Case-IH CX 90 or Case-IH JX 95 (A)?
Which should you choose?
On performance, every comparable figure that differs favours the Case-IH CX 90: hydraulic flow. It is also ahead on PTO speeds.
- The Case-IH CX 90 suits PTO-driven implements (mowers, balers, pumps) better on this data: offers 1000 rpm.
- The Case-IH CX 90 suits loader and hydraulic implement work better on this data: 42% (19.1 L/min / 5.0 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 | CX 90 | JX 95 (A) | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 60.5 kW (81.1 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH CX90” | 60.6 kW (81.3 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH JX95” | EvenEven on power at the PTO shaft (both power at the PTO, claimed): the difference is under the 10% threshold for claimed figures, too small to call. |
| 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 90 and the JX 95 (A). |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the CX 90 and the JX 95 (A). |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | 64.3 L/min (17.0 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH CX90” | 45.2 L/min (11.9 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH JX95” | AheadThe Case-IH CX 90 has 42% more hydraulic flow (19.1 L/min / 5.0 gpm) than the Case-IH JX 95 (A) (both pump flow, as stated by the source). |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | 2,972 kg (6,552 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH CX90” | 3,565 kg (7,859 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH JX95” | Not comparableNot comparable on three-point lift: the CX 90: lift through the full range at the hitch ends, as stated by the source (Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH CX90”); the JX 95 (A): lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source (Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH JX95”) — not the same quantity, basis and condition. |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 3,705 kg (8,168 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH CX90” | 3,080 kg (6,790 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH JX95” | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The Case-IH CX 90 is 20% heavier (625 kg / 1,378 lb) than the Case-IH JX 95 (A) (both unladen weight, as stated by the source). |
| Which may carry more ballast and load? | 6,000 kg (13,228 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH CX90” | — | No figureNo call on maximum permissible mass: no figure on record for the JX 95 (A). |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 8 to 24Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH CX90” | 12 to 20Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH JX95” | Sources disagreeNo call on forward gears: sources disagree on the figure for the CX 90. |
| Which offers a creeper range? | — | — | No figureNo call on a creeper range: not stated for the CX 90 and the JX 95 (A). |
| Which is faster on the road? | 30 km/h (18.6 mph) to 40 km/h (24.9 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH CX90” | 30 km/h (18.6 mph) to 40 km/h (24.9 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH JX95” | 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 CX90” | 540E/540 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Case-IH JX95” | AheadThe Case-IH CX 90 offers 1000 rpm at the PTO, which the Case-IH JX 95 (A) does not (as stated by the sources). |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | independentTraktorenlexikon, “Case-IH CX90” | independentTraktorenlexikon, “Case-IH JX95” | EvenEven on PTO independence: every PTO is independent. |
| Which drives on both axles? | 4WDTraktorenlexikon, “Case-IH CX90”; OECD test report 1898, 2000 | 2WD / 4WDTraktorenlexikon, “Case-IH JX95” | EvenEven on drive: every machine is available with four-wheel drive. |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1998–2000 | 2002–2004 | EvenSame era: production began within 5 years of each other. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts. |
What does this mean in plain words?
- The Case-IH CX 90 has 42% more hydraulic flow (19.1 L/min / 5.0 gpm) than the Case-IH JX 95 (A) (both pump flow, as stated by the source).
- The Case-IH CX 90 is 20% heavier (625 kg / 1,378 lb) than the Case-IH JX 95 (A) (both unladen weight, as stated by the source).
- The Case-IH CX 90 offers 1000 rpm at the PTO, which the Case-IH JX 95 (A) does not (as stated by the sources).
- Even on power at the PTO shaft (both power at the PTO, claimed): the difference is under the 10% threshold for claimed figures, too small to call.
- 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 independence: every PTO is independent.
- Even on drive: every machine is available with four-wheel drive.
- Same era: production began within 5 years of each other. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts.
- Not comparable on three-point lift: the CX 90: lift through the full range at the hitch ends, as stated by the source (Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH CX90”); the JX 95 (A): lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source (Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH JX95”) — not the same quantity, basis and condition.
- No call on forward gears: sources disagree on the figure for the CX 90.
- No figure on record for every machine, so no call on: fuel efficiency at the shaft, drawbar power, maximum permissible mass and a creeper range.
← Every figure for both machines, side by side, with sources