BOLINDER-MUNKTELL 350 Boxer or J.I. Case 511-B?
Which should you choose?
On performance, every comparable figure that differs favours the BOLINDER-MUNKTELL 350 Boxer: hydraulic flow.
- The BOLINDER-MUNKTELL 350 Boxer suits loader and hydraulic implement work better on this data: 236% (26.9 L/min / 7.1 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 | 350 Boxer | 511-B | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 33.1 kW (44.4 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Bolinder-Munktell BM 350 Boxer” | 33.1 kW (44.4 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Case 511-B” | EvenEven on power at the PTO shaft (both power at the PTO, claimed): the difference is under the 10% threshold for claimed figures, too small to call. |
| 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 350 Boxer and the 511-B. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the 350 Boxer and the 511-B. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | 38.3 L/min (10.1 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Bolinder-Munktell BM 350 Boxer” | 11.4 L/min (3.0 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Case 511-B” | AheadThe BOLINDER-MUNKTELL 350 Boxer has 236% more hydraulic flow (26.9 L/min / 7.1 gpm) than the J.I. Case 511-B (both pump flow, as stated by the source). |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | 1,300 kg (2,866 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Bolinder-Munktell BM 350 Boxer” | — | No figureNo call on three-point lift: no figure on record for the 511-B. |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 2,865 kg (6,316 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Bolinder-Munktell BM 350 Boxer” | 2,141 kg (4,720 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Case 511-B” | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The BOLINDER-MUNKTELL 350 Boxer is 34% heavier (724 kg / 1,596 lb) than the J.I. Case 511-B (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 350 Boxer and the 511-B. |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 10Traktorenlexikon, “Bolinder-Munktell BM 350 Boxer” | 4 to 12Traktorenlexikon, “Case 511-B” | 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 350 Boxer and the 511-B. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 25 km/h (15.5 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Bolinder-Munktell BM 350 Boxer” | 20 km/h (12.4 mph) to 30 km/h (18.6 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Case 511-B” | 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 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Bolinder-Munktell BM 350 Boxer” | 540 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Case 511-B” | EvenEven on PTO speeds: the same speeds (540 rpm). |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | — | dependent (stops with the clutch)Traktorenlexikon, “Case 511-B” | No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the 350 Boxer. |
| Which drives on both axles? | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Bolinder-Munktell BM 350 Boxer” | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Case 511-B” | EvenEven on drive: all two-wheel drive. |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1959–1967 | 1958–1960 | 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 BOLINDER-MUNKTELL 350 Boxer has 236% more hydraulic flow (26.9 L/min / 7.1 gpm) than the J.I. Case 511-B (both pump flow, as stated by the source).
- The BOLINDER-MUNKTELL 350 Boxer is 34% heavier (724 kg / 1,596 lb) than the J.I. Case 511-B (both unladen weight, as stated by the source).
- Even on power at the PTO shaft (both power at the PTO, claimed): the difference is under the 10% threshold for claimed figures, too small to call.
- Even on forward gears (both forward gears, as stated by the source): the figures vary by configuration and the ranges overlap.
- 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 rpm).
- Even on drive: all two-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.
- No figure on record for every machine, so no call on: fuel efficiency at the shaft, drawbar power, three-point lift, maximum permissible mass, a creeper range and PTO independence.
← Every figure for both machines, side by side, with sources