International Harvester 656 or UTB U 650/651?
Which should you choose?
The data can’t decide this. Power at the PTO shaft cannot be compared: the 656 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the U 650/651 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft.
- The International Harvester 656 suits loader and hydraulic implement work better on this data: 14% (5.5 L/min / 1.5 gpm) more hydraulic flow.
- The UTB U 650/651 suits heavy draft work (ploughing, cultivating) better on this data: 16% (420 kg / 926 lb) heavier and four-wheel drive.
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 | 656 | U 650/651 | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 47.8 kW (64.1 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “IHC 656” | 47.8 kW (64.1 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “UTB U 650” | Not comparableNot comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the 656 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the U 650/651 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 656 and the U 650/651. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the 656 and the U 650/651. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | 45.5 L/min (12.0 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “IHC 656” | 40.0 L/min (10.6 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “UTB U 650” | AheadThe International Harvester 656 has 14% more hydraulic flow (5.5 L/min / 1.5 gpm) than the UTB U 650/651 (both pump flow, as stated by the source). |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | — | 1,100 kg (2,425 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “UTB U 650” | No figureNo call on three-point lift: no figure on record for the 656. |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 2,630 kg (5,798 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “IHC 656” | 3,050 kg (6,724 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “UTB U 650” | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The UTB U 650/651 is 16% heavier (420 kg / 926 lb) than the International Harvester 656 (both unladen weight, as stated by the source). |
| Which may carry more ballast and load? | — | 4,500 kg (9,921 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “UTB U 650” | No figureNo call on maximum permissible mass: no figure on record for the 656. |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | Stepless (CVT)Traktorenlexikon, “IHC 656” | 10 forwardTraktorenlexikon, “UTB U 650” | DifferTransmissions differ in kind: the International Harvester 656 is stepless (CVT) and the UTB U 650/651 has 10 forward gears — not called. |
| Which offers a creeper range? | — | — | No figureNo call on a creeper range: not stated for the 656 and the U 650/651. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 25 km/h (15.5 mph) to 34 km/h (21.1 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “IHC 656” | 27 km/h (16.8 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “UTB U 650” | 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 656” | 540 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “UTB U 650” | AheadThe International Harvester 656 offers 1000 rpm at the PTO, which the UTB U 650/651 does not (as stated by the sources). |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | dependent (stops with the clutch)Traktorenlexikon, “IHC 656” | — | No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the U 650/651. |
| Which drives on both axles? | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “IHC 656” | 2WD / 4WDTraktorenlexikon, “UTB U 650” | AheadThe UTB U 650/651 is available with four-wheel drive; the International Harvester 656 is two-wheel drive (as stated by the sources). |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1965–1972 | 1963–1973 | 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 656 has 14% more hydraulic flow (5.5 L/min / 1.5 gpm) than the UTB U 650/651 (both pump flow, as stated by the source).
- The UTB U 650/651 is 16% heavier (420 kg / 926 lb) than the International Harvester 656 (both unladen weight, as stated by the source).
- The International Harvester 656 offers 1000 rpm at the PTO, which the UTB U 650/651 does not (as stated by the sources).
- The UTB U 650/651 is available with four-wheel drive; the International Harvester 656 is two-wheel drive (as stated by the sources).
- Transmissions differ in kind: the International Harvester 656 is stepless (CVT) and the UTB U 650/651 has 10 forward gears — not called.
- Even on top speed (both top speed forward, as stated by the source): the figures vary by configuration and the ranges overlap.
- Same era: production began within 5 years of each other. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts.
- Not comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the 656 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the U 650/651 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, three-point lift, maximum permissible mass, a creeper range and PTO independence.
← Every figure for both machines, side by side, with sources