MAN 2L5 or MAN 4L2?
Which should you choose?
The data can’t decide this. Power at the PTO shaft cannot be compared: the 2L5 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 4L2 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft.
- The MAN 4L2 suits heavy draft work (ploughing, cultivating) better on this data: 16% (220 kg / 485 lb) heavier and four-wheel drive.
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 | 2L5 | 4L2 | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 18.3 kW (24.5 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “MAN 2L5” | 18.3 kW (24.5 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “MAN 4L2” | Not comparableNot comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the 2L5 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 4L2 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 2L5 and the 4L2. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the 2L5 and the 4L2. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | — | — | No figureNo call on hydraulic flow: no figure on record for the 2L5 and the 4L2. |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | 600 kg (1,323 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “MAN 2L5” | 600 kg (1,323 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “MAN 4L2” | EvenNo call on three-point lift: the sources do not state where the lift was measured, so the difference is not a reliable call. |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 1,370 kg (3,020 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “MAN 2L5” | 1,590 kg (3,505 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “MAN 4L2” | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The MAN 4L2 is 16% heavier (220 kg / 485 lb) than the MAN 2L5 (both unladen weight, as stated by the source). |
| Which may carry more ballast and load? | 2,000 kg (4,409 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “MAN 2L5” | 2,000 kg (4,409 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “MAN 4L2” | EvenEven on maximum permissible mass (both maximum permissible mass, as stated by the source): the difference is under the 10% threshold, too small to call. |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 6Traktorenlexikon, “MAN 2L5” | 6Traktorenlexikon, “MAN 4L2” | 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 2L5” | YesTraktorenlexikon, “MAN 4L2” | EvenEven on a creeper range: every machine offers one. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 20 km/h (12.4 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “MAN 2L5” | 20 km/h (12.4 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “MAN 4L2” | 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 2L5” | 540 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “MAN 4L2” | 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 2L5 and the 4L2. |
| Which drives on both axles? | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “MAN 2L5” | 4WDTraktorenlexikon, “MAN 4L2” | AheadThe MAN 4L2 is available with four-wheel drive; the MAN 2L5 is two-wheel drive (as stated by the sources). |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1960–1961 | 1960–1961 | 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 MAN 4L2 is 16% heavier (220 kg / 485 lb) than the MAN 2L5 (both unladen weight, as stated by the source).
- The MAN 4L2 is available with four-wheel drive; the MAN 2L5 is two-wheel drive (as stated by the sources).
- No call on three-point lift: the sources do not state where the lift was measured, so the difference is not a reliable call.
- Even on maximum permissible mass (both maximum permissible mass, 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 a creeper range: every machine offers one.
- 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).
- 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 2L5 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 4L2 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 and PTO independence.
← Every figure for both machines, side by side, with sources