OLIVER 500 or URSUS C-330?
Which should you choose?
On performance, every comparable figure that differs favours the OLIVER 500: hydraulic flow. It is also ahead on PTO speeds.
- The OLIVER 500 suits PTO-driven implements (mowers, balers, pumps) better on this data: offers 1000 rpm.
- The OLIVER 500 suits loader and hydraulic implement work better on this data: 13% (2.7 L/min / 0.7 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 | 500 | C-330 | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 21.0 kW (28.2 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Oliver 500” | 21.3 kW (28.6 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Ursus C-330” | 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 500 and the C-330. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the 500 and the C-330. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | 22.7 L/min (6.0 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Oliver 500” | 20.0 L/min (5.3 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Ursus C-330” | AheadThe OLIVER 500 has 13% more hydraulic flow (2.7 L/min / 0.7 gpm) than the URSUS C-330 (both pump flow, as stated by the source). |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | 876 kg (1,931 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Oliver 500” | — | No figureNo call on three-point lift: no figure on record for the C-330. |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 1,680 kg (3,704 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Oliver 500” | 1,675 kg (3,693 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Ursus C-330” | 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? | — | 1,880 kg (4,145 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Ursus C-330” | No figureNo call on maximum permissible mass: no figure on record for the 500. |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 6Traktorenlexikon, “Oliver 500” | 6Wikipedia (pl): Ursus C-330 (open data) | 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 500 and the C-330. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 25 km/h (15.5 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Oliver 500” | 24 km/h (14.9 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Ursus C-330” | 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 rpm / 1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Oliver 500” | 540 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Ursus C-330” | AheadThe OLIVER 500 offers 1000 rpm at the PTO, which the URSUS C-330 does not (as stated by the sources). |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | — | — | No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the 500 and the C-330. |
| Which drives on both axles? | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Oliver 500” | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Ursus C-330” | EvenEven on drive: all two-wheel drive. |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1961–1963 | 1967–1987 | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The URSUS C-330 is newer: production began 6 years later. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts. |
What does this mean in plain words?
- The OLIVER 500 has 13% more hydraulic flow (2.7 L/min / 0.7 gpm) than the URSUS C-330 (both pump flow, as stated by the source).
- The OLIVER 500 offers 1000 rpm at the PTO, which the URSUS C-330 does not (as stated by the sources).
- The URSUS C-330 is newer: production began 6 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 drive: all two-wheel drive.
- 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