MAN 2N1 or Renault 53?

Which should you choose?

The data can’t decide this. Power at the PTO shaft cannot be compared: the 2N1 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 53 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft.

  • The Renault 53 suits road haulage better on this data: 32% (6.0 km/h / 3.7 mph) more top speed.

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 MAN 2N1 and Renault 53, with the call on each
Question2N153Call
Which puts more power through the PTO shaft?20.5 kW (27.5 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “MAN 2N1”20.6 kW (27.6 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Renault 53 R7211”Not comparableNot comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the 2N1 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 53 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 2N1 and the 53.
Which pulls harder at the drawbar?No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the 2N1 and the 53.
Which pumps more oil for implements?No figureNo call on hydraulic flow: no figure on record for the 2N1 and the 53.
Which lifts more on the three-point hitch?1,700 kg (3,748 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “MAN 2N1”2,000 kg (4,409 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Renault 53 R7211”Not comparableNot comparable on three-point lift: the 2N1: lift at an unstated point, as stated by the source (Traktorenlexikon, “MAN 2N1”); the 53: lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source (Traktorenlexikon, “Renault 53 R7211”) — not the same quantity, basis and condition.
Which is heavier, for traction?1,600 kg (3,527 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “MAN 2N1”1,600 kg (3,527 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Renault 53 R7211”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 2N1 and the 53.
Which has the wider choice of gears?8Traktorenlexikon, “MAN 2N1”6 to 10Traktorenlexikon, “Renault 53 R7211”EvenEven on forward gears (both forward gears, as stated by the source): the figures vary by configuration and the ranges overlap.
Which offers a creeper range?YesTraktorenlexikon, “MAN 2N1”No figureNo call on a creeper range: not stated for the 53.
Which is faster on the road?19 km/h (11.8 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “MAN 2N1”25 km/h (15.5 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Renault 53 R7211”AheadThe Renault 53 has 32% more top speed (6.0 km/h / 3.7 mph) than the MAN 2N1 (both top speed forward, as stated by the source).
Which offers more PTO speeds?540/1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “MAN 2N1”540 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Renault 53 R7211”AheadThe MAN 2N1 offers 1000 rpm at the PTO, which the Renault 53 does not (as stated by the sources).
Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive?independentTraktorenlexikon, “Renault 53 R7211”No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the 2N1.
Which drives on both axles?2WDTraktorenlexikon, “MAN 2N1”2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Renault 53 R7211”EvenEven on drive: all two-wheel drive.
Which is newer, and what about parts?1961–19621967–1973Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The Renault 53 is newer: production began 6 years later. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts.

What does this mean in plain words?

  • The Renault 53 has 32% more top speed (6.0 km/h / 3.7 mph) than the MAN 2N1 (both top speed forward, as stated by the source).
  • The MAN 2N1 offers 1000 rpm at the PTO, which the Renault 53 does not (as stated by the sources).
  • The Renault 53 is newer: production began 6 years later. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts.
  • Even on weight (both unladen weight, 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 figures vary by configuration and the ranges overlap.
  • Even on drive: all two-wheel drive.
  • Not comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the 2N1 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 53 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft.
  • Not comparable on three-point lift: the 2N1: lift at an unstated point, as stated by the source (Traktorenlexikon, “MAN 2N1”); the 53: lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source (Traktorenlexikon, “Renault 53 R7211”) — not the same quantity, basis and condition.
  • 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