MAN 2L3 or URSUS C-325?
Which should you choose?
The data can’t decide this. Power at the PTO shaft cannot be compared: the 2L3 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the C-325 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft.
- The URSUS C-325 suits loader and hydraulic implement work better on this data: 40% (200 kg / 441 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 | 2L3 | C-325 | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 18.3 kW (24.5 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “MAN 2L3” | 18.4 kW (24.7 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Ursus C-325” | Not comparableNot comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the 2L3 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the C-325 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 2L3 and the C-325. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the 2L3 and the C-325. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | — | 18.0 L/min (4.8 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Ursus C-325” | No figureNo call on hydraulic flow: no figure on record for the 2L3. |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | 500 kg (1,102 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “MAN 2L3” | 700 kg (1,543 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Ursus C-325” | AheadThe URSUS C-325 has 40% more lift (200 kg / 441 lb) than the MAN 2L3 (both lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source). |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 1,370 kg (3,020 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “MAN 2L3” | 1,654 kg (3,646 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Ursus C-325” | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The URSUS C-325 is 21% heavier (284 kg / 626 lb) than the MAN 2L3 (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 2L3 and the C-325. |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 6Traktorenlexikon, “MAN 2L3” | 6Wikipedia (pl): Ursus C-325 (open data) | 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? | YesTraktorenlexikon, “MAN 2L3” | — | No figureNo call on a creeper range: not stated for the C-325. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 20 km/h (12.4 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “MAN 2L3” | 20 km/h (12.4 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Ursus C-325” | 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, “MAN 2L3” | 540 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Ursus C-325” | EvenEven on PTO speeds: the same speeds (540 rpm). |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | — | independentTraktorenlexikon, “Ursus C-325” | No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the 2L3. |
| Which drives on both axles? | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “MAN 2L3” | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Ursus C-325” | EvenEven on drive: all two-wheel drive. |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1958–1962 | 1959–1963 | 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 URSUS C-325 has 40% more lift (200 kg / 441 lb) than the MAN 2L3 (both lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source).
- The URSUS C-325 is 21% heavier (284 kg / 626 lb) than the MAN 2L3 (both unladen weight, as stated by the source).
- 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 2L3 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the C-325 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, maximum permissible mass, a creeper range and PTO independence.
← Every figure for both machines, side by side, with sources