International Harvester Farmall M/MV or International Harvester W-6?
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 M/MV is ahead on top speed.
- The International Harvester Farmall M/MV suits road haulage better on this data: 13% (3.0 km/h / 1.9 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 | Farmall M/MV | W-6 | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 26.0 kW (34.8 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “McCormick Farmall-M” | 25.5 kW (34.2 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “McCormick W-6” | EvenEven on power at the PTO shaft (both power at the PTO, claimed): the figures vary by configuration and the ranges overlap. |
| 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 M/MV and the W-6. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the Farmall M/MV and the W-6. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | — | — | No figureNo call on hydraulic flow: no figure on record for the Farmall M/MV and the W-6. |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | — | — | No figureNo call on three-point lift: no figure on record for the Farmall M/MV and the W-6. |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 2,227 kg (4,910 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “McCormick Farmall-M” | 2,191 kg (4,830 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “McCormick W-6” | 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 M/MV and the W-6. |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 5Traktorenlexikon, “Farmall Farmall-M” | 5Traktorenlexikon, “McCormick W-6” | 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 Farmall M/MV and the W-6. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 26 km/h (16.2 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Farmall Farmall-M” | 23 km/h (14.3 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “McCormick W-6” | AheadThe International Harvester Farmall M/MV has 13% more top speed (3.0 km/h / 1.9 mph) than the International Harvester W-6 (both top speed forward, as stated by the source). |
| Which offers more PTO speeds? | 537 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Farmall Farmall-M” | 537 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “McCormick W-6” | No figureNo call on PTO speeds: no standard PTO speed stated for the Farmall M/MV and the W-6. |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | — | — | No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the Farmall M/MV and the W-6. |
| Which drives on both axles? | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Farmall Farmall-M”; Traktorenlexikon, “McCormick Farmall-M”; Traktorenlexikon, “IHC Farmall-M” | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “McCormick W-6” | EvenEven on drive: all two-wheel drive. |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1939–1952 | 1940–1953 | 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 M/MV has 13% more top speed (3.0 km/h / 1.9 mph) than the International Harvester W-6 (both top speed forward, as stated by the source).
- Even on power at the PTO shaft (both power at the PTO, claimed): the figures vary by configuration and the ranges overlap.
- 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.
- 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, PTO speeds and PTO independence.
← Every figure for both machines, side by side, with sources