VOLVO-BM 2654 or VOLVO-BM T 2650?

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 VOLVO-BM 2654 is ahead on drive.

  • The VOLVO-BM 2654 suits heavy draft work (ploughing, cultivating) better on this data: 14% (900 kg / 1,984 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?

Buyer questions for VOLVO-BM 2654 and VOLVO-BM T 2650, with the call on each
Question2654T 2650Call
Which puts more power through the PTO shaft?95.6 kW (128 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Bolinder-Munktell T 2654”95.6 kW (128 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Volvo T 2650”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 2654 and the T 2650.
Which pulls harder at the drawbar?No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the 2654 and the T 2650.
Which pumps more oil for implements?47.0 L/min (12.4 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Bolinder-Munktell T 2654”47.0 L/min (12.4 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Volvo T 2650”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?3,400 kg (7,496 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Bolinder-Munktell T 2654”3,400 kg (7,496 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Volvo T 2650”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?7,500 kg (16,535 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Bolinder-Munktell T 2654”6,600 kg (14,551 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Volvo T 2650”Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The VOLVO-BM 2654 is 14% heavier (900 kg / 1,984 lb) than the VOLVO-BM T 2650 (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 2654 and the T 2650.
Which has the wider choice of gears?14Traktorenlexikon, “Bolinder-Munktell T 2654”14Traktorenlexikon, “Volvo T 2650”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 2654 and the T 2650.
Which is faster on the road?30 km/h (18.6 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Bolinder-Munktell T 2654”30 km/h (18.6 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Volvo T 2650”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?540/1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Bolinder-Munktell T 2654”540/1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Volvo T 2650”EvenEven on PTO speeds: the same speeds (540, 1000 rpm).
Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive?independentTraktorenlexikon, “Bolinder-Munktell T 2654”independentTraktorenlexikon, “Volvo T 2650”EvenEven on PTO independence: every PTO is independent.
Which drives on both axles?4WDTraktorenlexikon, “Bolinder-Munktell T 2654”2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Volvo T 2650”AheadThe VOLVO-BM 2654 is available with four-wheel drive; the VOLVO-BM T 2650 is two-wheel drive (as stated by the sources).
Which is newer, and what about parts?1978–19841978–1984EvenSame 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 VOLVO-BM 2654 is 14% heavier (900 kg / 1,984 lb) than the VOLVO-BM T 2650 (both unladen weight, as stated by the source).
  • The VOLVO-BM 2654 is available with four-wheel drive; the VOLVO-BM T 2650 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 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 (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