International Harvester 1055 or Renault 106-54 TL?
Which should you choose?
The data can’t decide this. Power at the PTO shaft cannot be compared: the 1055 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 106-54 TL has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft.
- The Renault 106-54 TL suits loader and hydraulic implement work better on this data: 18% (7.3 L/min / 1.9 gpm) more hydraulic flow and 68% (2,935 kg / 6,471 lb) more three-point lift.
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 | 1055 | 106-54 TL | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 74 kW (99 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “IHC 1055” | 73.6 kW (98.7 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Renault 106-54 TL/TM R7842” | Not comparableNot comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the 1055 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 106-54 TL 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 1055 and the 106-54 TL. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the 1055 and the 106-54 TL. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | 39.9 L/min (10.5 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “IHC 1055” | 47.2 L/min (12.5 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Renault 106-54 TL/TM R7842” | AheadThe Renault 106-54 TL has 18% more hydraulic flow (7.3 L/min / 1.9 gpm) than the International Harvester 1055 (both pump flow, as stated by the source). |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | 4,325 kg (9,535 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “IHC 1055” | 7,260 kg (16,006 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Renault 106-54 TL/TM R7842” | AheadThe Renault 106-54 TL has 68% more lift (2,935 kg / 6,471 lb) than the International Harvester 1055 (both lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source). |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 4,290 kg (9,458 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “IHC 1055” | 4,795 kg (10,571 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Renault 106-54 TL/TM R7842” | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The Renault 106-54 TL is 12% heavier (505 kg / 1,113 lb) than the International Harvester 1055 (both unladen weight, as stated by the source). |
| Which may carry more ballast and load? | — | 6,500 kg (14,330 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Renault 106-54 TL/TM R7842” | No figureNo call on maximum permissible mass: no figure on record for the 1055. |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 16Traktorenlexikon, “IHC 1055” | 16Traktorenlexikon, “Renault 106-54 TL/TM R7842” | 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 1055 and the 106-54 TL. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 25 km/h (15.5 mph) to 30 km/h (18.6 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “IHC 1055” | 30 km/h (18.6 mph) to 40 km/h (24.9 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Renault 106-54 TL/TM R7842” | EvenEven on top speed (both top speed forward, as stated by the source): the figures vary by configuration and the ranges overlap. |
| Which offers more PTO speeds? | 540/1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “IHC 1055” | 540/1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Renault 106-54 TL/TM R7842” | EvenEven on PTO speeds: the same speeds (540, 1000 rpm). |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | — | independentTraktorenlexikon, “Renault 106-54 TL/TM R7842” | No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the 1055. |
| Which drives on both axles? | 2WD / 4WDTraktorenlexikon, “IHC 1055” | 4WDTraktorenlexikon, “Renault 106-54 TL/TM R7842” | EvenEven on drive: every machine is available with four-wheel drive. |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1977–1982 | 1991–2000 | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The Renault 106-54 TL is newer: production began 14 years later. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts. |
What does this mean in plain words?
- The Renault 106-54 TL has 18% more hydraulic flow (7.3 L/min / 1.9 gpm) than the International Harvester 1055 (both pump flow, as stated by the source).
- The Renault 106-54 TL has 68% more lift (2,935 kg / 6,471 lb) than the International Harvester 1055 (both lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source).
- The Renault 106-54 TL is 12% heavier (505 kg / 1,113 lb) than the International Harvester 1055 (both unladen weight, as stated by the source).
- The Renault 106-54 TL is newer: production began 14 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 top speed (both top speed forward, as stated by the source): the figures vary by configuration and the ranges overlap.
- Even on PTO speeds: the same speeds (540, 1000 rpm).
- Even on drive: every machine is available with four-wheel drive.
- Not comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the 1055 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 106-54 TL 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, maximum permissible mass, a creeper range and PTO independence.
← Every figure for both machines, side by side, with sources