Case-IH C-42 (A) or Deutz-Fahr Agrokid 40 (45)?
Which should you choose?
The data can’t decide this. Power at the PTO shaft cannot be compared: the C-42 (A) has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the Agrokid 40 (45) has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft.
- The Case-IH C-42 (A) suits loader and hydraulic implement work better on this data: 52% (620 kg / 1,367 lb) more three-point lift.
- The Case-IH C-42 (A) suits road haulage better on this data: 46% (1,100 kg / 2,425 lb) more maximum permissible mass.
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 | C-42 (A) | Agrokid 40 (45) | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 30.9 kW (41.4 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH C42” | 29.4 kW (39.4 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Deutz-Fahr Agrokid 40” | Not comparableNot comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the C-42 (A) has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the Agrokid 40 (45) 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 C-42 (A) and the Agrokid 40 (45). |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the C-42 (A) and the Agrokid 40 (45). |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | — | — | No figureNo call on hydraulic flow: no figure on record for the C-42 (A) and the Agrokid 40 (45). |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | 1,820 kg (4,012 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH C42” | 1,200 kg (2,646 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Deutz-Fahr Agrokid 40” | AheadThe Case-IH C-42 (A) has 52% more lift (620 kg / 1,367 lb) than the Deutz-Fahr Agrokid 40 (45) (both lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source). |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 2,365 kg (5,214 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH C42” | 1,300 kg (2,866 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Deutz-Fahr Agrokid 40” | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The Case-IH C-42 (A) is 82% heavier (1,065 kg / 2,348 lb) than the Deutz-Fahr Agrokid 40 (45) (both unladen weight, as stated by the source). |
| Which may carry more ballast and load? | 3,500 kg (7,716 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH C42” | 2,400 kg (5,291 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Deutz-Fahr Agrokid 40” | AheadThe Case-IH C-42 (A) has 46% higher maximum permissible mass (1,100 kg / 2,425 lb) than the Deutz-Fahr Agrokid 40 (45) (both maximum permissible mass, as stated by the source). |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 16Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH C42” | 12Traktorenlexikon, “Deutz-Fahr Agrokid 40” | AheadThe Case-IH C-42 (A) has 33% more forward gears (4 gears) than the Deutz-Fahr Agrokid 40 (45) (both forward gears, as stated by the source). |
| Which offers a creeper range? | — | — | No figureNo call on a creeper range: not stated for the C-42 (A) and the Agrokid 40 (45). |
| Which is faster on the road? | 30 km/h (18.6 mph) to 40 km/h (24.9 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH C42” | 31.5 km/h (19.6 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Deutz-Fahr Agrokid 40” | 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 C42” | 540 rpm / 1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Deutz-Fahr Agrokid 40” | EvenEven on PTO speeds: the same speeds (540, 1000 rpm). |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | — | independentTraktorenlexikon, “Deutz-Fahr Agrokid 40” | No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the C-42 (A). |
| Which drives on both axles? | Two-wheel or four-wheel driveTraktorenlexikon, “Case-IH C42” | 4WDTraktorenlexikon, “Deutz-Fahr Agrokid 40” | EvenEven on drive: every machine is available with four-wheel drive. |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1992–1996 | 2005–2007 | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The Deutz-Fahr Agrokid 40 (45) is newer: production began 13 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 C-42 (A) has 52% more lift (620 kg / 1,367 lb) than the Deutz-Fahr Agrokid 40 (45) (both lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source).
- The Case-IH C-42 (A) is 82% heavier (1,065 kg / 2,348 lb) than the Deutz-Fahr Agrokid 40 (45) (both unladen weight, as stated by the source).
- The Case-IH C-42 (A) has 46% higher maximum permissible mass (1,100 kg / 2,425 lb) than the Deutz-Fahr Agrokid 40 (45) (both maximum permissible mass, as stated by the source).
- The Case-IH C-42 (A) has 33% more forward gears (4 gears) than the Deutz-Fahr Agrokid 40 (45) (both forward gears, as stated by the source).
- The Deutz-Fahr Agrokid 40 (45) is newer: production began 13 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.
- 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 C-42 (A) has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the Agrokid 40 (45) 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, a creeper range and PTO independence.
← Every figure for both machines, side by side, with sources