Massey Ferguson MF 3050 E or SAME Golden 65 Compatto?
Which should you choose?
The data can’t decide this. Power at the PTO shaft cannot be compared: the MF 3050 E: power at the PTO, claimed (Traktorenlexikon, “Massey Ferguson MF 3050E”); the Golden 65 Compatto: power at the PTO, measured by a laboratory at maximum power (OECD Test 1798) — not the same quantity, basis and condition.
- The SAME Golden 65 Compatto suits road haulage better on this data: 60% (15.0 km/h / 9.3 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?
| Question | MF 3050 E | Golden 65 Compatto | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 45.5 kW (61.0 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Massey Ferguson MF 3050E” | 46.9 kW (62.9 hp)OECD Test 1798 | Not comparableNot comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the MF 3050 E: power at the PTO, claimed (Traktorenlexikon, “Massey Ferguson MF 3050E”); the Golden 65 Compatto: power at the PTO, measured by a laboratory at maximum power (OECD Test 1798) — not the same quantity, basis and condition. |
| 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 3050 E and the Golden 65 Compatto. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | 38.8 kW (52.0 hp)OECD Test 1798 | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the MF 3050 E. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | — | 34.4 L/min (9.1 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “SAME Golden 65 (DT) Compatto” | No figureNo call on hydraulic flow: no figure on record for the MF 3050 E. |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | 2,881 kg (6,351 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Massey Ferguson MF 3050E” | 1,999 kg (4,407 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “SAME Golden 65 (DT) Compatto” | Not comparableNot comparable on three-point lift: the MF 3050 E: lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source (Traktorenlexikon, “Massey Ferguson MF 3050E”); the Golden 65 Compatto: lift through the full range at the hitch ends, as stated by the source (Traktorenlexikon, “SAME Golden 65 (DT) Compatto”) — not the same quantity, basis and condition. |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 3,560 kg (7,848 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Massey Ferguson MF 3050E” | 2,200 kg (4,850 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “SAME Golden 65 (DT) Compatto” | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The Massey Ferguson 3050E is 62% heavier (1,360 kg / 2,998 lb) than the SAME Golden 65 Compatto (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 3050 E and the Golden 65 Compatto. |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 16Traktorenlexikon, “Massey Ferguson MF 3050E” | 45OECD test report 1798, 1998 | AheadThe SAME Golden 65 Compatto has 181% more forward gears (29 gears) than the Massey Ferguson 3050E (both forward gears, as stated by the source). |
| Which offers a creeper range? | — | — | No figureNo call on a creeper range: not stated for the MF 3050 E and the Golden 65 Compatto. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 25 km/h (15.5 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Massey Ferguson MF 3050E” | 40 km/h (24.9 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “SAME Golden 65 (DT) Compatto” | AheadThe SAME Golden 65 Compatto has 60% more top speed (15.0 km/h / 9.3 mph) than the Massey Ferguson 3050E (both top speed forward, as stated by the source). |
| Which offers more PTO speeds? | 540/1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Massey Ferguson MF 3050E” | 540/1000 rpmOECD test report 1798, 1998 | EvenEven on PTO speeds: the same speeds (540, 1000 rpm). |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | independentTraktorenlexikon, “Massey Ferguson MF 3050E” | — | No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the Golden 65 Compatto. |
| Which drives on both axles? | Two-wheel or four-wheel driveTraktorenlexikon, “Massey Ferguson MF 3050E” | 4WDOECD test report 1798, 1998; Traktorenlexikon, “SAME Golden 65 (DT) Compatto” | EvenEven on drive: every machine is available with four-wheel drive. |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1988–1995 | 1998–2003 | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The SAME Golden 65 Compatto 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 3050E is 62% heavier (1,360 kg / 2,998 lb) than the SAME Golden 65 Compatto (both unladen weight, as stated by the source).
- The SAME Golden 65 Compatto has 181% more forward gears (29 gears) than the Massey Ferguson 3050E (both forward gears, as stated by the source).
- The SAME Golden 65 Compatto has 60% more top speed (15.0 km/h / 9.3 mph) than the Massey Ferguson 3050E (both top speed forward, as stated by the source).
- The SAME Golden 65 Compatto is newer: production began 10 years later. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts.
- 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 3050 E: power at the PTO, claimed (Traktorenlexikon, “Massey Ferguson MF 3050E”); the Golden 65 Compatto: power at the PTO, measured by a laboratory at maximum power (OECD Test 1798) — not the same quantity, basis and condition.
- Not comparable on three-point lift: the MF 3050 E: lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source (Traktorenlexikon, “Massey Ferguson MF 3050E”); the Golden 65 Compatto: lift through the full range at the hitch ends, as stated by the source (Traktorenlexikon, “SAME Golden 65 (DT) Compatto”) — 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