AC 170 and 175 with Perkins Engines

I just curious and wondering if some you that have or had one these tractors ever had a chance to compare them to a Massey Ferguson tractor that had the same engine in them like a MF 175 with a Perkins 236 or MF 275 with the Perkins 248 engine. They were all built around same time period for comparable models. I know their a different in wheelbase ( MF models being about 12 inches shorter ) , but weight fairly similar. But wondering if anyone had a chance to compare them in the field neither working ground ( plowing and discing ) or in the hayfield cutting or baling hay. Both brand models used the same engines and horsepower was fairly close so wondering how the performance was between say a AC 175 tractor and MF 275 tractor both with a Perkins 248 engine in them ? ( horsepower pretty close the same )

We overhauled the engine in our 175 at 4800 hours. That was several years ago,15 or so, maybe 20 by now. Time flies. I wasn't aware at the time that ac had stopped using the 236 engine. When we got it apart, lo and behold it was a 248. The protrusion had broken off on a couple of cylinder sleeves and the head gasket was leaking as a result. We had to have the block machined so it would take the newer style sleeves that the company offered. Not to long after the overhaul we had the pump redone, and it dyno tested 64 hp. When they pulled it down to pto speed the needle on the dyno went to 77 hp. I realize the engine didn't actually put out 77 hp because it was turning slower, but that was a 20% increase in torque. We used to do a lot of work with this tractor on the grinder-mixer when we had hogs. I had put a bigger drive pulley on the harvestore silo that we would grind out of, and it would pull this tractor down to 1500 engine rpms. Once just for sh#ts and giggles i stuck the leafblower over the top of the precleaner pipe while grinding. It brought the rpms back up to pto speed. Never tried that while it was on the dyno. I think if i had, the dealer would have driven me to the nearest detox center It was easier just to get the 200 to grind with.

The AC's used a 236 and 248 engines (236's were heavier duty - changed to 248 as it was cheaper - go figure)  the AC engine variant had to have unfinished sleeves... and then precision honed to fit...  which made in-frame almost impossible. The MF versions had finished sleeves.  Perkins made so many versions of each engine it is unbelievable .  Like a 160 vs a 135 MF - same cubic inch 152 but different crankshafts.  WE assume for differentiation of product.  MF versions usually cranked better than the AC's in general. The AC 's using 4 cyl Perkins had a bad rep for cranking - except for an occasional unit that would start no matter what while it brother took a stick of dyno mite ... we equipped the units that customer had to start in the winter with an additional battery that could be removed in the summer. Cranking speed was the key to starting - one could pull a 170/175 3 feet and it would pop off...  The 160 AC perkins on the other hand had a great reputation as the best starting tractor in the line.   The thermo start air intake heater was neat as it - when used correctly burnt diesel fuel in the intake - when it worked.