AGRIFULL 355-C or J.I. Case 770?
Which should you choose?
The data can’t decide this. Power at the PTO shaft cannot be compared: the 355-C has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 770 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft.
- The J.I. Case 770 suits loader and hydraulic implement work better on this data: 203% (40.6 L/min / 10.7 gpm) more hydraulic flow.
- The J.I. Case 770 suits road haulage better on this data: 150% (15.0 km/h / 9.3 mph) more top speed.
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 | 355-C | 770 | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 41.2 kW (55.3 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Agrifull 355 C” | 41.9 kW (56.2 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Case 770” | Not comparableNot comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the 355-C has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 770 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 355-C and the 770. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the 355-C and the 770. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | 20.0 L/min (5.3 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Agrifull 355 C” | 60.6 L/min (16.0 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Case 770” | AheadThe J.I. Case 770 has 203% more hydraulic flow (40.6 L/min / 10.7 gpm) than the AGRIFULL 355-C (both pump flow, as stated by the source). |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | — | — | No figureNo call on three-point lift: no figure on record for the 355-C and the 770. |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 2,420 kg (5,335 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Agrifull 355 C” | 4,105 kg (9,050 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Case 770” | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The J.I. Case 770 is 70% heavier (1,685 kg / 3,715 lb) than the AGRIFULL 355-C (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 355-C and the 770. |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 8Traktorenlexikon, “Agrifull 355 C” | 8 to 12Traktorenlexikon, “Case 770” | EvenEven on forward gears (both forward gears, as stated by the source): the figures vary by configuration and the ranges overlap. |
| Which offers a creeper range? | — | — | No figureNo call on a creeper range: not stated for the 355-C and the 770. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 10 km/h (6.2 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Agrifull 355 C” | 25 km/h (15.5 mph) to 30 km/h (18.6 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Case 770” | AheadThe J.I. Case 770 has 150% more top speed (15.0 km/h / 9.3 mph) than the AGRIFULL 355-C (both top speed forward, as stated by the source). |
| Which offers more PTO speeds? | 540 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Agrifull 355 C” | 540/1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Case 770” | AheadThe J.I. Case 770 offers 1000 rpm at the PTO, which the AGRIFULL 355-C does not (as stated by the sources). |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | independentTraktorenlexikon, “Agrifull 355 C” | independentTraktorenlexikon, “Case 770” | EvenEven on PTO independence: every PTO is independent. |
| Which drives on both axles? | TracksTraktorenlexikon, “Agrifull 355 C” | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Case 770” | DifferDrive differs: the AGRIFULL 355-C Tracks and the J.I. Case 770 2WD — tracks and wheels are different kinds of running gear, not called. |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1976–1977 | 1969–1973 | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The AGRIFULL 355-C is newer: production began 7 years later. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts. |
What does this mean in plain words?
- The J.I. Case 770 has 203% more hydraulic flow (40.6 L/min / 10.7 gpm) than the AGRIFULL 355-C (both pump flow, as stated by the source).
- The J.I. Case 770 is 70% heavier (1,685 kg / 3,715 lb) than the AGRIFULL 355-C (both unladen weight, as stated by the source).
- The J.I. Case 770 has 150% more top speed (15.0 km/h / 9.3 mph) than the AGRIFULL 355-C (both top speed forward, as stated by the source).
- The J.I. Case 770 offers 1000 rpm at the PTO, which the AGRIFULL 355-C does not (as stated by the sources).
- The AGRIFULL 355-C is newer: production began 7 years later. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts.
- Even on forward gears (both forward gears, as stated by the source): the figures vary by configuration and the ranges overlap.
- Even on PTO independence: every PTO is independent.
- Drive differs: the AGRIFULL 355-C Tracks and the J.I. Case 770 2WD — tracks and wheels are different kinds of running gear, not called.
- Not comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the 355-C has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 770 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, three-point lift, maximum permissible mass and a creeper range.
← Every figure for both machines, side by side, with sources