International Harvester International 424 or Massey Ferguson MF 245?
Which should you choose?
On performance, every comparable figure that differs favours the International Harvester International 424: hydraulic flow.
- The International Harvester International 424 suits loader and hydraulic implement work better on this data: 15% (2.9 L/min / 0.8 gpm) more hydraulic flow.
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 | International 424 | MF 245 | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 26.8 kW (36.0 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “IHC 424” | 26.6 kW (35.7 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Massey Ferguson MF 245” | 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 International 424 and the MF 245. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the International 424 and the MF 245. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | 22.7 L/min (6.0 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “IHC 424” | 19.8 L/min (5.2 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Massey Ferguson MF 245” | AheadThe International Harvester International 424 has 15% more hydraulic flow (2.9 L/min / 0.8 gpm) than the Massey Ferguson MF 245 (both pump flow, as stated by the source). |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | — | 1,650 kg (3,638 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Massey Ferguson MF 245” | No figureNo call on three-point lift: no figure on record for the International 424. |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 1,839 kg (4,054 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “IHC 424” | 1,990 kg (4,387 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Massey Ferguson MF 245” | EvenEven on weight (both unladen weight, as stated by the source): the difference is under the 10% threshold, too small to call. |
| Which may carry more ballast and load? | — | — | No figureNo call on maximum permissible mass: no figure on record for the International 424 and the MF 245. |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 8Traktorenlexikon, “IHC 424” | 8Traktorenlexikon, “Massey Ferguson MF 245” | 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 International 424 and the MF 245. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 25 km/h (15.5 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “IHC 424” | 25 km/h (15.5 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Massey Ferguson MF 245” | 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 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “IHC 424” | 540 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Massey Ferguson MF 245” | EvenEven on PTO speeds: the same speeds (540 rpm). |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | — | — | No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the International 424 and the MF 245. |
| Which drives on both axles? | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “IHC 424” | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Massey Ferguson MF 245” | EvenEven on drive: all two-wheel drive. |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1964–1967 | 1976–1983 | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The Massey Ferguson MF 245 is newer: production began 12 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 International 424 has 15% more hydraulic flow (2.9 L/min / 0.8 gpm) than the Massey Ferguson MF 245 (both pump flow, as stated by the source).
- The Massey Ferguson MF 245 is newer: production began 12 years later. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts.
- 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 weight (both unladen weight, 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 difference is under the 25% threshold, too small to call.
- 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 PTO speeds: the same speeds (540 rpm).
- Even on drive: all two-wheel drive.
- 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