International Harvester Farmall 240 or Renault N 70?
Which should you choose?
On performance, every comparable figure that differs favours the International Harvester Farmall 240: hydraulic flow. On features, the Renault N 70 is ahead on forward gears.
- The International Harvester Farmall 240 suits loader and hydraulic implement work better on this data: 52% (7.8 L/min / 2.1 gpm) more hydraulic flow.
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 240 | N 70 | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 24.1 kW (32.3 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Farmall Farmall 240” | 24.3 kW (32.6 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Renault N, E, P70 R7050” | 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 240 and the N 70. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the Farmall 240 and the N 70. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | 22.8 L/min (6.0 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Farmall Farmall 240” | 15.0 L/min (4.0 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Renault N, E, P70 R7050” | AheadThe International Harvester Farmall 240 has 52% more hydraulic flow (7.8 L/min / 2.1 gpm) than the Renault N 70 (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 240 and the N 70. |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 1,707 kg (3,763 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “IHC Farmall 240” | 1,695 kg (3,737 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Renault N, E, P70 R7050” | 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 240 and the N 70. |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 4Traktorenlexikon, “IHC Farmall 240” | 6 to 10Traktorenlexikon, “Renault N, E, P70 R7050” | AheadThe Renault N 70 has 50% more forward gears (2 gears) than the International Harvester Farmall 240 (both forward gears, as stated by the source). |
| Which offers a creeper range? | — | — | No figureNo call on a creeper range: not stated for the Farmall 240 and the N 70. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 23 km/h (14.3 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Farmall Farmall 240” | 25 km/h (15.5 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Renault N, E, P70 R7050” | 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? | 539 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Farmall Farmall 240” | 540 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Renault N, E, P70 R7050” | No figureNo call on PTO speeds: no standard PTO speed stated for the Farmall 240. |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | — | — | No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the Farmall 240 and the N 70. |
| Which drives on both axles? | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “IHC Farmall 240”; Traktorenlexikon, “Farmall Farmall 240” | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Renault N, E, P70 R7050” | EvenEven on drive: all two-wheel drive. |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1958–1961 | 1960–1964 | 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 International Harvester Farmall 240 has 52% more hydraulic flow (7.8 L/min / 2.1 gpm) than the Renault N 70 (both pump flow, as stated by the source).
- The Renault N 70 has 50% more forward gears (2 gears) than the International Harvester Farmall 240 (both forward gears, as stated by the source).
- 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 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.
- 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, PTO speeds and PTO independence.
← Every figure for both machines, side by side, with sources