John Deere 2900 or John Deere 3055?
Which should you choose?
The data can’t decide this. Power at the PTO shaft cannot be compared: the 2900 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 3055 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft.
- The John Deere 2900 suits heavy draft work (ploughing, cultivating) better on this data: 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 | 2900 | 3055 | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 77.3 kW (103.7 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “John Deere 2900” | 77.3 kW (103.7 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “John Deere 3055” | Not comparableNot comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the 2900 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 3055 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 2900 and the 3055. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the 2900 and the 3055. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | — | 91.5 L/min (24.2 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “John Deere 3055” | No figureNo call on hydraulic flow: no figure on record for the 2900. |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | 4,460 kg (9,833 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “John Deere 2900” | — | No figureNo call on three-point lift: no figure on record for the 3055. |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 4,180 kg (9,215 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “John Deere 2900” | 4,320 kg (9,524 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “John Deere 3055” | 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? | 7,500 kg (16,535 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “John Deere 2900” | — | No figureNo call on maximum permissible mass: no figure on record for the 3055. |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 16 to 18Traktorenlexikon, “John Deere 2900” | 16Traktorenlexikon, “John Deere 3055” | 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 2900 and the 3055. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 30 km/h (18.6 mph) to 35 km/h (21.7 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “John Deere 2900” | 30 km/h (18.6 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “John Deere 3055” | 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, “John Deere 2900” | 540/1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “John Deere 3055” | EvenEven on PTO speeds: the same speeds (540, 1000 rpm). |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | — | independentTraktorenlexikon, “John Deere 3055” | No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the 2900. |
| Which drives on both axles? | 4WDTraktorenlexikon, “John Deere 2900” | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “John Deere 3055” | AheadThe John Deere 2900 is available with four-wheel drive; the John Deere 3055 is two-wheel drive (as stated by the sources). |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1993–1996 | 1992–1993 | 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 John Deere 2900 is available with four-wheel drive; the John Deere 3055 is two-wheel drive (as stated by the sources).
- 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 figures vary by configuration and the ranges overlap.
- Even on top speed (both top speed forward, as stated by the source): the figures vary by configuration and the ranges overlap.
- Even on PTO speeds: the same speeds (540, 1000 rpm).
- 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 2900 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 3055 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, hydraulic flow, three-point lift, maximum permissible mass, a creeper range and PTO independence.
← Every figure for both machines, side by side, with sources