Renault 80-32 PX or Renault 80-34 PX?
Which should you choose?
On performance, no comparable figure differs by more than its threshold: on this data the machines are level. On features, the Renault 80-34 PX is ahead on drive.
- The Renault 80-34 PX suits heavy draft work (ploughing, cultivating) better on this data: 11% (360 kg / 794 lb) heavier and 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 | 80-32 PX | 80-34 PX | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 50.9 kW (68.3 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Renault 80-32 PE/PA/PS/PX R3152” | 50.9 kW (68.3 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Renault 80-34 PE/PA/PS/PX R3152” | 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 80-32 PX and the 80-34 PX. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the 80-32 PX and the 80-34 PX. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | 31.9 L/min (8.4 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Renault 80-32 PE/PA/PS/PX R3152” | 31.9 L/min (8.4 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Renault 80-34 PE/PA/PS/PX R3152” | 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? | 3,825 kg (8,433 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Renault 80-32 PE/PA/PS/PX R3152” | 3,825 kg (8,433 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Renault 80-34 PE/PA/PS/PX R3152” | 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? | 3,220 kg (7,099 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Renault 80-32 PE/PA/PS/PX R3152” | 3,580 kg (7,893 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Renault 80-34 PE/PA/PS/PX R3152” | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The Renault 80-34 PX is 11% heavier (360 kg / 794 lb) than the Renault 80-32 PX (both unladen weight, as stated by the source). |
| Which may carry more ballast and load? | — | 6,000 kg (13,228 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Renault 80-34 PE/PA/PS/PX R3152” | No figureNo call on maximum permissible mass: no figure on record for the 80-32 PX. |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 12 to 24Traktorenlexikon, “Renault 80-32 PE/PA/PS/PX R3152” | 12 to 24Traktorenlexikon, “Renault 80-34 PE/PA/PS/PX R3152” | 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 80-32 PX and the 80-34 PX. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 30 km/h (18.6 mph) to 40 km/h (24.9 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Renault 80-32 PE/PA/PS/PX R3152” | 30 km/h (18.6 mph) to 40 km/h (24.9 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Renault 80-34 PE/PA/PS/PX R3152” | 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? | 540/1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Renault 80-32 PE/PA/PS/PX R3152” | 540/1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Renault 80-34 PE/PA/PS/PX R3152” | EvenEven on PTO speeds: the same speeds (540, 1000 rpm). |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | independentTraktorenlexikon, “Renault 80-32 PE/PA/PS/PX R3152” | independentTraktorenlexikon, “Renault 80-34 PE/PA/PS/PX R3152” | EvenEven on PTO independence: every PTO is independent. |
| Which drives on both axles? | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Renault 80-32 PE/PA/PS/PX R3152” | 4WDTraktorenlexikon, “Renault 80-34 PE/PA/PS/PX R3152” | AheadThe Renault 80-34 PX is available with four-wheel drive; the Renault 80-32 PX is two-wheel drive (as stated by the sources). |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1989–1993 | 1989–1993 | 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 Renault 80-34 PX is 11% heavier (360 kg / 794 lb) than the Renault 80-32 PX (both unladen weight, as stated by the source).
- The Renault 80-34 PX is available with four-wheel drive; the Renault 80-32 PX is two-wheel drive (as stated by the sources).
- 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, 1000 rpm).
- Even on PTO independence: every PTO is independent.
- 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 and a creeper range.
← Every figure for both machines, side by side, with sources