WARCHALOWSKI-MC CORMICK WT-32 B or WHITE 2-35?
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 2-35 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft.
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 | 2-35 | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 22.1 kW (29.6 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Warchalowski WT 32B” | 22.8 kW (30.6 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “White 2-35” | 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 2-35 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 2-35. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the WT-32 B and the 2-35. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | — | 25.0 L/min (6.6 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “White 2-35” | No figureNo call on hydraulic flow: no figure on record for the WT-32 B. |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | 1,800 kg (3,968 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Warchalowski WT 32B” | 500 kg (1,102 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “White 2-35” | Not comparableNot comparable on three-point lift: the WT-32 B: lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source (Traktorenlexikon, “Warchalowski WT 32B”); the 2-35: lift 610 mm behind the hitch ends, as stated by the source (Traktorenlexikon, “White 2-35”) — not the same quantity, basis and condition. |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 1,550 kg (3,417 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Warchalowski WT 32B” | 1,220 kg (2,690 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “White 2-35” | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The WARCHALOWSKI-MC CORMICK WT-32 B is 27% heavier (330 kg / 728 lb) than the WHITE 2-35 (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 WT-32 B and the 2-35. |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 8Traktorenlexikon, “Warchalowski WT 32B” | 8Traktorenlexikon, “White 2-35” | 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” | — | No figureNo call on a creeper range: not stated for the 2-35. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 30 km/h (18.6 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Warchalowski WT 32B” | 30 km/h (18.6 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “White 2-35” | 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, “White 2-35” | 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 2-35. |
| Which drives on both axles? | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Warchalowski WT 32B” | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “White 2-35” | EvenEven on drive: all two-wheel drive. |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1968–1971 | 1979–1984 | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The WHITE 2-35 is newer: production began 11 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-32 B is 27% heavier (330 kg / 728 lb) than the WHITE 2-35 (both unladen weight, as stated by the source).
- The WHITE 2-35 is newer: production began 11 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 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.
- 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 2-35 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft.
- Not comparable on three-point lift: the WT-32 B: lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source (Traktorenlexikon, “Warchalowski WT 32B”); the 2-35: lift 610 mm behind the hitch ends, as stated by the source (Traktorenlexikon, “White 2-35”) — not the same quantity, basis and condition.
- No figure on record for every machine, so no call on: fuel efficiency at the shaft, drawbar power, hydraulic flow, maximum permissible mass, a creeper range and PTO independence.
← Every figure for both machines, side by side, with sources