Landini R-6500 (DT) or UTB U-650/651 M?
Which should you choose?
The data can’t decide this. Power at the PTO shaft cannot be compared: the R-6500 (DT) has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the U-650/651 M 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 | R-6500 (DT) | U-650/651 M | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 47.8 kW (64.1 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Landini 6500” | 47.8 kW (64.1 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “UTB U 650/651 M” | Not comparableNot comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the R-6500 (DT) has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the U-650/651 M 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 R-6500 (DT) and the U-650/651 M. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the R-6500 (DT) and the U-650/651 M. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | — | 40.0 L/min (10.6 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “UTB U 650/651 M” | No figureNo call on hydraulic flow: no figure on record for the R-6500 (DT). |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | 2,650 kg (5,842 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Landini 6500” | — | No figureNo call on three-point lift: no figure on record for the U-650/651 M. |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 2,210 kg (4,872 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Landini 6500” | 3,380 kg (7,452 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “UTB U 650/651 M” | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The UTB U-650/651M is 53% heavier (1,170 kg / 2,579 lb) than the Landini R-6500 (DT) (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 R-6500 (DT) and the U-650/651 M. |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 12Traktorenlexikon, “Landini 6500” | 10Traktorenlexikon, “UTB U 650/651 M” | 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 R-6500 (DT) and the U-650/651 M. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 25 km/h (15.5 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Landini 6500” | 27 km/h (16.8 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “UTB U 650/651 M” | 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? | 540/1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Landini 6500” | 540 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “UTB U 650/651 M” | AheadThe Landini R-6500 (DT) offers 1000 rpm at the PTO, which the UTB U-650/651M does not (as stated by the sources). |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | — | — | No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the R-6500 (DT) and the U-650/651 M. |
| Which drives on both axles? | Two-wheel or four-wheel driveTraktorenlexikon, “Landini 6500” | Two-wheel or four-wheel driveTraktorenlexikon, “UTB U 650/651 M” | EvenEven on drive: every machine is available with four-wheel drive. |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1973–1983 | 1973–1990 | 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 UTB U-650/651M is 53% heavier (1,170 kg / 2,579 lb) than the Landini R-6500 (DT) (both unladen weight, as stated by the source).
- The Landini R-6500 (DT) offers 1000 rpm at the PTO, which the UTB U-650/651M does not (as stated by the sources).
- 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 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 R-6500 (DT) has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the U-650/651 M 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