Agco RT 180 A or Case-IH Puma 210?
Which should you choose?
The data can’t decide this. Power at the PTO shaft cannot be compared: the RT 180 A has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the Puma 210 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft.
- The Case-IH Puma 210 suits loader and hydraulic implement work better on this data: 59% (3,862 kg / 8,514 lb) more three-point lift.
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 180 A | Puma 210 | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 155.9 kW (209.1 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “AGCO RT 180 A” | 156.7 kW (210.1 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH Puma 210” | Not comparableNot comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the RT 180 A has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the Puma 210 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 180 A and the Puma 210. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the RT 180 A and the Puma 210. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | 116.6 L/min (30.8 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “AGCO RT 180 A” | — | No figureNo call on hydraulic flow: no figure on record for the Puma 210. |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | 6,598 kg (14,546 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “AGCO RT 180 A” | 10,460 kg (23,060 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH Puma 210” | AheadThe Case-IH Puma 210 has 59% more lift (3,862 kg / 8,514 lb) than the Agco RT 180A (both lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source). |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 7,920 kg (17,461 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “AGCO RT 180 A” | 8,200 kg (18,078 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH Puma 210” | EvenEven on weight (both unladen weight, as stated by the source): the difference is under the 10% threshold, too small to call. |
| Which may carry more ballast and load? | — | 12,000 kg (26,455 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH Puma 210” | No figureNo call on maximum permissible mass: no figure on record for the RT 180 A. |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | Stepless (CVT)Traktorenlexikon, “AGCO RT 180 A” | 18 to 28 forwardTraktorenlexikon, “Case-IH Puma 210” | DifferTransmissions differ in kind: the Agco RT 180A is stepless (CVT) and the Case-IH Puma 210 has 18 to 28 forward gears — not called. |
| Which offers a creeper range? | — | — | No figureNo call on a creeper range: not stated for the RT 180 A and the Puma 210. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 40 km/h (24.9 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “AGCO RT 180 A” | 40 km/h (24.9 mph) to 50 km/h (31.1 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH Puma 210” | 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 180 A” | 540E/1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Case-IH Puma 210” | Sources disagreeNo call on PTO speeds: sources disagree on the PTO speeds of the Puma 210. |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | independentTraktorenlexikon, “AGCO RT 180 A” | independentTraktorenlexikon, “Case-IH Puma 210” | EvenEven on PTO independence: every PTO is independent. |
| Which drives on both axles? | 4WDTraktorenlexikon, “AGCO RT 180 A” | 4WDTraktorenlexikon, “Case-IH Puma 210”; OECD test report 2427, 2008 | EvenEven on drive: every machine is available with four-wheel drive. |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 2009–2011 | 2007–2011 | 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 Case-IH Puma 210 has 59% more lift (3,862 kg / 8,514 lb) than the Agco RT 180A (both lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source).
- Even on weight (both unladen weight, as stated by the source): the difference is under the 10% threshold, too small to call.
- Transmissions differ in kind: the Agco RT 180A is stepless (CVT) and the Case-IH Puma 210 has 18 to 28 forward gears — 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 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 180 A has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the Puma 210 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft.
- No call on PTO speeds: sources disagree on the PTO speeds of the Puma 210.
- No figure on record for every machine, so no call on: fuel efficiency at the shaft, drawbar power, hydraulic flow, maximum permissible mass and a creeper range.
← Every figure for both machines, side by side, with sources