Nuffield M-3 or Volvo T-32?
Which should you choose?
The data can’t decide this. Power at the PTO shaft cannot be compared: the M-3 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the T-32 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft.
- The Nuffield M-3 suits loader and hydraulic implement work better on this data: 15% (3.5 L/min / 0.9 gpm) more hydraulic flow.
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 | M-3 | T-32 | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 28.3 kW (38.0 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Nuffield Universal M 3 (1948-1957)” | 28.7 kW (38.5 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Volvo T 32” | Not comparableNot comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the M-3 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the T-32 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 M-3 and the T-32. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the M-3 and the T-32. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | 27.3 L/min (7.2 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Nuffield Universal M 3 (1948-1957)” | 23.8 L/min (6.3 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Volvo T 32” | AheadThe Nuffield M-3 has 15% more hydraulic flow (3.5 L/min / 0.9 gpm) than the Volvo T-32 (both pump flow, as stated by the source). |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | — | 850 kg (1,874 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Volvo T 32” | No figureNo call on three-point lift: no figure on record for the M-3. |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 2,199 kg (4,848 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Nuffield Universal M 3 (1948-1957)” | 2,295 kg (5,060 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Volvo T 32” | 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 M-3 and the T-32. |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 5Traktorenlexikon, “Nuffield Universal M 3 (1948-1957)” | 5Traktorenlexikon, “Volvo T 32” | 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 M-3 and the T-32. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 28 km/h (17.4 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Nuffield Universal M 3 (1948-1957)” | 30 km/h (18.6 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Volvo T 32” | 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, “Nuffield Universal M 3 (1948-1957)” | 540 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Volvo T 32” | EvenEven on PTO speeds: the same speeds (540 rpm). |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | dependent (stops with the clutch)Traktorenlexikon, “Nuffield Universal M 3 (1948-1957)” | — | No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the T-32. |
| Which drives on both axles? | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Nuffield Universal M 3 (1948-1957)” | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Volvo T 32” | EvenEven on drive: all two-wheel drive. |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1948–1954 | 1950–1957 | 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 Nuffield M-3 has 15% more hydraulic flow (3.5 L/min / 0.9 gpm) than the Volvo T-32 (both pump flow, as stated by the source).
- 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 difference is under the 10% threshold, too small to call.
- Even on PTO speeds: the same speeds (540 rpm).
- Even on drive: all two-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.
- Not comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the M-3 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the T-32 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, three-point lift, maximum permissible mass, a creeper range and PTO independence.
← Every figure for both machines, side by side, with sources