John Deere 4840 or WHITE 2-180?
Which should you choose?
The data can’t decide this. Power at the PTO shaft cannot be compared: the 4840 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 2-180 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft.
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 | 4840 | 2-180 | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 133.2 kW (178.6 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “John Deere 4840” | 133.9 kW (179.6 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “White 2-180” | Not comparableNot comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the 4840 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 2-180 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 4840 and the 2-180. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the 4840 and the 2-180. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | 87.1 L/min (23.0 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “John Deere 4840” | 83.3 L/min (22.0 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “White 2-180” | 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? | 3,762 kg (8,294 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “John Deere 4840” | 2,903 kg (6,400 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “White 2-180” | Not comparableNot comparable on three-point lift: the 4840: lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source (Traktorenlexikon, “John Deere 4840”); the 2-180: lift 610 mm behind the hitch ends, as stated by the source (Traktorenlexikon, “White 2-180”) — not the same quantity, basis and condition. |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 6,758 kg (14,899 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “John Deere 4840” | 8,292 kg (18,281 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “White 2-180” | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The WHITE 2-180 is 23% heavier (1,534 kg / 3,382 lb) than the John Deere 4840 (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 4840 and the 2-180. |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 8 to 16Traktorenlexikon, “John Deere 4840” | 18Traktorenlexikon, “White 2-180” | 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 4840 and the 2-180. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 30 km/h (18.6 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “John Deere 4840” | 30 km/h (18.6 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “White 2-180” | 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? | 1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “John Deere 4840” | 1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “White 2-180” | EvenEven on PTO speeds: the same speeds (1000 rpm). |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | independentTraktorenlexikon, “John Deere 4840” | independentTraktorenlexikon, “White 2-180” | EvenEven on PTO independence: every PTO is independent. |
| Which drives on both axles? | Two-wheel or four-wheel driveTraktorenlexikon, “John Deere 4840” | Two-wheel or four-wheel driveTraktorenlexikon, “White 2-180” | EvenEven on drive: every machine is available with four-wheel drive. |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1978–1982 | 1978–1982 | 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 WHITE 2-180 is 23% heavier (1,534 kg / 3,382 lb) than the John Deere 4840 (both unladen weight, as stated by the source).
- 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 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 (1000 rpm).
- Even on PTO independence: every PTO is independent.
- 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.
- Not comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the 4840 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 2-180 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft.
- Not comparable on three-point lift: the 4840: lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source (Traktorenlexikon, “John Deere 4840”); the 2-180: lift 610 mm behind the hitch ends, as stated by the source (Traktorenlexikon, “White 2-180”) — not the same quantity, basis and condition.
- 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