WARCHALOWSKI-MC CORMICK WT-32 B or Warchalowski WT-30 B?
Which should you choose?
The data can’t decide this. Power at the PTO shaft cannot be compared: the WT-32 B has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the WT-30 B has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft.
- The WARCHALOWSKI-MC CORMICK WT-32 B suits loader and hydraulic implement work better on this data: 50% (600 kg / 1,323 lb) more three-point lift.
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 | WT-32 B | WT-30 B | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 22.1 kW (29.6 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Warchalowski WT 32B” | 22.1 kW (29.6 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Warchalowski WT 30B” | Not comparableNot comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the WT-32 B has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the WT-30 B 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 WT-32 B and the WT-30 B. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the WT-32 B and the WT-30 B. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | — | — | No figureNo call on hydraulic flow: no figure on record for the WT-32 B and the WT-30 B. |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | 1,800 kg (3,968 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Warchalowski WT 32B” | 1,200 kg (2,646 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Warchalowski WT 30B” | AheadThe WARCHALOWSKI-MC CORMICK WT-32 B has 50% more lift (600 kg / 1,323 lb) than the Warchalowski WT-30 B (both lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source). |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 1,550 kg (3,417 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Warchalowski WT 32B” | 1,410 kg (3,109 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Warchalowski WT 30B” | 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? | — | — | No figureNo call on maximum permissible mass: no figure on record for the WT-32 B and the WT-30 B. |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 8Traktorenlexikon, “Warchalowski WT 32B” | 8Traktorenlexikon, “Warchalowski WT 30B” | 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? | YesTraktorenlexikon, “Warchalowski WT 32B” | YesTraktorenlexikon, “Warchalowski WT 30B” | EvenEven on a creeper range: every machine offers one. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 30 km/h (18.6 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Warchalowski WT 32B” | 30 km/h (18.6 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Warchalowski WT 30B” | 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 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Warchalowski WT 32B” | 540 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Warchalowski WT 30B” | EvenEven on PTO speeds: the same speeds (540 rpm). |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | independentTraktorenlexikon, “Warchalowski WT 32B” | — | No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the WT-30 B. |
| Which drives on both axles? | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Warchalowski WT 32B” | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Warchalowski WT 30B” | EvenEven on drive: all two-wheel drive. |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1968–1971 | 1965–1969 | 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 WARCHALOWSKI-MC CORMICK WT-32 B has 50% more lift (600 kg / 1,323 lb) than the Warchalowski WT-30 B (both lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source).
- 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 a creeper range: every machine offers one.
- 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 rpm).
- Even on drive: all two-wheel drive.
- Same era: production began within 5 years of each other. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts.
- Not comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the WT-32 B has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the WT-30 B 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 PTO independence.
← Every figure for both machines, side by side, with sources