AGCO-ALLIS 9690 vs Case-IH Puma 195

8 material differences · fewer than 12

Tractor one

AGCO-ALLIS 9690

1994–1995

No measured PTO figure

Tractor two

Case-IH Puma 195

2007–2011

No measured PTO figure

Which should you choose?

Read our verdict on the 9690 and the Puma 195 → It is generated from the rows below by a fixed, versioned rule set, and names the figure behind every call.

Field by field

8 material differences · 8 fields identical or within 5%, which is not counted as material

AGCO-ALLIS 9690 and Case-IH Puma 195, field by field
Field9690Puma 195Gap
Engine
Engine power, claimed claimed195.3 hp194.3 hp
Engine declaredK.H.D. BF6L 513 RCIVECO-N.E.F. 667 TA/EBCdiffers
Displacement declared9.57 L6.73 L+42% 9690
Maximum torque declared589 lb·ft · 798 N·m607 lb·ft · 823 N·m
Transmission
Top speed declared24.9 mph · 40 km/h24.9–31.1 mph · 40–50 km/hdiffers
Clutch declaredHydraulically operated wet FUNK multi-plate clutch
Hydraulics & hitch
Hydraulic centre declaredClosed centreClosed centre
Hydraulic control declaredLoad sensing
Pump flow declared21.8 gpm · 82.5 L/min35.6 gpm · 134.8 L/min+63% Puma 195
Pressure declared2,944 psi · 203 bar2,756 psi · 190 bar+7% 9690
Three-point lift at ends declared8,173 lb · 3,707 kg
Rear PTO speeds declared1000 rpm540E/1000 rpmdiffers
Weight & dimensions
Unladen weight declared18,100 lb · 8,210 kg17,637 lb · 8,000 kg
Maximum permissible mass declared26,455 lb · 12,000 kg
Wheelbase declared115.0 in · 2,921 mm113.5 in · 2,884 mm
Length declared200.0 in · 5,080 mm201.2 in · 5,110 mm
Width declared96.0 in · 2,438 mm84.1 in · 2,135 mm+14% 9690
Height declared121.0 in · 3,073 mm120.1 in · 3,050 mm
Ground clearance declared17.0 in · 432 mm17.7 in · 450 mm
Turning radius, braked declared14.6 ft · 4.45 m
Fuel tank declared387.8 qt · 367.0 L433.2 qt · 410.0 L+12% Puma 195

AGCO-ALLIS 9690 sources

Source
  • Source: Traktorenlexikon, “AGCO-Allis 9690”
  • Source: Traktorenlexikon, “AGCO-Allis 9670”

Case-IH Puma 195 sources

Source
  • Source: Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH Puma 195”
  • Source: OECD test report 2425, 2008