Case-IH CS 150 or New Holland TM 140 (Traktorenlexikon)?
Which should you choose?
The data can’t decide this. Power at the PTO shaft cannot be compared: the CS 150 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the TM 140 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft.
- The Case-IH CS 150 suits loader and hydraulic implement work better on this data: 13% (996 kg / 2,196 lb) more three-point lift.
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 | CS 150 | TM 140 | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 106.6 kW (143.0 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH CS150” | 105.9 kW (142.0 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “New Holland TM 140” | Not comparableNot comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the CS 150 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the TM 140 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 CS 150 and the TM 140. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the CS 150 and the TM 140. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | 123.8 L/min (32.7 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH CS150” | 119.9 L/min (31.7 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “New Holland TM 140” | EvenEven on hydraulic flow (both pump flow, as stated by the source): the difference is under the 10% threshold, too small to call. |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | 8,830 kg (19,467 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH CS150” | 7,834 kg (17,271 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “New Holland TM 140” | AheadThe Case-IH CS 150 has 13% more lift (996 kg / 2,196 lb) than the New Holland TM 140 (both lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source). |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 6,010 kg (13,250 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH CS150” | 6,450 kg (14,220 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “New Holland TM 140” | 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? | 9,500 kg (20,944 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH CS150” | 9,000 kg (19,842 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “New Holland TM 140” | EvenEven on maximum permissible mass (both maximum permissible mass, as stated by the source): the difference is under the 10% threshold, too small to call. |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 24 to 40Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH CS150” | 18 to 24Traktorenlexikon, “New Holland TM 140” | 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 CS 150 and the TM 140. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 40 km/h (24.9 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH CS150” | 40 km/h (24.9 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “New Holland TM 140” | EvenEven on top speed (both top speed forward, as stated by the source): the difference is under the 10% threshold, too small to call. |
| Which offers more PTO speeds? | 540/540E/1000E/1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Case-IH CS150” | 540/540E/1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “New Holland TM 140” | EvenEven on PTO speeds: the same speeds (540, 1000 rpm). |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | independentTraktorenlexikon, “Case-IH CS150” | independentTraktorenlexikon, “New Holland TM 140” | EvenEven on PTO independence: every PTO is independent. |
| Which drives on both axles? | 4WDTraktorenlexikon, “Case-IH CS150” | 4WDTraktorenlexikon, “New Holland TM 140” | EvenEven on drive: every machine is available with four-wheel drive. |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1997–2003 | 2002–2007 | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The New Holland TM 140 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 150 has 13% more lift (996 kg / 2,196 lb) than the New Holland TM 140 (both lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source).
- The New Holland TM 140 is newer: production began 5 years later. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts.
- Even on hydraulic flow (both pump flow, 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 maximum permissible mass (both maximum permissible mass, 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 difference is under the 10% threshold, too small to call.
- Even on PTO speeds: the same speeds (540, 1000 rpm).
- Even on PTO independence: every PTO is independent.
- Even on drive: every machine is available with four-wheel drive.
- Not comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the CS 150 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the TM 140 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 and a creeper range.
← Every figure for both machines, side by side, with sources