Case-IH CS-78 (A) or Renault 85-32 MX?
Which should you choose?
The data can’t decide this. Power at the PTO shaft cannot be compared: the CS-78 (A) has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 85-32 MX has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft.
- The Case-IH CS-78 (A) suits loader and hydraulic implement work better on this data: 22% (9.1 L/min / 2.4 gpm) more hydraulic flow.
- The Case-IH CS-78 (A) suits heavy draft work (ploughing, cultivating) better on this data: four-wheel drive.
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-78 (A) | 85-32 MX | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 57.4 kW (77.0 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH CS78” | 57.4 kW (77.0 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Renault 85-32 ME/MA/MS/MX R3161” | Not comparableNot comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the CS-78 (A) has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 85-32 MX 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-78 (A) and the 85-32 MX. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the CS-78 (A) and the 85-32 MX. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | 50.5 L/min (13.3 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH CS78” | 41.4 L/min (10.9 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Renault 85-32 ME/MA/MS/MX R3161” | AheadThe Case-IH CS-78 (A) has 22% more hydraulic flow (9.1 L/min / 2.4 gpm) than the Renault 85-32 MX (both pump flow, as stated by the source). |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | — | 3,825 kg (8,433 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Renault 85-32 ME/MA/MS/MX R3161” | No figureNo call on three-point lift: no figure on record for the CS-78 (A). |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 3,370 kg (7,430 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH CS78” | 3,420 kg (7,540 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Renault 85-32 ME/MA/MS/MX R3161” | 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? | 6,500 kg (14,330 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH CS78” | — | No figureNo call on maximum permissible mass: no figure on record for the 85-32 MX. |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 16 to 32Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH CS78” | 12 to 24Traktorenlexikon, “Renault 85-32 ME/MA/MS/MX R3161” | 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-78 (A) and the 85-32 MX. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 30 km/h (18.6 mph) to 40 km/h (24.9 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH CS78” | 30 km/h (18.6 mph) to 40 km/h (24.9 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Renault 85-32 ME/MA/MS/MX R3161” | 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? | 390/540/1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Case-IH CS78” | 540/1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Renault 85-32 ME/MA/MS/MX R3161” | EvenEven on PTO speeds: the same speeds (540, 1000 rpm). |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | — | independentTraktorenlexikon, “Renault 85-32 ME/MA/MS/MX R3161” | No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the CS-78 (A). |
| Which drives on both axles? | 2WD / 4WDTraktorenlexikon, “Case-IH CS78” | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Renault 85-32 ME/MA/MS/MX R3161” | AheadThe Case-IH CS-78 (A) is available with four-wheel drive; the Renault 85-32 MX is two-wheel drive (as stated by the sources). |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1995–2003 | 1989–1993 | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The Case-IH CS-78 (A) is newer: production began 6 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-78 (A) has 22% more hydraulic flow (9.1 L/min / 2.4 gpm) than the Renault 85-32 MX (both pump flow, as stated by the source).
- The Case-IH CS-78 (A) is available with four-wheel drive; the Renault 85-32 MX is two-wheel drive (as stated by the sources).
- The Case-IH CS-78 (A) is newer: production began 6 years later. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts.
- Even on weight (both unladen weight, 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 figures vary by configuration and the ranges overlap.
- Even on PTO speeds: the same speeds (540, 1000 rpm).
- Not comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the CS-78 (A) has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 85-32 MX 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, three-point lift, maximum permissible mass, a creeper range and PTO independence.
← Every figure for both machines, side by side, with sources