RÖHR R 35 or Warchalowski WT-40?
Which should you choose?
The data can’t decide this. Power at the PTO shaft cannot be compared: the R 35 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the WT-40 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft.
- The Warchalowski WT-40 suits road haulage better on this data: 45% (9.0 km/h / 5.6 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 | R 35 | WT-40 | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 26.5 kW (35.5 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Röhr R 35” | 26.5 kW (35.5 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Warchalowski WT 40” | Not comparableNot comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the R 35 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the WT-40 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 R 35 and the WT-40. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the R 35 and the WT-40. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | — | — | No figureNo call on hydraulic flow: no figure on record for the R 35 and the WT-40. |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | — | 1,200 kg (2,646 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Warchalowski WT 40” | No figureNo call on three-point lift: no figure on record for the R 35. |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 1,890 kg (4,167 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Röhr R 35” | 1,380 kg (3,042 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Warchalowski WT 40” | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The RÖHR R 35 is 37% heavier (510 kg / 1,124 lb) than the Warchalowski WT-40 (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 R 35 and the WT-40. |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 5 to 6Traktorenlexikon, “Röhr R 35” | 8Traktorenlexikon, “Warchalowski WT 40” | AheadThe Warchalowski WT-40 has 33% more forward gears (2 gears) than the RÖHR R 35 (both forward gears, as stated by the source). |
| Which offers a creeper range? | — | — | No figureNo call on a creeper range: not stated for the R 35 and the WT-40. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 20 km/h (12.4 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Röhr R 35” | 29 km/h (18.0 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Warchalowski WT 40” | AheadThe Warchalowski WT-40 has 45% more top speed (9.0 km/h / 5.6 mph) than the RÖHR R 35 (both top speed forward, as stated by the source). |
| Which offers more PTO speeds? | 540 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Röhr R 35” | 540/1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Warchalowski WT 40” | AheadThe Warchalowski WT-40 offers 1000 rpm at the PTO, which the RÖHR R 35 does not (as stated by the sources). |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | dependent (stops with the clutch)Traktorenlexikon, “Röhr R 35” | independentTraktorenlexikon, “Warchalowski WT 40” | AheadThe Warchalowski WT-40 has an independent PTO; the RÖHR R 35’s is dependent (stops with the clutch). |
| Which drives on both axles? | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Röhr R 35” | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Warchalowski WT 40” | EvenEven on drive: all two-wheel drive. |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1949 | 1958–1961 | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The Warchalowski WT-40 is newer: production began 9 years later. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts. |
What does this mean in plain words?
- The RÖHR R 35 is 37% heavier (510 kg / 1,124 lb) than the Warchalowski WT-40 (both unladen weight, as stated by the source).
- The Warchalowski WT-40 has 33% more forward gears (2 gears) than the RÖHR R 35 (both forward gears, as stated by the source).
- The Warchalowski WT-40 has 45% more top speed (9.0 km/h / 5.6 mph) than the RÖHR R 35 (both top speed forward, as stated by the source).
- The Warchalowski WT-40 offers 1000 rpm at the PTO, which the RÖHR R 35 does not (as stated by the sources).
- The Warchalowski WT-40 has an independent PTO; the RÖHR R 35’s is dependent (stops with the clutch).
- The Warchalowski WT-40 is newer: production began 9 years later. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts.
- Even on drive: all two-wheel drive.
- Not comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the R 35 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the WT-40 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, hydraulic flow, three-point lift, maximum permissible mass and a creeper range.
← Every figure for both machines, side by side, with sources