Leyland 255 or Nuffield 4/60 (460)?

Which should you choose?

The figures split: the Nuffield 4/60 (460) is ahead on hydraulic flow; the Leyland 255 is ahead on three-point lift and forward gears.

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 Leyland 255 and Nuffield 4/60 (460), with the call on each
Question2554/60 (460)Call
Which puts more power through the PTO shaft?31.8 kW (42.6 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Leyland 255”31.8 kW (42.7 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Nuffield 4/60 (1961-1963)”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 255 and the 4/60 (460).
Which pulls harder at the drawbar?No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the 255 and the 4/60 (460).
Which pumps more oil for implements?29.5 L/min (7.8 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Leyland 255”33.2 L/min (8.8 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Nuffield 4/60 (1961-1963)”AheadThe Nuffield 4/60 (460) has 13% more hydraulic flow (3.7 L/min / 1.0 gpm) than the Leyland 255 (both pump flow, as stated by the source).
Which lifts more on the three-point hitch?1,875 kg (4,134 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Leyland 255”1,314 kg (2,897 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Nuffield 4/60 (1961-1963)”AheadThe Leyland 255 has 43% more lift (561 kg / 1,237 lb) than the Nuffield 4/60 (460) (both lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source).
Which is heavier, for traction?2,470 kg (5,445 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Leyland 255”2,371 kg (5,227 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Nuffield 4/60 (1961-1963)”EvenEven on weight (both unladen weight, as stated by the source): the difference is under the 10% threshold, too small to call.
Which may carry more ballast and load?No figureNo call on maximum permissible mass: no figure on record for the 255 and the 4/60 (460).
Which has the wider choice of gears?10Traktorenlexikon, “Leyland 255”5Traktorenlexikon, “Nuffield 4/60 (1961-1963)”AheadThe Leyland 255 has 100% more forward gears (5 gears) than the Nuffield 4/60 (460) (both forward gears, as stated by the source).
Which offers a creeper range?No figureNo call on a creeper range: not stated for the 255 and the 4/60 (460).
Which is faster on the road?26 km/h (16.2 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Leyland 255”25 km/h (15.5 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Nuffield 4/60 (1961-1963)”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 255”540 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Nuffield 4/60 (1961-1963)”EvenEven on PTO speeds: the same speeds (540 rpm).
Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive?independentTraktorenlexikon, “Leyland 255”No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the 4/60 (460).
Which drives on both axles?2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Leyland 255”2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Nuffield 4/60 (1961-1963)”EvenEven on drive: all two-wheel drive.
Which is newer, and what about parts?1973–19751961–1964Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The Leyland 255 is newer: production began 12 years later. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts.

What does this mean in plain words?

  • The Nuffield 4/60 (460) has 13% more hydraulic flow (3.7 L/min / 1.0 gpm) than the Leyland 255 (both pump flow, as stated by the source).
  • The Leyland 255 has 43% more lift (561 kg / 1,237 lb) than the Nuffield 4/60 (460) (both lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source).
  • The Leyland 255 has 100% more forward gears (5 gears) than the Nuffield 4/60 (460) (both forward gears, as stated by the source).
  • The Leyland 255 is newer: production began 12 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 weight (both unladen weight, as stated by the source): the difference is under the 10% 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.
  • 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