Case-IH CX 90 or Case-IH MX 90 C?
Which should you choose?
The data can’t decide this. Power at the PTO shaft cannot be compared: the CX 90 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the MX 90 C has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft.
- The Case-IH MX 90C suits loader and hydraulic implement work better on this data: 37% (24.1 L/min / 6.4 gpm) more hydraulic flow.
- The Case-IH MX 90C suits road haulage better on this data: 30% (1,815 kg / 4,001 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 | CX 90 | MX 90 C | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 66.2 kW (88.8 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH CX90” | 66.2 kW (88.8 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH MX90C” | Not comparableNot comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the CX 90 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the MX 90 C 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 CX 90 and the MX 90 C. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the CX 90 and the MX 90 C. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | 64.3 L/min (17.0 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH CX90” | 88.4 L/min (23.4 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH MX90C” | AheadThe Case-IH MX 90C has 37% more hydraulic flow (24.1 L/min / 6.4 gpm) than the Case-IH CX 90 (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” | — | No figureNo call on three-point lift: no figure on record for the MX 90 C. |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 3,705 kg (8,168 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH CX90” | 5,080 kg (11,199 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH MX90C” | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The Case-IH MX 90C is 37% heavier (1,375 kg / 3,031 lb) than the Case-IH CX 90 (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” | 7,815 kg (17,229 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH MX90C” | AheadThe Case-IH MX 90C has 30% higher maximum permissible mass (1,815 kg / 4,001 lb) than the Case-IH CX 90 (both maximum permissible mass, as stated by the source). |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 8 to 24Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH CX90” | 16 to 32Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH MX90C” | 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 MX 90 C. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 30 km/h (18.6 mph) to 40 km/h (24.9 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH CX90” | 40 km/h (24.9 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH MX90C” | 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” | 540/1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Case-IH MX90C” | EvenEven on PTO speeds: the same speeds (540, 1000 rpm). |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | independentTraktorenlexikon, “Case-IH CX90” | independentTraktorenlexikon, “Case-IH MX90C” | EvenEven on PTO independence: every PTO is independent. |
| Which drives on both axles? | 4WDTraktorenlexikon, “Case-IH CX90”; OECD test report 1898, 2000 | 4WDTraktorenlexikon, “Case-IH MX90C”; OECD test report 1929, 2000 | EvenEven on drive: every machine is available with four-wheel drive. |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1998–2000 | 1998–2000 | 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 MX 90C has 37% more hydraulic flow (24.1 L/min / 6.4 gpm) than the Case-IH CX 90 (both pump flow, as stated by the source).
- The Case-IH MX 90C is 37% heavier (1,375 kg / 3,031 lb) than the Case-IH CX 90 (both unladen weight, as stated by the source).
- The Case-IH MX 90C has 30% higher maximum permissible mass (1,815 kg / 4,001 lb) than the Case-IH CX 90 (both maximum permissible mass, as stated by the source).
- 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 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 power at the PTO shaft: the CX 90 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the MX 90 C has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft.
- 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, three-point lift and a creeper range.
← Every figure for both machines, side by side, with sources