Case-IH 9150 or Ford FW-30?
Which should you choose?
The data can’t decide this. Power at the PTO shaft cannot be compared: the 9150 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the FW-30 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft.
- The Case-IH 9150 suits loader and hydraulic implement work better on this data: 49% (37.1 L/min / 9.8 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 | 9150 | FW-30 | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 205.9 kW (276.1 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH 9150” | 197.7 kW (265.1 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford FW-30” | Not comparableNot comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the 9150 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the FW-30 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 9150 and the FW-30. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the 9150 and the FW-30. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | 112.8 L/min (29.8 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH 9150” | 75.7 L/min (20.0 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford FW-30” | AheadThe Case-IH 9150 has 49% more hydraulic flow (37.1 L/min / 9.8 gpm) than the Ford FW-30 (both pump flow, as stated by the source). |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | 6,016 kg (13,263 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH 9150” | 5,670 kg (12,500 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford FW-30” | Not comparableNot comparable on three-point lift: the 9150: lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source (Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH 9150”); the FW-30: lift through the full range 610 mm behind the ends, as stated by the source (Traktorenlexikon, “Ford FW-30”) — not the same quantity, basis and condition. |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 11,790 kg (25,993 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH 9150” | 14,200 kg (31,306 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford FW-30” | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The Ford FW-30 is 20% heavier (2,410 kg / 5,313 lb) than the Case-IH 9150 (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 9150 and the FW-30. |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 12Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH 9150” | 10 to 20Traktorenlexikon, “Ford FW-30” | 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 9150 and the FW-30. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 30 km/h (18.6 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH 9150” | 30 km/h (18.6 mph) to 35 km/h (21.7 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford FW-30” | 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 9150” | 1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Ford FW-30” | EvenEven on PTO speeds: the same speeds (1000 rpm). |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | — | — | No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the 9150 and the FW-30. |
| Which drives on both axles? | 4WDTraktorenlexikon, “Case-IH 9150” | 4WDTraktorenlexikon, “Ford FW-30” | 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 9150 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 9150 has 49% more hydraulic flow (37.1 L/min / 9.8 gpm) than the Ford FW-30 (both pump flow, as stated by the source).
- The Ford FW-30 is 20% heavier (2,410 kg / 5,313 lb) than the Case-IH 9150 (both unladen weight, as stated by the source).
- The Case-IH 9150 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 PTO speeds: the same speeds (1000 rpm).
- Even on drive: every machine is available with four-wheel drive.
- Not comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the 9150 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the FW-30 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 9150: lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source (Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH 9150”); the FW-30: lift through the full range 610 mm behind the ends, as stated by the source (Traktorenlexikon, “Ford FW-30”) — 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