Case-IH MX 210 or Massey Ferguson MF 8160 A?
Which should you choose?
The data can’t decide this. Power at the PTO shaft cannot be compared: the MX 210 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the MF 8160 A has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft.
- The Case-IH MX 210 suits loader and hydraulic implement work better on this data: 174% (92.8 L/min / 24.5 gpm) more hydraulic flow and 35% (1,957 kg / 4,314 lb) more three-point lift.
- The Case-IH MX 210 suits road haulage better on this data: 56% (5,000 kg / 11,023 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 | MX 210 | MF 8160 A | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 147.1 kW (197.3 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH MX210” | 147.2 kW (197.4 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Massey Ferguson MF 8160” | Not comparableNot comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the MX 210 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the MF 8160 A 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 MX 210 and the MF 8160 A. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the MX 210 and the MF 8160 A. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | 146.1 L/min (38.6 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH MX210” | 53.3 L/min (14.1 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Massey Ferguson MF 8160” | AheadThe Case-IH MX 210 has 174% more hydraulic flow (92.8 L/min / 24.5 gpm) than the Massey Ferguson 8160A (both pump flow, as stated by the source). |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | 7,597 kg (16,749 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH MX210” | 5,640 kg (12,434 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Massey Ferguson MF 8160” | AheadThe Case-IH MX 210 has 35% more lift (1,957 kg / 4,314 lb) than the Massey Ferguson 8160A (both lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source). |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 9,165 kg (20,205 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH MX210” | 6,720 kg (14,815 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Massey Ferguson MF 8160” | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The Case-IH MX 210 is 36% heavier (2,445 kg / 5,390 lb) than the Massey Ferguson 8160A (both unladen weight, as stated by the source). |
| Which may carry more ballast and load? | 14,000 kg (30,865 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH MX210” | 9,000 kg (19,842 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Massey Ferguson MF 8160” | AheadThe Case-IH MX 210 has 56% higher maximum permissible mass (5,000 kg / 11,023 lb) than the Massey Ferguson 8160A (both maximum permissible mass, as stated by the source). |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 18 to 24Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH MX210” | 30 to 32Traktorenlexikon, “Massey Ferguson MF 8160” | EvenEven on forward gears (both forward gears, as stated by the source): the difference is under the 25% threshold, too small to call. |
| Which offers a creeper range? | — | — | No figureNo call on a creeper range: not stated for the MX 210 and the MF 8160 A. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 40 km/h (24.9 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH MX210” | 30 km/h (18.6 mph) to 40 km/h (24.9 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Massey Ferguson MF 8160” | 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 MX210” | 540/540E/1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Massey Ferguson MF 8160” | EvenEven on PTO speeds: the same speeds (540, 1000 rpm). |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | independentTraktorenlexikon, “Case-IH MX210” | independentTraktorenlexikon, “Massey Ferguson MF 8160” | EvenEven on PTO independence: every PTO is independent. |
| Which drives on both axles? | 4WDTraktorenlexikon, “Case-IH MX210”; OECD test report 2184, 2004 | Two-wheel or four-wheel driveTraktorenlexikon, “Massey Ferguson MF 8160” | EvenEven on drive: every machine is available with four-wheel drive. |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 2002–2005 | 1995–1999 | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The Case-IH MX 210 is newer: production began 7 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 210 has 174% more hydraulic flow (92.8 L/min / 24.5 gpm) than the Massey Ferguson 8160A (both pump flow, as stated by the source).
- The Case-IH MX 210 has 35% more lift (1,957 kg / 4,314 lb) than the Massey Ferguson 8160A (both lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source).
- The Case-IH MX 210 is 36% heavier (2,445 kg / 5,390 lb) than the Massey Ferguson 8160A (both unladen weight, as stated by the source).
- The Case-IH MX 210 has 56% higher maximum permissible mass (5,000 kg / 11,023 lb) than the Massey Ferguson 8160A (both maximum permissible mass, as stated by the source).
- The Case-IH MX 210 is newer: production began 7 years later. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts.
- Even on forward gears (both forward gears, as stated by the source): the difference is under the 25% threshold, 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 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.
- Not comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the MX 210 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the MF 8160 A 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 and a creeper range.
← Every figure for both machines, side by side, with sources