Case-IH 7250 Magnum or John Deere 8320 T?
Which should you choose?
The data can’t decide this. Power at the PTO shaft cannot be compared: the 7250 Magnum has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 8320 T has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft.
- The John Deere 8320T suits loader and hydraulic implement work better on this data: 20% (21.6 L/min / 5.7 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 | 7250 Magnum | 8320 T | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 183.1 kW (245.5 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH 7250” | 184 kW (247 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “John Deere 8320T” | Not comparableNot comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the 7250 Magnum has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 8320 T 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 7250 Magnum and the 8320 T. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the 7250 Magnum and the 8320 T. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | 109.4 L/min (28.9 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH 7250” | 131.0 L/min (34.6 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “John Deere 8320T” | AheadThe John Deere 8320T has 20% more hydraulic flow (21.6 L/min / 5.7 gpm) than the Case-IH 7250 Magnum (both pump flow, as stated by the source). |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | 9,361 kg (20,637 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH 7250” | 7,500 kg (16,535 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “John Deere 8320T” | Not comparableNot comparable on three-point lift: the 7250 Magnum: lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source (Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH 7250”); the 8320 T: lift through the full range at the hitch ends, as stated by the source (Traktorenlexikon, “John Deere 8320T”) — not the same quantity, basis and condition. |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 8,228 kg (18,140 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH 7250” | 12,127 kg (26,735 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “John Deere 8320T” | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The John Deere 8320T is 47% heavier (3,899 kg / 8,596 lb) than the Case-IH 7250 Magnum (both unladen weight, as stated by the source). |
| Which may carry more ballast and load? | 11,575 kg (25,519 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH 7250” | 14,288 kg (31,500 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “John Deere 8320T” | AheadThe John Deere 8320T has 23% higher maximum permissible mass (2,713 kg / 5,981 lb) than the Case-IH 7250 Magnum (both maximum permissible mass, as stated by the source). |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 24Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH 7250” | 16Traktorenlexikon, “John Deere 8320T” | Sources disagreeNo call on forward gears: sources disagree on the figure for the 8320 T. |
| Which offers a creeper range? | YesTraktorenlexikon, “Case-IH 7250” | — | No figureNo call on a creeper range: not stated for the 8320 T. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 30 km/h (18.6 mph) to 40 km/h (24.9 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH 7250” | 30 km/h (18.6 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “John Deere 8320T” | 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? | 1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Case-IH 7250” | 1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “John Deere 8320T” | Sources disagreeNo call on PTO speeds: sources disagree on the PTO speeds of the 8320 T. |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | — | independentTraktorenlexikon, “John Deere 8320T” | No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the 7250 Magnum. |
| Which drives on both axles? | 4WDTraktorenlexikon, “Case-IH 7250” | TracksTraktorenlexikon, “John Deere 8320T”; OECD test report 2043, 2003 | DifferDrive differs: the Case-IH 7250 Magnum 4WD and the John Deere 8320T Tracks — tracks and wheels are different kinds of running gear, not called. |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1994–1997 | 2002–2005 | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The John Deere 8320T is newer: production began 8 years later. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts. |
What does this mean in plain words?
- The John Deere 8320T has 20% more hydraulic flow (21.6 L/min / 5.7 gpm) than the Case-IH 7250 Magnum (both pump flow, as stated by the source).
- The John Deere 8320T is 47% heavier (3,899 kg / 8,596 lb) than the Case-IH 7250 Magnum (both unladen weight, as stated by the source).
- The John Deere 8320T has 23% higher maximum permissible mass (2,713 kg / 5,981 lb) than the Case-IH 7250 Magnum (both maximum permissible mass, as stated by the source).
- The John Deere 8320T is newer: production began 8 years later. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts.
- Even on top speed (both top speed forward, as stated by the source): the figures vary by configuration and the ranges overlap.
- Drive differs: the Case-IH 7250 Magnum 4WD and the John Deere 8320T Tracks — tracks and wheels are different kinds of running gear, not called.
- Not comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the 7250 Magnum has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 8320 T 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 7250 Magnum: lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source (Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH 7250”); the 8320 T: lift through the full range at the hitch ends, as stated by the source (Traktorenlexikon, “John Deere 8320T”) — not the same quantity, basis and condition.
- No call on forward gears: sources disagree on the figure for the 8320 T.
- No call on PTO speeds: sources disagree on the PTO speeds of the 8320 T.
- No figure on record for every machine, so no call on: fuel efficiency at the shaft, drawbar power, a creeper range and PTO independence.
← Every figure for both machines, side by side, with sources