Case-IH CX 50 or IMT 549 (DV-E)?
Which should you choose?
The data can’t decide this. Power at the PTO shaft cannot be compared: the CX 50: power at the PTO, measured by a laboratory at maximum power (OECD Test 1893); the 549 (DV-E): power at the PTO, claimed (Traktorenlexikon, “IMT 549”) — not the same quantity, basis and condition.
- The Case-IH CX 50 suits loader and hydraulic implement work better on this data: 240% (37.4 L/min / 9.9 gpm) more hydraulic flow and 42% (602 kg / 1,327 lb) more three-point lift.
- The Case-IH CX 50 suits heavy draft work (ploughing, cultivating) better on this data: 54% (1,135 kg / 2,502 lb) heavier and 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 | CX 50 | 549 (DV-E) | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 31.7 kW (42.5 hp)OECD Test 1893 | 28.8 kW (38.7 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “IMT 549” | Not comparableNot comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the CX 50: power at the PTO, measured by a laboratory at maximum power (OECD Test 1893); the 549 (DV-E): power at the PTO, claimed (Traktorenlexikon, “IMT 549”) — not the same quantity, basis and condition. |
| 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 CX 50 and the 549 (DV-E). |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | 26.4 kW (35.4 hp)OECD Test 1893 | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the 549 (DV-E). |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | 53.0 L/min (14.0 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH CX50” | 15.6 L/min (4.1 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “IMT 549” | AheadThe Case-IH CX 50 has 240% more hydraulic flow (37.4 L/min / 9.9 gpm) than the IMT 549 (DV-E) (both pump flow, as stated by the source). |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | 2,019 kg (4,451 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH CX50” | 1,417 kg (3,124 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “IMT 549” | AheadThe Case-IH CX 50 has 42% more lift (602 kg / 1,327 lb) than the IMT 549 (DV-E) (both lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source). |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 3,225 kg (7,110 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH CX50” | 2,090 kg (4,608 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “IMT 549” | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The Case-IH CX 50 is 54% heavier (1,135 kg / 2,502 lb) than the IMT 549 (DV-E) (both unladen weight, as stated by the source). |
| Which may carry more ballast and load? | 6,000 kg (13,228 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH CX50” | — | No figureNo call on maximum permissible mass: no figure on record for the 549 (DV-E). |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 16OECD test report 1893, 2000 | 10Traktorenlexikon, “IMT 549” | AheadThe Case-IH CX 50 has 60% more forward gears (6 gears) than the IMT 549 (DV-E) (both forward gears, as stated by the source). |
| Which offers a creeper range? | — | — | No figureNo call on a creeper range: not stated for the CX 50 and the 549 (DV-E). |
| Which is faster on the road? | 30 km/h (18.6 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH CX50” | 30 km/h (18.6 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “IMT 549” | 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? | 540/1000 rpmOECD test report 1893, 2000 | 540 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “IMT 549” | AheadThe Case-IH CX 50 offers 1000 rpm at the PTO, which the IMT 549 (DV-E) 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 CX 50 and the 549 (DV-E). |
| Which drives on both axles? | Two-wheel or four-wheel driveTraktorenlexikon, “Case-IH CX50” | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “IMT 549” | AheadThe Case-IH CX 50 is available with four-wheel drive; the IMT 549 (DV-E) is two-wheel drive (as stated by the sources). |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1998–2000 | 1986–1996 | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The Case-IH CX 50 is newer: production began 12 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 CX 50 has 240% more hydraulic flow (37.4 L/min / 9.9 gpm) than the IMT 549 (DV-E) (both pump flow, as stated by the source).
- The Case-IH CX 50 has 42% more lift (602 kg / 1,327 lb) than the IMT 549 (DV-E) (both lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source).
- The Case-IH CX 50 is 54% heavier (1,135 kg / 2,502 lb) than the IMT 549 (DV-E) (both unladen weight, as stated by the source).
- The Case-IH CX 50 has 60% more forward gears (6 gears) than the IMT 549 (DV-E) (both forward gears, as stated by the source).
- The Case-IH CX 50 offers 1000 rpm at the PTO, which the IMT 549 (DV-E) does not (as stated by the sources).
- The Case-IH CX 50 is available with four-wheel drive; the IMT 549 (DV-E) is two-wheel drive (as stated by the sources).
- The Case-IH CX 50 is newer: production began 12 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 difference is under the 10% threshold, too small to call.
- Not comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the CX 50: power at the PTO, measured by a laboratory at maximum power (OECD Test 1893); the 549 (DV-E): power at the PTO, claimed (Traktorenlexikon, “IMT 549”) — 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