Massey Ferguson MF 240 or Massey Ferguson MF 250?
Which should you choose?
On performance, no comparable figure differs by more than its threshold: on this data the machines are level.
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 240 | MF 250 | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 27.7 kW (37.2 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Massey Ferguson MF 240” | 27.4 kW (36.8 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Massey Ferguson MF 250” | 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 MF 240 and the MF 250. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the MF 240 and the MF 250. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | 19.8 L/min (5.2 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Massey Ferguson MF 240” | 19.8 L/min (5.2 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Massey Ferguson MF 250” | 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? | 1,430 kg (3,153 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Massey Ferguson MF 240” | 1,450 kg (3,197 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Massey Ferguson MF 250” | 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? | 1,780 kg (3,924 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Massey Ferguson MF 240” | 2,120 kg (4,674 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Massey Ferguson MF 250” | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The Massey Ferguson 250 is 19% heavier (340 kg / 750 lb) than the Massey Ferguson 240 (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 MF 240 and the MF 250. |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 8Traktorenlexikon, “Massey Ferguson MF 240” | 8 to 12Traktorenlexikon, “Massey Ferguson MF 250” | 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? | — | — | No figureNo call on a creeper range: not stated for the MF 240 and the MF 250. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 25 km/h (15.5 mph) to 30 km/h (18.6 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Massey Ferguson MF 240” | 25 km/h (15.5 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Massey Ferguson MF 250” | 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 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Massey Ferguson MF 240” | 540 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Massey Ferguson MF 250” | EvenEven on PTO speeds: the same speeds (540 rpm). |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | — | independentTraktorenlexikon, “Massey Ferguson MF 250” | No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the MF 240. |
| Which drives on both axles? | Two-wheel or four-wheel driveTraktorenlexikon, “Massey Ferguson MF 240” | Two-wheel or four-wheel driveTraktorenlexikon, “Massey Ferguson MF 250” | EvenEven on drive: every machine is available with four-wheel drive. |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1982–1985 | 1983–1986 | 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 Massey Ferguson 250 is 19% heavier (340 kg / 750 lb) than the Massey Ferguson 240 (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 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 forward gears (both forward gears, as stated by the source): the figures vary by configuration and the ranges overlap.
- 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 rpm).
- Even on drive: every machine is available with four-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