Case-IH MX 200 or Ford 8870?
Which should you choose?
The data can’t decide this. Power at the PTO shaft cannot be compared: the MX 200: power at the PTO, measured by a laboratory at maximum power (OECD Test 1891); the 8870: power at the PTO, claimed (Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 8870”) — not the same quantity, basis and condition.
- The Case-IH MX 200 suits loader and hydraulic implement work better on this data: 14% (14.2 L/min / 3.8 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 | MX 200 | 8870 | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 144.0 kW (193.1 hp)OECD Test 1891Measured PTO power is 4% below the claimed engine power (gross or net not stated) (150 kW (201 hp)) — a different quantity: the gap is what the engine claim does not reach the shaft. | 149.3 kW (200.2 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 8870” | Not comparableNot comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the MX 200: power at the PTO, measured by a laboratory at maximum power (OECD Test 1891); the 8870: power at the PTO, claimed (Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 8870”) — 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 MX 200 and the 8870. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | 122.9 kW (164.8 hp)OECD Test 1891 | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the 8870. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | 118.1 L/min (31.2 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH MX200” | 103.9 L/min (27.4 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 8870” | AheadThe Case-IH MX 200 has 14% more hydraulic flow (14.2 L/min / 3.8 gpm) than the Ford 8870 (both pump flow, as stated by the source). |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | 7,455 kg (16,435 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH MX200” | 7,120 kg (15,697 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 8870” | Not comparableNot comparable on three-point lift: the MX 200: lift through the full range at the hitch ends, as stated by the source (Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH MX200”); the 8870: lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source (Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 8870”) — not the same quantity, basis and condition. |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 8,924 kg (19,674 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH MX200” | 8,685 kg (19,147 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 8870” | 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? | 14,000 kg (30,865 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH MX200” | 13,650 kg (30,093 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 8870” | 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? | 18 to 24Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH MX200” | 18 to 36Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 8870” | 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 MX 200 and the 8870. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 40 km/h (24.9 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH MX200” | 40 km/h (24.9 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 8870” | 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 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Case-IH MX200” | 1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Ford 8870” | AheadThe Case-IH MX 200 offers 540 rpm at the PTO, which the Ford 8870 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 MX 200 and the 8870. |
| Which drives on both axles? | 4WDOECD test report 1891, 2000; Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH MX200” | 4WDTraktorenlexikon, “Ford 8870” | EvenEven on drive: every machine is available with four-wheel drive. |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1999–2002 | 1993–1999 | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The Case-IH MX 200 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 MX 200 has 14% more hydraulic flow (14.2 L/min / 3.8 gpm) than the Ford 8870 (both pump flow, as stated by the source).
- The Case-IH MX 200 offers 540 rpm at the PTO, which the Ford 8870 does not (as stated by the sources).
- The Case-IH MX 200 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 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 drive: every machine is available with four-wheel drive.
- Not comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the MX 200: power at the PTO, measured by a laboratory at maximum power (OECD Test 1891); the 8870: power at the PTO, claimed (Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 8870”) — not the same quantity, basis and condition.
- Not comparable on three-point lift: the MX 200: lift through the full range at the hitch ends, as stated by the source (Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH MX200”); the 8870: lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source (Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 8870”) — 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, a creeper range and PTO independence.
← Every figure for both machines, side by side, with sources