Lanz D 2539-Gas or Volvo T-32?
Which should you choose?
The data can’t decide this. Power at the PTO shaft cannot be compared: the D 2539-Gas has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the T-32 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 | D 2539-Gas | T-32 | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 29.3 kW (39.3 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Lanz D 2539 Zweistoff” | 28.7 kW (38.5 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Volvo T 32” | Not comparableNot comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the D 2539-Gas has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the T-32 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 D 2539-Gas and the T-32. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the D 2539-Gas and the T-32. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | — | 23.8 L/min (6.3 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Volvo T 32” | No figureNo call on hydraulic flow: no figure on record for the D 2539-Gas. |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | — | 850 kg (1,874 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Volvo T 32” | No figureNo call on three-point lift: no figure on record for the D 2539-Gas. |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 4,980 kg (10,979 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Lanz D 2539 Zweistoff” | 2,295 kg (5,060 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Volvo T 32” | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The Lanz D 2539-Gas is 117% heavier (2,685 kg / 5,919 lb) than the Volvo T-32 (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 D 2539-Gas and the T-32. |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 5Traktorenlexikon, “Lanz D 2539 Zweistoff” | 5Traktorenlexikon, “Volvo T 32” | 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 D 2539-Gas and the T-32. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 32.8 km/h (20.4 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Lanz D 2539 Zweistoff” | 30 km/h (18.6 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Volvo T 32” | 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? | 554Traktorenlexikon, “Lanz D 2539 Zweistoff” | 540 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Volvo T 32” | No figureNo call on PTO speeds: no standard PTO speed stated for the D 2539-Gas. |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | — | — | No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the D 2539-Gas and the T-32. |
| Which drives on both axles? | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Lanz D 2539 Zweistoff” | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Volvo T 32” | EvenEven on drive: all two-wheel drive. |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1941–1943 | 1950–1957 | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The Volvo T-32 is newer: production began 9 years later. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts. |
What does this mean in plain words?
- The Lanz D 2539-Gas is 117% heavier (2,685 kg / 5,919 lb) than the Volvo T-32 (both unladen weight, as stated by the source).
- The Volvo T-32 is newer: production began 9 years later. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts.
- 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: all two-wheel drive.
- Not comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the D 2539-Gas has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the T-32 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, PTO speeds and PTO independence.
← Every figure for both machines, side by side, with sources