1026 and the 3688. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 28 km/h (17.4 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Farmall Farmall 1026” | 32 km/h (19.9 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “IHC 3688” | AheadThe International Harvester 3688 has 14% more top speed (4.0 km/h / 2.5 mph) than the International Harvester Farmall 1026 (both top speed forward, as stated by the source). |
| Which offers more PTO speeds? | 540/1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Farmall Farmall 1026” | 540/1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “IHC 3688” | EvenEven on PTO speeds: the same speeds (540, 1000 rpm). |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | — | — | No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the Farmall 1026 and the 3688. |
| Which drives on both axles? | Two-wheel or four-wheel driveTraktorenlexikon, “Farmall Farmall 1026” | Two-wheel or four-wheel driveTraktorenlexikon, “IHC 3688” | EvenEven on drive: every machine is available with four-wheel drive. |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1970–1971 | 1981–1985 | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The International Harvester 3688 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 3688 has 50% more hydraulic flow (22.7 L/min / 6.0 gpm) than the International Harvester Farmall 1026 (both pump flow, as stated by the source).
- The International Harvester 3688 is 19% heavier (953 kg / 2,101 lb) than the International Harvester Farmall 1026 (both unladen weight, as stated by the source).
- The International Harvester 3688 has 14% more top speed (4.0 km/h / 2.5 mph) than the International Harvester Farmall 1026 (both top speed forward, as stated by the source).
- The International Harvester 3688 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.
- Transmissions differ in kind: the International Harvester Farmall 1026 is stepless (CVT) and the International Harvester 3688 has 16 forward gears — not called.
- 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