Case-IH 9130 or Ford FW-20?
Which should you choose?
The data can’t decide this. Power at the PTO shaft cannot be compared: the 9130 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the FW-20 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft.
- The Case-IH 9130 suits loader and hydraulic implement work better on this data: 41% (31.4 L/min / 8.3 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 | 9130 | FW-20 | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 161.8 kW (217.0 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH 9130” | 154.5 kW (207.2 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford FW-20” | Not comparableNot comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the 9130 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the FW-20 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 9130 and the FW-20. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the 9130 and the FW-20. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | 107.1 L/min (28.3 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH 9130” | 75.7 L/min (20.0 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford FW-20” | AheadThe Case-IH 9130 has 41% more hydraulic flow (31.4 L/min / 8.3 gpm) than the Ford FW-20 (both pump flow, as stated by the source). |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | 6,067 kg (13,375 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH 9130” | 5,670 kg (12,500 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford FW-20” | Not comparableNot comparable on three-point lift: the 9130: lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source (Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH 9130”); the FW-20: lift through the full range 610 mm behind the ends, as stated by the source (Traktorenlexikon, “Ford FW-20”) — not the same quantity, basis and condition. |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 9,560 kg (21,076 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH 9130” | 13,433 kg (29,615 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford FW-20” | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The Ford FW-20 is 41% heavier (3,873 kg / 8,539 lb) than the Case-IH 9130 (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 9130 and the FW-20. |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 12Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH 9130” | 10 to 20Traktorenlexikon, “Ford FW-20” | 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 9130 and the FW-20. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 30 km/h (18.6 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH 9130” | 30 km/h (18.6 mph) to 35 km/h (21.7 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford FW-20” | 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 9130” | 540/1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Ford FW-20” | AheadThe Ford FW-20 offers 540 rpm at the PTO, which the Case-IH 9130 does not (as stated by the sources). |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | — | — | No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the 9130 and the FW-20. |
| Which drives on both axles? | 4WDTraktorenlexikon, “Case-IH 9130” | 4WDTraktorenlexikon, “Ford FW-20” | EvenEven on drive: every machine is available with four-wheel drive. |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1987–1990 | 1977–1982 | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The Case-IH 9130 is newer: production began 10 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 9130 has 41% more hydraulic flow (31.4 L/min / 8.3 gpm) than the Ford FW-20 (both pump flow, as stated by the source).
- The Ford FW-20 is 41% heavier (3,873 kg / 8,539 lb) than the Case-IH 9130 (both unladen weight, as stated by the source).
- The Ford FW-20 offers 540 rpm at the PTO, which the Case-IH 9130 does not (as stated by the sources).
- The Case-IH 9130 is newer: production began 10 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 top speed (both top speed forward, as stated by the source): the figures vary by configuration and the ranges overlap.
- Even on drive: every machine is available with four-wheel drive.
- Not comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the 9130 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the FW-20 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 9130: lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source (Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH 9130”); the FW-20: lift through the full range 610 mm behind the ends, as stated by the source (Traktorenlexikon, “Ford FW-20”) — 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