Agco RT-95 or Fendt Farmer 308 Ci?
Which should you choose?
The data can’t decide this. Power at the PTO shaft cannot be compared: the RT-95 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the Farmer 308 Ci has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft.
- The Agco RT-95 suits loader and hydraulic implement work better on this data: 67% (44.8 L/min / 11.8 gpm) more hydraulic flow.
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-95 | Farmer 308 Ci | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 71.3 kW (95.6 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “AGCO RT 95” | 72 kW (97 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Fendt Farmer 308 Ci” | Not comparableNot comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the RT-95 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the Farmer 308 Ci 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-95 and the Farmer 308 Ci. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the RT-95 and the Farmer 308 Ci. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | 111.3 L/min (29.4 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “AGCO RT 95” | 66.5 L/min (17.6 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Fendt Farmer 308 Ci” | AheadThe Agco RT-95 has 67% more hydraulic flow (44.8 L/min / 11.8 gpm) than the Fendt Farmer 308 Ci (both pump flow, as stated by the source). |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | 3,339 kg (7,361 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “AGCO RT 95” | 4,980 kg (10,979 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Fendt Farmer 308 Ci” | Not comparableNot comparable on three-point lift: the RT-95: lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source (Traktorenlexikon, “AGCO RT 95”); the Farmer 308 Ci: lift through the full range at an unstated point, as stated by the source (Traktorenlexikon, “Fendt Farmer 308 Ci”) — not the same quantity, basis and condition. |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 4,717 kg (10,399 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “AGCO RT 95” | 3,850 kg (8,488 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Fendt Farmer 308 Ci” | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The Agco RT-95 is 23% heavier (867 kg / 1,911 lb) than the Fendt Farmer 308 Ci (both unladen weight, as stated by the source). |
| Which may carry more ballast and load? | — | 6,000 kg (13,228 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Fendt Farmer 308 Ci” | No figureNo call on maximum permissible mass: no figure on record for the RT-95. |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 32Traktorenlexikon, “AGCO RT 95” | 21Traktorenlexikon, “Fendt Farmer 308 Ci” | AheadThe Agco RT-95 has 52% more forward gears (11 gears) than the Fendt Farmer 308 Ci (both forward gears, as stated by the source). |
| Which offers a creeper range? | — | — | No figureNo call on a creeper range: not stated for the RT-95 and the Farmer 308 Ci. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 40 km/h (24.9 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “AGCO RT 95” | 40 km/h (24.9 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Fendt Farmer 308 Ci” | EvenEven on top speed (both top speed forward, as stated by the source): the difference is under the 10% threshold, too small to call. |
| Which offers more PTO speeds? | 540/1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “AGCO RT 95” | 540 rpm / 750 rpm / 1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Fendt Farmer 308 Ci” | AheadThe Fendt Farmer 308 Ci offers 750 rpm at the PTO, which the Agco RT-95 does not (as stated by the sources). |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | independentTraktorenlexikon, “AGCO RT 95” | — | No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the Farmer 308 Ci. |
| Which drives on both axles? | Two-wheel or four-wheel driveTraktorenlexikon, “AGCO RT 95” | 2WD / 4WDTraktorenlexikon, “Fendt Farmer 308 Ci” | EvenEven on drive: every machine is available with four-wheel drive. |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 2002–2004 | 2003–2008 | 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-95 has 67% more hydraulic flow (44.8 L/min / 11.8 gpm) than the Fendt Farmer 308 Ci (both pump flow, as stated by the source).
- The Agco RT-95 is 23% heavier (867 kg / 1,911 lb) than the Fendt Farmer 308 Ci (both unladen weight, as stated by the source).
- The Agco RT-95 has 52% more forward gears (11 gears) than the Fendt Farmer 308 Ci (both forward gears, as stated by the source).
- The Fendt Farmer 308 Ci offers 750 rpm at the PTO, which the Agco RT-95 does not (as stated by the sources).
- Even on top speed (both top speed forward, as stated by the source): the difference is under the 10% threshold, too small to call.
- 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-95 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the Farmer 308 Ci has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft.
- Not comparable on three-point lift: the RT-95: lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source (Traktorenlexikon, “AGCO RT 95”); the Farmer 308 Ci: lift through the full range at an unstated point, as stated by the source (Traktorenlexikon, “Fendt Farmer 308 Ci”) — not the same quantity, basis and condition.
- No figure on record for every machine, so no call on: fuel efficiency at the shaft, drawbar power, maximum permissible mass, a creeper range and PTO independence.
← Every figure for both machines, side by side, with sources