International Harvester 786 or VALMET 705/705-4?
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 786 is ahead on PTO speeds.
- The International Harvester 786 suits PTO-driven implements (mowers, balers, pumps) better on this data: offers 1000 rpm.
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 | 786 | 705/705-4 | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 57.8 kW (77.5 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “IHC 786” | 57.4 kW (77.0 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Valmet 705” | 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 786 and the 705/705-4. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the 786 and the 705/705-4. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | 45.5 L/min (12.0 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “IHC 786” | 48.0 L/min (12.7 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Valmet 705” | EvenEven on hydraulic flow (both pump flow, as stated by the source): the difference is under the 10% threshold, too small to call. |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | — | — | No figureNo call on three-point lift: no figure on record for the 786 and the 705/705-4. |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 5,257 kg (11,590 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “IHC 786” | 3,790 kg (8,356 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Valmet 705” | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The International Harvester 786 is 39% heavier (1,467 kg / 3,234 lb) than the VALMET 705/705-4 (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 786 and the 705/705-4. |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 8 to 16Traktorenlexikon, “IHC 786” | 8 to 16Traktorenlexikon, “Valmet 705” | 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 786 and the 705/705-4. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 30 km/h (18.6 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “IHC 786” | 30 km/h (18.6 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Valmet 705” | EvenEven on top speed (both top speed forward, as stated by the source): the difference is under the 10% threshold, too small to call. |
| Which offers more PTO speeds? | 540/1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “IHC 786” | 540 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Valmet 705” | AheadThe International Harvester 786 offers 1000 rpm at the PTO, which the VALMET 705/705-4 does not (as stated by the sources). |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | — | independentTraktorenlexikon, “Valmet 705” | No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the 786. |
| Which drives on both axles? | Two-wheel or four-wheel driveTraktorenlexikon, “IHC 786” | 2WD / 4WDTraktorenlexikon, “Valmet 705” | EvenEven on drive: every machine is available with four-wheel drive. |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1980–1981 | 1983–1989 | 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 786 is 39% heavier (1,467 kg / 3,234 lb) than the VALMET 705/705-4 (both unladen weight, as stated by the source).
- The International Harvester 786 offers 1000 rpm at the PTO, which the VALMET 705/705-4 does not (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 hydraulic flow (both pump flow, 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 top speed (both top speed forward, as stated by the source): the difference is under the 10% threshold, too small to call.
- Even on drive: every machine is available with four-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, three-point lift, maximum permissible mass, a creeper range and PTO independence.
← Every figure for both machines, side by side, with sources