International Harvester FG (MC Cormick-Deering) or Volvo T-22?
Which should you choose?
The data can’t decide this. Power at the PTO shaft cannot be compared: the FG has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the T-22 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft.
- The Volvo T-22 suits road haulage better on this data: 33% (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?
| Question | FG | T-22 | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 14.6 kW (19.6 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “McCormick FG” | 15.1 kW (20.2 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Volvo T 22” | Not comparableNot comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the FG has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the T-22 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 FG and the T-22. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the FG and the T-22. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | — | — | No figureNo call on hydraulic flow: no figure on record for the FG and the T-22. |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | — | — | No figureNo call on three-point lift: no figure on record for the FG and the T-22. |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 1,780 kg (3,924 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “McCormick FG” | 1,255 kg (2,767 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Volvo T 22” | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The International Harvester FG is 42% heavier (525 kg / 1,157 lb) than the Volvo T-22 (both unladen weight, as stated by the source). |
| Which may carry more ballast and load? | — | — | No figureNo call on maximum permissible mass: no figure on record for the FG and the T-22. |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 4Traktorenlexikon, “McCormick FG” | 5Traktorenlexikon, “Volvo T 22” | 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 FG and the T-22. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 15 km/h (9.3 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “McCormick FG” | 20 km/h (12.4 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Volvo T 22” | AheadThe Volvo T-22 has 33% more top speed (5.0 km/h / 3.1 mph) than the International Harvester FG (both top speed forward, as stated by the source). |
| Which offers more PTO speeds? | 550 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “McCormick FG” | 540 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Volvo T 22” | No figureNo call on PTO speeds: no standard PTO speed stated for the FG. |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | dependent (stops with the clutch)Traktorenlexikon, “McCormick FG” | — | No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the T-22. |
| Which drives on both axles? | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “McCormick FG” | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Volvo T 22” | EvenEven on drive: all two-wheel drive. |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1940–1951 | 1947–1952 | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The Volvo T-22 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 FG is 42% heavier (525 kg / 1,157 lb) than the Volvo T-22 (both unladen weight, as stated by the source).
- The Volvo T-22 has 33% more top speed (5.0 km/h / 3.1 mph) than the International Harvester FG (both top speed forward, as stated by the source).
- The Volvo T-22 is newer: production began 7 years later. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts.
- 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.
- Not comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the FG has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the T-22 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