International Harvester Farmall 806 or J.I. Case 931 GP?

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 Farmall 806 is ahead on top speed and drive.

  • The International Harvester Farmall 806 suits heavy draft work (ploughing, cultivating) better on this data: four-wheel drive.
  • The International Harvester Farmall 806 suits road haulage better on this data: 20% (5.0 km/h / 3.1 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?

Buyer questions for International Harvester Farmall 806 and J.I. Case 931 GP, with the call on each
QuestionFarmall 806931 GPCall
Which puts more power through the PTO shaft?62.7 kW (84.0 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Farmall Farmall 806”61.8 kW (82.9 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Case 931”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 806 and the 931 GP.
Which pulls harder at the drawbar?No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the Farmall 806 and the 931 GP.
Which pumps more oil for implements?58.7 L/min (15.5 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Case 931”No figureNo call on hydraulic flow: no figure on record for the Farmall 806.
Which lifts more on the three-point hitch?No figureNo call on three-point lift: no figure on record for the Farmall 806 and the 931 GP.
Which is heavier, for traction?3,924 kg (8,651 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Farmall Farmall 806”4,044 kg (8,915 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Case 931”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 806 and the 931 GP.
Which has the wider choice of gears?8 to 16Traktorenlexikon, “Farmall Farmall 806”6 to 8Traktorenlexikon, “Case 931”EvenEven on forward gears (both forward gears, as stated by the source): the figures vary by configuration and the ranges overlap.
Which offers a creeper range?No figureNo call on a creeper range: not stated for the Farmall 806 and the 931 GP.
Which is faster on the road?30 km/h (18.6 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Farmall Farmall 806”25 km/h (15.5 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Case 931”AheadThe International Harvester Farmall 806 has 20% more top speed (5.0 km/h / 3.1 mph) than the J.I. Case 931 GP (both top speed forward, as stated by the source).
Which offers more PTO speeds?540/1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Farmall Farmall 806”540/1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Case 931”EvenEven on PTO speeds: the same speeds (540, 1000 rpm).
Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive?independentTraktorenlexikon, “Case 931”No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the Farmall 806.
Which drives on both axles?Two-wheel or four-wheel driveTraktorenlexikon, “Farmall Farmall 806”2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Case 931”AheadThe International Harvester Farmall 806 is available with four-wheel drive; the J.I. Case 931 GP is two-wheel drive (as stated by the sources).
Which is newer, and what about parts?1963–19671959–1969EvenSame 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 806 has 20% more top speed (5.0 km/h / 3.1 mph) than the J.I. Case 931 GP (both top speed forward, as stated by the source).
  • The International Harvester Farmall 806 is available with four-wheel drive; the J.I. Case 931 GP is two-wheel drive (as stated by the sources).
  • 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 forward gears (both forward gears, as stated by the source): the figures vary by configuration and the ranges overlap.
  • Even on PTO speeds: the same speeds (540, 1000 rpm).
  • 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, hydraulic flow, three-point lift, maximum permissible mass, a creeper range and PTO independence.

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