SOMECA SOM-40 Super or WARCHALOWSKI-MC CORMICK WT-45 A?
Which should you choose?
The data can’t decide this. Power at the PTO shaft cannot be compared: the SOM-40 Super has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the WT-45 A has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft.
- The WARCHALOWSKI-MC CORMICK WT-45 A suits loader and hydraulic implement work better on this data: 38% (500 kg / 1,102 lb) more three-point lift.
- The WARCHALOWSKI-MC CORMICK WT-45 A suits road haulage better on this data: 36% (8.0 km/h / 5.0 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 | SOM-40 Super | WT-45 A | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 33.1 kW (44.4 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Someca SOM 40 Super” | 33.1 kW (44.4 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Warchalowski WT 45 A” | Not comparableNot comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the SOM-40 Super has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the WT-45 A 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 SOM-40 Super and the WT-45 A. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the SOM-40 Super and the WT-45 A. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | 15.2 L/min (4.0 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Someca SOM 40 Super” | — | No figureNo call on hydraulic flow: no figure on record for the WT-45 A. |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | 1,300 kg (2,866 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Someca SOM 40 Super” | 1,800 kg (3,968 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Warchalowski WT 45 A” | AheadThe WARCHALOWSKI-MC CORMICK WT-45 A has 38% more lift (500 kg / 1,102 lb) than the SOMECA SOM-40 Super (both lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source). |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 2,525 kg (5,567 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Someca SOM 40 Super” | 1,950 kg (4,299 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Warchalowski WT 45 A” | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The SOMECA SOM-40 Super is 29% heavier (575 kg / 1,268 lb) than the WARCHALOWSKI-MC CORMICK WT-45 A (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 SOM-40 Super and the WT-45 A. |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 7Traktorenlexikon, “Someca SOM 40 Super” | 8Traktorenlexikon, “Warchalowski WT 45 A” | 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 SOM-40 Super and the WT-45 A. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 22 km/h (13.7 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Someca SOM 40 Super” | 30 km/h (18.6 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Warchalowski WT 45 A” | AheadThe WARCHALOWSKI-MC CORMICK WT-45 A has 36% more top speed (8.0 km/h / 5.0 mph) than the SOMECA SOM-40 Super (both top speed forward, as stated by the source). |
| Which offers more PTO speeds? | 540 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Someca SOM 40 Super” | 540 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Warchalowski WT 45 A” | EvenEven on PTO speeds: the same speeds (540 rpm). |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | independentTraktorenlexikon, “Someca SOM 40 Super” | independentTraktorenlexikon, “Warchalowski WT 45 A” | EvenEven on PTO independence: every PTO is independent. |
| Which drives on both axles? | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Someca SOM 40 Super” | 4WDTraktorenlexikon, “Warchalowski WT 45 A” | AheadThe WARCHALOWSKI-MC CORMICK WT-45 A is available with four-wheel drive; the SOMECA SOM-40 Super is two-wheel drive (as stated by the sources). |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1963–1964 | 1968–1970 | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The WARCHALOWSKI-MC CORMICK WT-45 A is newer: production began 5 years later. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts. |
What does this mean in plain words?
- The WARCHALOWSKI-MC CORMICK WT-45 A has 38% more lift (500 kg / 1,102 lb) than the SOMECA SOM-40 Super (both lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source).
- The SOMECA SOM-40 Super is 29% heavier (575 kg / 1,268 lb) than the WARCHALOWSKI-MC CORMICK WT-45 A (both unladen weight, as stated by the source).
- The WARCHALOWSKI-MC CORMICK WT-45 A has 36% more top speed (8.0 km/h / 5.0 mph) than the SOMECA SOM-40 Super (both top speed forward, as stated by the source).
- The WARCHALOWSKI-MC CORMICK WT-45 A is available with four-wheel drive; the SOMECA SOM-40 Super is two-wheel drive (as stated by the sources).
- The WARCHALOWSKI-MC CORMICK WT-45 A is newer: production began 5 years later. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts.
- 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 PTO speeds: the same speeds (540 rpm).
- Even on PTO independence: every PTO is independent.
- Not comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the SOM-40 Super has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the WT-45 A 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, maximum permissible mass and a creeper range.
← Every figure for both machines, side by side, with sources