Leyland 154 or Nuffield 4/25 (425)?
Which should you choose?
The data can’t decide this. Power at the PTO shaft cannot be compared: the 154 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 4/25 (425) 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 | 154 | 4/25 (425) | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 18.6 kW (24.9 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Leyland 154” | 18.6 kW (24.9 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Nuffield 4/25 (1968-1969)” | Not comparableNot comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the 154 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 4/25 (425) 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 154 and the 4/25 (425). |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the 154 and the 4/25 (425). |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | 14.5 L/min (3.8 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Leyland 154” | 14.5 L/min (3.8 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Nuffield 4/25 (1968-1969)” | 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? | 454 kg (1,001 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Leyland 154” | 454 kg (1,001 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Nuffield 4/25 (1968-1969)” | EvenEven on three-point lift (both lift through the full range at the hitch ends, as stated by the source): the difference is under the 10% threshold, too small to call. |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 1,007 kg (2,220 lb) to 1,032 kg (2,275 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Leyland 154” | 1,007 kg (2,220 lb) to 1,056 kg (2,328 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Nuffield 4/25 (1968-1969)” | EvenEven on weight (both unladen weight, as stated by the source): the figures vary by configuration and the ranges overlap. |
| Which may carry more ballast and load? | — | — | No figureNo call on maximum permissible mass: no figure on record for the 154 and the 4/25 (425). |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 9Traktorenlexikon, “Leyland 154” | 9Traktorenlexikon, “Nuffield 4/25 (1968-1969)” | 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 154 and the 4/25 (425). |
| Which is faster on the road? | 25 km/h (15.5 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Leyland 154” | 25 km/h (15.5 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Nuffield 4/25 (1968-1969)” | 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 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Leyland 154” | 540 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Nuffield 4/25 (1968-1969)” | EvenEven on PTO speeds: the same speeds (540 rpm). |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | — | — | No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the 154 and the 4/25 (425). |
| Which drives on both axles? | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Leyland 154” | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Nuffield 4/25 (1968-1969)” | EvenEven on drive: all two-wheel drive. |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1969–1972 | 1968–1969 | 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?
- 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 three-point lift (both lift through the full range at the hitch ends, as stated by the source): the difference is under the 10% threshold, too small to call.
- Even on weight (both unladen weight, as stated by the source): the figures vary by configuration and the ranges overlap.
- 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 (540 rpm).
- 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.
- Not comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the 154 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 4/25 (425) 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, maximum permissible mass, a creeper range and PTO independence.
← Every figure for both machines, side by side, with sources