Leyland 384 or Nuffield 4/65 (465)?
Which should you choose?
On performance, every comparable figure that differs favours the Nuffield 4/65 (465): three-point lift.
- The Nuffield 4/65 (465) suits loader and hydraulic implement work better on this data: 12% (180 kg / 397 lb) more three-point lift.
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 | 384 | 4/65 (465) | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 40.2 kW (54.0 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Leyland 384” | 40.2 kW (54.0 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Nuffield 4/65 (1967-1969)” | 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 384 and the 4/65 (465). |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the 384 and the 4/65 (465). |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | 30.0 L/min (7.9 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Leyland 384” | 30.0 L/min (7.9 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Nuffield 4/65 (1967-1969)” | 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? | 1,520 kg (3,351 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Leyland 384” | 1,700 kg (3,748 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Nuffield 4/65 (1967-1969)” | AheadThe Nuffield 4/65 (465) has 12% more lift (180 kg / 397 lb) than the Leyland 384 (both lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source). |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 2,140 kg (4,718 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Leyland 384” | 2,566 kg (5,657 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Nuffield 4/65 (1967-1969)” | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The Nuffield 4/65 (465) is 20% heavier (426 kg / 939 lb) than the Leyland 384 (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 384 and the 4/65 (465). |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 10Traktorenlexikon, “Leyland 384” | 10Traktorenlexikon, “Nuffield 4/65 (1967-1969)” | 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 384 and the 4/65 (465). |
| Which is faster on the road? | 30 km/h (18.6 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Leyland 384” | 30 km/h (18.6 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Nuffield 4/65 (1967-1969)” | 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 384” | 540 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Nuffield 4/65 (1967-1969)” | EvenEven on PTO speeds: the same speeds (540 rpm). |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | independentTraktorenlexikon, “Leyland 384” | — | No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the 4/65 (465). |
| Which drives on both axles? | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Leyland 384” | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Nuffield 4/65 (1967-1969)” | EvenEven on drive: all two-wheel drive. |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1969–1972 | 1967–1969 | 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?
- The Nuffield 4/65 (465) has 12% more lift (180 kg / 397 lb) than the Leyland 384 (both lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source).
- The Nuffield 4/65 (465) is 20% heavier (426 kg / 939 lb) than the Leyland 384 (both unladen weight, 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 hydraulic flow (both pump flow, as stated by the source): the difference is under the 10% threshold, too small to call.
- 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.
- 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