John Deere 510 or Massey Ferguson MF 139 (A)?
Which should you choose?
The figures split: the Massey Ferguson MF 139 (A) is ahead on hydraulic flow and drive; the John Deere 510 is ahead on maximum permissible mass.
- The Massey Ferguson MF 139 (A) suits loader and hydraulic implement work better on this data: 92% (14.4 L/min / 3.8 gpm) more hydraulic flow.
- The John Deere 510 suits road haulage better on this data: 33% (820 kg / 1,808 lb) more maximum permissible mass.
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 | 510 | MF 139 (A) | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 28.8 kW (38.6 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “John Deere 510” | 28.7 kW (38.5 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Massey Ferguson MF 139/A” | 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 510 and the MF 139 (A). |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the 510 and the MF 139 (A). |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | 15.6 L/min (4.1 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “John Deere 510” | 30.0 L/min (7.9 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Massey Ferguson MF 139/A” | AheadThe Massey Ferguson MF 139 (A) has 92% more hydraulic flow (14.4 L/min / 3.8 gpm) than the John Deere 510 (both pump flow, as stated by the source). |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | — | 1,500 kg (3,307 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Massey Ferguson MF 139/A” | No figureNo call on three-point lift: no figure on record for the 510. |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 2,074 kg (4,572 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “John Deere 510” | 1,555 kg (3,428 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Massey Ferguson MF 139/A” | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The John Deere 510 is 33% heavier (519 kg / 1,144 lb) than the Massey Ferguson MF 139 (A) (both unladen weight, as stated by the source). |
| Which may carry more ballast and load? | 3,320 kg (7,319 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “John Deere 510” | 2,500 kg (5,512 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Massey Ferguson MF 139/A” | AheadThe John Deere 510 has 33% higher maximum permissible mass (820 kg / 1,808 lb) than the Massey Ferguson MF 139 (A) (both maximum permissible mass, as stated by the source). |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 10Traktorenlexikon, “John Deere 510” | 8Traktorenlexikon, “Massey Ferguson MF 139/A” | 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 510 and the MF 139 (A). |
| Which is faster on the road? | 20 km/h (12.4 mph) to 25 km/h (15.5 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “John Deere 510” | 25 km/h (15.5 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Massey Ferguson MF 139/A” | 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 510” | 540/1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Massey Ferguson MF 139/A” | EvenEven on PTO speeds: the same speeds (540, 1000 rpm). |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | liveTraktorenlexikon, “John Deere 510” | — | No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the MF 139 (A). |
| Which drives on both axles? | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “John Deere 510” | 2WD / 4WDTraktorenlexikon, “Massey Ferguson MF 139/A” | AheadThe Massey Ferguson MF 139 (A) is available with four-wheel drive; the John Deere 510 is two-wheel drive (as stated by the sources). |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1964–1969 | 1974–1979 | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The Massey Ferguson MF 139 (A) is newer: production began 10 years later. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts. |
What does this mean in plain words?
- The Massey Ferguson MF 139 (A) has 92% more hydraulic flow (14.4 L/min / 3.8 gpm) than the John Deere 510 (both pump flow, as stated by the source).
- The John Deere 510 is 33% heavier (519 kg / 1,144 lb) than the Massey Ferguson MF 139 (A) (both unladen weight, as stated by the source).
- The John Deere 510 has 33% higher maximum permissible mass (820 kg / 1,808 lb) than the Massey Ferguson MF 139 (A) (both maximum permissible mass, as stated by the source).
- The Massey Ferguson MF 139 (A) is available with four-wheel drive; the John Deere 510 is two-wheel drive (as stated by the sources).
- The Massey Ferguson MF 139 (A) is newer: production began 10 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 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).
- No figure on record for every machine, so no call on: fuel efficiency at the shaft, drawbar power, three-point lift, a creeper range and PTO independence.
← Every figure for both machines, side by side, with sources