International Harvester F-20 or International Harvester Farmall H/HV?
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 H/HV is ahead on top speed.
- The International Harvester Farmall H/HV suits road haulage better on this data: 333% (20.0 km/h / 12.4 mph) more top speed.
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 | F-20 | Farmall H/HV | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 17.7 kW (23.8 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “McCormick F-20” | 18.2 kW (24.4 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “IHC Farmall-H” | 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 F-20 and the Farmall H/HV. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the F-20 and the Farmall H/HV. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | — | — | No figureNo call on hydraulic flow: no figure on record for the F-20 and the Farmall H/HV. |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | — | — | No figureNo call on three-point lift: no figure on record for the F-20 and the Farmall H/HV. |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 1,792 kg (3,951 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Farmall F-20” | 1,690 kg (3,726 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “IHC Farmall-H” | 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 F-20 and the Farmall H/HV. |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 4Traktorenlexikon, “Farmall F-20” | 5Traktorenlexikon, “Farmall Farmall-H” | EvenEven on forward gears (both forward gears, as stated by the source): the difference is under the 25% threshold, too small to call. |
| Which offers a creeper range? | — | — | No figureNo call on a creeper range: not stated for the F-20 and the Farmall H/HV. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 6.0 km/h (3.7 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Farmall F-20” | 26 km/h (16.2 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Farmall Farmall-H” | AheadThe International Harvester Farmall H/HV has 333% more top speed (20.0 km/h / 12.4 mph) than the International Harvester F-20 (both top speed forward, as stated by the source). |
| Which offers more PTO speeds? | 505 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “IHC F-20” | 541 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “IHC Farmall-H” | No figureNo call on PTO speeds: no standard PTO speed stated for the F-20 and the Farmall H/HV. |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | dependent (stops with the clutch)Traktorenlexikon, “Farmall F-20” | — | No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the Farmall H/HV. |
| Which drives on both axles? | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Farmall F-20”; Traktorenlexikon, “McCormick F-20”; Traktorenlexikon, “IHC F-20” | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Farmall Farmall-H”; Traktorenlexikon, “McCormick Farmall-H”; Traktorenlexikon, “IHC Farmall-H” | EvenEven on drive: all two-wheel drive. |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1932–1939 | 1939–1953 | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The International Harvester Farmall H/HV is newer: production began 7 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 Farmall H/HV has 333% more top speed (20.0 km/h / 12.4 mph) than the International Harvester F-20 (both top speed forward, as stated by the source).
- The International Harvester Farmall H/HV is newer: production began 7 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.
- 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 difference is under the 25% threshold, too small to call.
- Even on drive: all two-wheel drive.
- 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