OLIVER 2055 or ZETOR 16045?
Which should you choose?
On performance, every comparable figure that differs favours the OLIVER 2055: hydraulic flow. On features, the ZETOR 16045 is ahead on drive.
- The OLIVER 2055 suits loader and hydraulic implement work better on this data: 115% (40.5 L/min / 10.7 gpm) more hydraulic flow.
- The ZETOR 16045 suits heavy draft work (ploughing, cultivating) better on this data: four-wheel drive.
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 | 2055 | 16045 | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 77.6 kW (104.1 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Oliver 2055” | 77.1 kW (103.4 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Zetor 16045” | 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 2055 and the 16045. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the 2055 and the 16045. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | 75.7 L/min (20.0 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Oliver 2055” | 35.2 L/min (9.3 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Zetor 16045” | AheadThe OLIVER 2055 has 115% more hydraulic flow (40.5 L/min / 10.7 gpm) than the ZETOR 16045 (both pump flow, as stated by the source). |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | — | 4,867 kg (10,730 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Zetor 16045” | No figureNo call on three-point lift: no figure on record for the 2055. |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 4,842 kg (10,675 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Oliver 2055” | 4,990 kg (11,001 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Zetor 16045” | 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 2055 and the 16045. |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 10Traktorenlexikon, “Oliver 2055” | 12Traktorenlexikon, “Zetor 16045” | 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 2055 and the 16045. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 30 km/h (18.6 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Oliver 2055” | 30 km/h (18.6 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Zetor 16045” | 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? | 1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Oliver 2055” | 1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Zetor 16045” | EvenEven on PTO speeds: the same speeds (1000 rpm). |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | independentTraktorenlexikon, “Oliver 2055” | — | No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the 16045. |
| Which drives on both axles? | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Oliver 2055” | 4WDTraktorenlexikon, “Zetor 16045” | AheadThe ZETOR 16045 is available with four-wheel drive; the OLIVER 2055 is two-wheel drive (as stated by the sources). |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1969–1971 | 1980–1984 | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The ZETOR 16045 is newer: production began 11 years later. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts. |
What does this mean in plain words?
- The OLIVER 2055 has 115% more hydraulic flow (40.5 L/min / 10.7 gpm) than the ZETOR 16045 (both pump flow, as stated by the source).
- The ZETOR 16045 is available with four-wheel drive; the OLIVER 2055 is two-wheel drive (as stated by the sources).
- The ZETOR 16045 is newer: production began 11 years later. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts.
- 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 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 (1000 rpm).
- 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