Agco RT-145 or Agco RT-150?
Which should you choose?
The data can’t decide this. Power at the PTO shaft cannot be compared: the RT-145 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the RT-150 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 | RT-145 | RT-150 | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 108.9 kW (146.0 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “AGCO RT 145” | 110.3 kW (147.9 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “AGCO RT 150” | Not comparableNot comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the RT-145 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the RT-150 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 RT-145 and the RT-150. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the RT-145 and the RT-150. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | 114.3 L/min (30.2 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “AGCO RT 145” | 113.6 L/min (30.0 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “AGCO RT 150” | EvenEven on hydraulic flow (both pump flow, as stated by the source): the difference is under the 10% threshold, too small to call. |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | 8,446 kg (18,620 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “AGCO RT 145” | 8,169 kg (18,010 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “AGCO RT 150” | EvenEven on three-point lift (both lift 610 mm behind the hitch ends, as stated by the source): the difference is under the 10% threshold, too small to call. |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 6,749 kg (14,879 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “AGCO RT 145” | 7,446 kg (16,416 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “AGCO RT 150” | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The Agco RT-150 is 10% heavier (697 kg / 1,537 lb) than the Agco RT-145 (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 RT-145 and the RT-150. |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 18 to 32 forwardTraktorenlexikon, “AGCO RT 145” | Stepless (CVT)Traktorenlexikon, “AGCO RT 150” | DifferTransmissions differ in kind: the Agco RT-145 has 18 to 32 forward gears and the Agco RT-150 is stepless (CVT) — not called. |
| Which offers a creeper range? | — | — | No figureNo call on a creeper range: not stated for the RT-145 and the RT-150. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 40 km/h (24.9 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “AGCO RT 145” | 40 km/h (24.9 mph) to 50 km/h (31.1 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “AGCO RT 150” | EvenEven on top speed (both top speed forward, as stated by the source): the figures vary by configuration and the ranges overlap. |
| Which offers more PTO speeds? | 540/1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “AGCO RT 145” | 540/1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “AGCO RT 150” | EvenEven on PTO speeds: the same speeds (540, 1000 rpm). |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | independentTraktorenlexikon, “AGCO RT 145” | independentTraktorenlexikon, “AGCO RT 150” | EvenEven on PTO independence: every PTO is independent. |
| Which drives on both axles? | Two-wheel or four-wheel driveTraktorenlexikon, “AGCO RT 145” | 4WDTraktorenlexikon, “AGCO RT 150” | EvenEven on drive: every machine is available with four-wheel drive. |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 2002–2004 | 2004–2005 | 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 Agco RT-150 is 10% heavier (697 kg / 1,537 lb) than the Agco RT-145 (both unladen weight, as stated by the source).
- Even on hydraulic flow (both pump flow, as stated by the source): the difference is under the 10% threshold, too small to call.
- Even on three-point lift (both lift 610 mm behind the hitch ends, as stated by the source): the difference is under the 10% threshold, too small to call.
- Transmissions differ in kind: the Agco RT-145 has 18 to 32 forward gears and the Agco RT-150 is stepless (CVT) — not called.
- Even on top speed (both top speed forward, as stated by the source): the figures vary by configuration and the ranges overlap.
- Even on PTO speeds: the same speeds (540, 1000 rpm).
- Even on PTO independence: every PTO is independent.
- Even on drive: every machine is available with four-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 RT-145 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the RT-150 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, maximum permissible mass and a creeper range.
← Every figure for both machines, side by side, with sources