Massey Ferguson MF 8210 A or Renault 155-54 TX?
Which should you choose?
The data can’t decide this. Power at the PTO shaft cannot be compared: the MF 8210 A has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 155-54 TX has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft.
- The Massey Ferguson MF 8210 A suits loader and hydraulic implement work better on this data: 171% (73.7 L/min / 19.5 gpm) more hydraulic flow.
- The Massey Ferguson MF 8210 A suits road haulage better on this data: 41% (3,500 kg / 7,716 lb) more maximum permissible mass.
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 | MF 8210 A | 155-54 TX | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 106.7 kW (143.1 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Massey Ferguson MF 8210” | 106.7 kW (143.1 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Renault 155-54 TE/TA/TS/TX/TZ R7952” | Not comparableNot comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the MF 8210 A has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 155-54 TX 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 MF 8210 A and the 155-54 TX. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the MF 8210 A and the 155-54 TX. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | 116.8 L/min (30.9 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Massey Ferguson MF 8210” | 43.1 L/min (11.4 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Renault 155-54 TE/TA/TS/TX/TZ R7952” | AheadThe Massey Ferguson MF 8210 A has 171% more hydraulic flow (73.7 L/min / 19.5 gpm) than the Renault 155-54 TX (both pump flow, as stated by the source). |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | 8,770 kg (19,334 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Massey Ferguson MF 8210” | 8,850 kg (19,511 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Renault 155-54 TE/TA/TS/TX/TZ R7952” | EvenEven on three-point lift (both lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source): the difference is under the 10% threshold, too small to call. |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 6,610 kg (14,573 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Massey Ferguson MF 8210” | 6,750 kg (14,881 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Renault 155-54 TE/TA/TS/TX/TZ R7952” | 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? | 12,000 kg (26,455 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Massey Ferguson MF 8210” | 8,500 kg (18,739 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Renault 155-54 TE/TA/TS/TX/TZ R7952” | AheadThe Massey Ferguson MF 8210 A has 41% higher maximum permissible mass (3,500 kg / 7,716 lb) than the Renault 155-54 TX (both maximum permissible mass, as stated by the source). |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 18 to 32Traktorenlexikon, “Massey Ferguson MF 8210” | 16Traktorenlexikon, “Renault 155-54 TE/TA/TS/TX/TZ R7952” | 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 MF 8210 A and the 155-54 TX. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 40 km/h (24.9 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Massey Ferguson MF 8210” | 30 km/h (18.6 mph) to 40 km/h (24.9 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Renault 155-54 TE/TA/TS/TX/TZ R7952” | EvenEven on top speed (both top speed forward, as stated by the source): the figures vary by configuration and the ranges overlap. |
| Which offers more PTO speeds? | 540/1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Massey Ferguson MF 8210” | 540/1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Renault 155-54 TE/TA/TS/TX/TZ R7952” | EvenEven on PTO speeds: the same speeds (540, 1000 rpm). |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | independentTraktorenlexikon, “Massey Ferguson MF 8210” | — | No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the 155-54 TX. |
| Which drives on both axles? | 2WD / 4WDTraktorenlexikon, “Massey Ferguson MF 8210” | 4WDTraktorenlexikon, “Renault 155-54 TE/TA/TS/TX/TZ R7952” | EvenEven on drive: every machine is available with four-wheel drive. |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1999–2003 | 1989–1990 | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The Massey Ferguson MF 8210 A is newer: production began 10 years later. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts. |
What does this mean in plain words?
- The Massey Ferguson MF 8210 A has 171% more hydraulic flow (73.7 L/min / 19.5 gpm) than the Renault 155-54 TX (both pump flow, as stated by the source).
- The Massey Ferguson MF 8210 A has 41% higher maximum permissible mass (3,500 kg / 7,716 lb) than the Renault 155-54 TX (both maximum permissible mass, as stated by the source).
- The Massey Ferguson MF 8210 A is newer: production began 10 years later. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts.
- Even on three-point lift (both lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source): the difference is under the 10% threshold, 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 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 figures vary by configuration and the ranges overlap.
- Even on PTO speeds: the same speeds (540, 1000 rpm).
- Even on drive: every machine is available with four-wheel drive.
- Not comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the MF 8210 A has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 155-54 TX 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, a creeper range and PTO independence.
← Every figure for both machines, side by side, with sources