ChallengerModel A
Challenger MT535
Row Crop
- power
- Not recorded
- displacement
- 365 ci
- Cylinders
- 6
- Forward gears
- 32
Head to head · Row Crop
Challenger MT535 vs Farmall 766
FarmallModel B
Farmall 766
Row Crop
- power
- Not recorded
- displacement
- 360 ci
- Cylinders
- 6
- Forward gears
- 16
ChallengerChallenger MT535
vs
FarmallFarmall 766
How they compare
Headline specs vs. the whole Row Crop
Engine Displacement
▲ MT535 higher · +5 ci (+1%)MT535365 ci
766360 ci
Median Row Crop Tractor391 ci
MT535 is in the 43rd percentile; 766 is in the 42nd · 1,409 models
Cylinders
= Effectively tiedMT5356
7666
Median Row Crop Tractor6
MT535 is in the 50th percentile; 766 is in the 50th · 1,417 models
Forward Gears
▲ MT535 higher · +16 (+100%)MT53532
76616
Median Row Crop Tractor16
MT535 is in the 91st percentile; 766 is in the 50th · 1,200 models
Operating Weight
▲ 766 higher · +700 lb (+7%)MT5359,600 lb
76610,300 lb
Median Row Crop Tractor12,307 lb
MT535 is in the 29th percentile; 766 is in the 34th · 1,350 models
MT535 (A)766 (B)Median Row Crop Tractor
Full comparison
Every spec, side by side
General Information
| Spec | Challenger MT535 | Farmall 766 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Manufacturer | Challenger | Farmall | — |
| Model | MT535 | 766 | — |
| Category | Row Crop | Row Crop | Same |
Engine
| Spec | Challenger MT535 | Farmall 766 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Manufacturer | Caterpillar | International Harvester | — |
| Model | 3056 | Not recorded | — |
| Rated RPM | 2,200RPM | 2,400RPM | ▲ 766+200 RPM · +9% |
| Cylinders | 6 | 6 | Same |
| Displacement | 365ci | 360ci | ▲ MT535+5 ci · +1% |
| Bore | 3.9in | 3.9in | Same |
| Stroke | 5in | 5.1in | ▲ 766+0.1 in · +2% |
Transmission
| Spec | Challenger MT535 | Farmall 766 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type | Partial Power Shift | Partial power shift | Same |
Dimensions & Weight
| Spec | Challenger MT535 | Farmall 766 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Length | 179in | Not recorded | — |
| Width | 88in | Not recorded | — |
| Height | 109in | Not recorded | — |
| Operating Weight | 9,600lb | 10,300lb | ▲ 766+700 lb · +7% |
Hydraulics
| Spec | Challenger MT535 | Farmall 766 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| System Type | Closed Center Pressure Flow Compensated (PFC) | Open Center | — |
| Steering Type | Power | Hydrostatic power | — |
Hitch & Towing
| Spec | Challenger MT535 | Farmall 766 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hitch Type | II | Not recorded | — |
| Hitch Category | Not recorded | III | — |
| Hitch Position | Rear | Not recorded | — |
Chassis & Drive
| Spec | Challenger MT535 | Farmall 766 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chassis Type | 4x2 2WD | 4x2 2WD | Same |
| Drive Type | 2WD | 2WD | Same |
| Steering Type | Power | Hydrostatic power | — |
| Brake Type | Hydraulic wet disc | Not recorded | — |
Electrical
| Spec | Challenger MT535 | Farmall 766 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Starter Type | Electric | Electric | Same |
Operator Station
| Spec | Challenger MT535 | Farmall 766 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type | Optional Cab | Not recorded | — |
Category context
Both models against the field
Engine Displacement
median 391 ciA · 43rd percentile (365 ci)B · 42nd percentile (360 ci)
Cylinders
median 6A · 50th percentile (6)B · 50th percentile (6)
Forward Gears
median 16A · 91st percentile (32)B · 50th percentile (16)
Operating Weight
median 12,307 lbA · 29th percentile (9,600 lb)B · 34th percentile (10,300 lb)
A · MT535B · 766Median Row Crop Tractor