International Harvester Farmall 140 or MAN 2L1?
Which should you choose?
The data can’t decide this. Power at the PTO shaft cannot be compared: the Farmall 140 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 2L1 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft.
Generated by rule set compare@4 from the figures on the side-by-side table, allowed by route “similar machines”. 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 140 | 2L1 | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 17.7 kW (23.7 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Farmall Farmall 140” | 17.6 kW (23.6 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “MAN 2L1” | Not comparableNot comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the Farmall 140 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 2L1 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 Farmall 140 and the 2L1. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the Farmall 140 and the 2L1. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | 17.4 L/min (4.6 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Farmall Farmall 140” | — | No figureNo call on hydraulic flow: no figure on record for the 2L1. |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | — | 500 kg (1,102 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “MAN 2L1” | No figureNo call on three-point lift: no figure on record for the Farmall 140. |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 1,361 kg (3,000 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “IHC Farmall 140” | 1,380 kg (3,042 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “MAN 2L1” | 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 Farmall 140 and the 2L1. |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 4Traktorenlexikon, “Farmall Farmall 140” | 6Traktorenlexikon, “MAN 2L1” | AheadThe MAN 2L1 has 50% more forward gears (2 gears) than the International Harvester Farmall 140 (both forward gears, as stated by the source). |
| Which offers a creeper range? | — | YesTraktorenlexikon, “MAN 2L1” | No figureNo call on a creeper range: not stated for the Farmall 140. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 20 km/h (12.4 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Farmall Farmall 140” | 20 km/h (12.4 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “MAN 2L1” | 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? | 541 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “IHC Farmall 140” | 540 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “MAN 2L1” | No figureNo call on PTO speeds: no standard PTO speed stated for the Farmall 140. |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | dependent (stops with the clutch)Traktorenlexikon, “IHC Farmall 140” | — | No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the 2L1. |
| Which drives on both axles? | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “IHC Farmall 140”; Traktorenlexikon, “Farmall Farmall 140” | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “MAN 2L1” | EvenEven on drive: all two-wheel drive. |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1958–1979 | 1957–1958 | EvenSame era: production began within 5 years of each other. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts. |
What does this mean in plain words?
- The MAN 2L1 has 50% more forward gears (2 gears) than the International Harvester Farmall 140 (both forward gears, as stated by the source).
- Even on weight (both unladen weight, as stated by the source): the difference is under the 10% threshold, 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 drive: all two-wheel drive.
- Same era: production began within 5 years of each other. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts.
- Not comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the Farmall 140 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 2L1 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, hydraulic flow, three-point lift, maximum permissible mass, a creeper range, PTO speeds and PTO independence.
← Every figure for both machines, side by side, with sources