Landini R 8000 Super-Special (TL-9 N/B) or OLIVER 1650 (4WD)?

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 Landini R 8000 Super-Special (TL-9 N/B) is ahead on top speed.

  • The Landini R 8000 Super-Special (TL-9 N/B) suits road haulage better on this data: 36% (8.0 km/h / 5.0 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?

Buyer questions for Landini R 8000 Super-Special (TL-9 N/B) and OLIVER 1650 (4WD), with the call on each
QuestionR 8000 Super-Special (TL-9 N/B)1650 (4WD)Call
Which puts more power through the PTO shaft?48.1 kW (64.5 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Landini 8000 Super-Special”48.5 kW (65.1 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Oliver 1650”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 R 8000 Super-Special (TL-9 N/B) and the 1650 (4WD).
Which pulls harder at the drawbar?No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the R 8000 Super-Special (TL-9 N/B) and the 1650 (4WD).
Which pumps more oil for implements?45.5 L/min (12.0 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Oliver 1650”No figureNo call on hydraulic flow: no figure on record for the R 8000 Super-Special (TL-9 N/B).
Which lifts more on the three-point hitch?1,450 kg (3,197 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Landini 8000 Super-Special”No figureNo call on three-point lift: no figure on record for the 1650 (4WD).
Which is heavier, for traction?2,720 kg (5,997 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Landini 8000 Super-Special”3,545 kg (7,815 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Oliver 1650”Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The OLIVER 1650 (4WD) is 30% heavier (825 kg / 1,819 lb) than the Landini R 8000 Super-Special (TL-9 N/B) (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 8000 Super-Special (TL-9 N/B) and the 1650 (4WD).
Which has the wider choice of gears?12Traktorenlexikon, “Landini 8000 Super-Special”6 to 18Traktorenlexikon, “Oliver 1650”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 R 8000 Super-Special (TL-9 N/B) and the 1650 (4WD).
Which is faster on the road?30 km/h (18.6 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Landini 8000 Super-Special”22 km/h (13.7 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Oliver 1650”AheadThe Landini R 8000 Super-Special (TL-9 N/B) has 36% more top speed (8.0 km/h / 5.0 mph) than the OLIVER 1650 (4WD) (both top speed forward, as stated by the source).
Which offers more PTO speeds?540 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Landini 8000 Super-Special”550 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Oliver 1650”No figureNo call on PTO speeds: no standard PTO speed stated for the 1650 (4WD).
Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive?independentTraktorenlexikon, “Landini 8000 Super-Special”No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the 1650 (4WD).
Which drives on both axles?2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Landini 8000 Super-Special”2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Oliver 1650”EvenEven on drive: all two-wheel drive.
Which is newer, and what about parts?1967–19741964–1969EvenSame 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 OLIVER 1650 (4WD) is 30% heavier (825 kg / 1,819 lb) than the Landini R 8000 Super-Special (TL-9 N/B) (both unladen weight, as stated by the source).
  • The Landini R 8000 Super-Special (TL-9 N/B) has 36% more top speed (8.0 km/h / 5.0 mph) than the OLIVER 1650 (4WD) (both top speed forward, as stated by the source).
  • 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 figures vary by configuration and the ranges overlap.
  • Even on drive: all two-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.
  • 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