Case-IH 3220 (DT) or Case-IH CS-52?
Which should you choose?
The data can’t decide this. Power at the PTO shaft cannot be compared: the 3220 (DT) has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the CS-52 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 | 3220 (DT) | CS-52 | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 38.2 kW (51.2 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH 3220” | 38.2 kW (51.2 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH CS52/a” | Not comparableNot comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the 3220 (DT) has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the CS-52 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 3220 (DT) and the CS-52. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the 3220 (DT) and the CS-52. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | — | — | No figureNo call on hydraulic flow: no figure on record for the 3220 (DT) and the CS-52. |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | 2,450 kg (5,401 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH 3220” | 2,520 kg (5,556 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH CS52/a” | EvenEven on three-point lift (both lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source): the difference is under the 10% threshold, too small to call. |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 2,675 kg (5,897 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH 3220” | 2,480 kg (5,467 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH CS52/a” | 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? | — | — | No figureNo call on maximum permissible mass: no figure on record for the 3220 (DT) and the CS-52. |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 8 to 16Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH 3220” | 16 to 32Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH CS52/a” | 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 3220 (DT) and the CS-52. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 30 km/h (18.6 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH 3220” | 30 km/h (18.6 mph) to 40 km/h (24.9 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH CS52/a” | 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, “Case-IH 3220” | 540/1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Case-IH CS52/a” | EvenEven on PTO speeds: the same speeds (540, 1000 rpm). |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | independentTraktorenlexikon, “Case-IH 3220” | — | No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the CS-52. |
| Which drives on both axles? | Two-wheel or four-wheel driveTraktorenlexikon, “Case-IH 3220” | Two-wheel or four-wheel driveTraktorenlexikon, “Case-IH CS52/a” | EvenEven on drive: every machine is available with four-wheel drive. |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1993–1998 | 1998–2001 | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The Case-IH CS-52 is newer: production began 5 years later. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts. |
What does this mean in plain words?
- The Case-IH CS-52 is newer: production began 5 years later. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts.
- Even on three-point lift (both lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source): the difference is under the 10% threshold, too small to call.
- Even on weight (both unladen weight, as stated by the source): the difference is under the 10% threshold, 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, 1000 rpm).
- Even on drive: every machine is available with four-wheel drive.
- Not comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the 3220 (DT) has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the CS-52 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, hydraulic flow, maximum permissible mass, a creeper range and PTO independence.
← Every figure for both machines, side by side, with sources