International Harvester 684 or Leyland 272?
Which should you choose?
On performance, every comparable figure that differs favours the International Harvester 684: hydraulic flow. It is also ahead on PTO speeds and drive. On features, the Leyland 272 is ahead on top speed.
- The International Harvester 684 suits PTO-driven implements (mowers, balers, pumps) better on this data: offers 1000 rpm.
- The International Harvester 684 suits loader and hydraulic implement work better on this data: 19% (5.9 L/min / 1.6 gpm) more hydraulic flow.
- The Leyland 272 suits road haulage better on this data: 20% (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 | 684 | 272 | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 43.6 kW (58.5 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “IHC 684” | 43.4 kW (58.2 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Leyland 272” | 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 684 and the 272. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the 684 and the 272. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | 37.5 L/min (9.9 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “IHC 684” | 31.6 L/min (8.3 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Leyland 272” | AheadThe International Harvester 684 has 19% more hydraulic flow (5.9 L/min / 1.6 gpm) than the Leyland 272 (both pump flow, as stated by the source). |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | 2,000 kg (4,409 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “IHC 684” | 2,131 kg (4,698 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Leyland 272” | EvenEven on three-point lift (both lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source): the difference is under the 10% threshold, too small to call. |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 2,350 kg (5,181 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “IHC 684” | 3,032 kg (6,684 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Leyland 272” | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The Leyland 272 is 29% heavier (682 kg / 1,504 lb) than the International Harvester 684 (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 684 and the 272. |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 8 to 16Traktorenlexikon, “IHC 684” | 9 to 10Traktorenlexikon, “Leyland 272” | EvenEven on forward gears (both forward gears, as stated by the source): the figures vary by configuration and the ranges overlap. |
| Which offers a creeper range? | — | — | No figureNo call on a creeper range: not stated for the 684 and the 272. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 25 km/h (15.5 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “IHC 684” | 30 km/h (18.6 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Leyland 272” | AheadThe Leyland 272 has 20% more top speed (5.0 km/h / 3.1 mph) than the International Harvester 684 (both top speed forward, as stated by the source). |
| Which offers more PTO speeds? | 540/1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “IHC 684” | 540 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Leyland 272” | AheadThe International Harvester 684 offers 1000 rpm at the PTO, which the Leyland 272 does not (as stated by the sources). |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | independentTraktorenlexikon, “IHC 684” | independentTraktorenlexikon, “Leyland 272” | EvenEven on PTO independence: every PTO is independent. |
| Which drives on both axles? | 2WD / 4WDTraktorenlexikon, “IHC 684” | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Leyland 272” | AheadThe International Harvester 684 is available with four-wheel drive; the Leyland 272 is two-wheel drive (as stated by the sources). |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1977–1981 | 1975–1980 | 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 684 has 19% more hydraulic flow (5.9 L/min / 1.6 gpm) than the Leyland 272 (both pump flow, as stated by the source).
- The Leyland 272 is 29% heavier (682 kg / 1,504 lb) than the International Harvester 684 (both unladen weight, as stated by the source).
- The Leyland 272 has 20% more top speed (5.0 km/h / 3.1 mph) than the International Harvester 684 (both top speed forward, as stated by the source).
- The International Harvester 684 offers 1000 rpm at the PTO, which the Leyland 272 does not (as stated by the sources).
- The International Harvester 684 is available with four-wheel drive; the Leyland 272 is two-wheel drive (as stated by the sources).
- 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 three-point lift (both lift at the hitch ends, 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 figures vary by configuration and the ranges overlap.
- Even on PTO independence: every PTO is independent.
- 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, maximum permissible mass and a creeper range.
← Every figure for both machines, side by side, with sources