International Harvester McCormick WD-40 or International Harvester W-9?
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 W-9 is ahead on top speed.
- The International Harvester W-9 suits road haulage better on this data: 28% (5.5 km/h / 3.4 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 | McCormick WD-40 | W-9 | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 32.9 kW (44.1 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “McCormick WD-40” | 34.6 kW (46.4 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “McCormick W-9” | 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 McCormick WD-40 and the W-9. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the McCormick WD-40 and the W-9. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | — | — | No figureNo call on hydraulic flow: no figure on record for the McCormick WD-40 and the W-9. |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | — | — | No figureNo call on three-point lift: no figure on record for the McCormick WD-40 and the W-9. |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 3,425 kg (7,551 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “McCormick WD-40” | 2,540 kg (5,600 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “McCormick W-9” | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The International Harvester McCormick WD-40 is 35% heavier (885 kg / 1,951 lb) than the International Harvester W-9 (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 McCormick WD-40 and the W-9. |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 3 to 4Traktorenlexikon, “McCormick WD-40” | 5Traktorenlexikon, “McCormick W-9” | 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 McCormick WD-40 and the W-9. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 19.5 km/h (12.1 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “McCormick WD-40” | 25 km/h (15.5 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “McCormick W-9” | AheadThe International Harvester W-9 has 28% more top speed (5.5 km/h / 3.4 mph) than the International Harvester McCormick WD-40 (both top speed forward, as stated by the source). |
| Which offers more PTO speeds? | 540 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “McCormick WD-40” | 538 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “McCormick W-9” | No figureNo call on PTO speeds: no standard PTO speed stated for the W-9. |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | — | — | No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the McCormick WD-40 and the W-9. |
| Which drives on both axles? | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “McCormick WD-40” | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “McCormick W-9” | EvenEven on drive: all two-wheel drive. |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1935–1940 | 1940–1954 | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The International Harvester W-9 is newer: production began 5 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 McCormick WD-40 is 35% heavier (885 kg / 1,951 lb) than the International Harvester W-9 (both unladen weight, as stated by the source).
- The International Harvester W-9 has 28% more top speed (5.5 km/h / 3.4 mph) than the International Harvester McCormick WD-40 (both top speed forward, as stated by the source).
- The International Harvester W-9 is newer: production began 5 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 forward gears (both forward gears, as stated by the source): the difference is under the 25% threshold, too small to call.
- 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, hydraulic flow, three-point lift, maximum permissible mass, a creeper range, PTO speeds and PTO independence.
← Every figure for both machines, side by side, with sources