Case-IH MX 255 or John Deere 8230?
Which should you choose?
On performance, every comparable figure that differs favours the John Deere 8230: three-point lift.
- The John Deere 8230 suits loader and hydraulic implement work better on this data: 33% (2,651 kg / 5,844 lb) more three-point lift.
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 255 | 8230 | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 163.45 kW (219.19 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH MX255” | 163.92 kW (219.82 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “John Deere 8230” | 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 MX 255 and the 8230. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the MX 255 and the 8230. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | 146.1 L/min (38.6 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH MX255” | — | No figureNo call on hydraulic flow: no figure on record for the 8230. |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | 8,137 kg (17,939 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH MX255” | 10,788 kg (23,783 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “John Deere 8230” | AheadThe John Deere 8230 has 33% more lift (2,651 kg / 5,844 lb) than the Case-IH MX 255 (both lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source). |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 9,779 kg (21,559 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH MX255” | 10,572 kg (23,307 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “John Deere 8230” | 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 MX255” | 14,000 kg (30,865 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “John Deere 8230” | 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 MX255” | 16Traktorenlexikon, “John Deere 8230” | 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 255 and the 8230. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 40 km/h (24.9 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH MX255” | 40 km/h (24.9 mph) to 50 km/h (31.1 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “John Deere 8230” | 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? | 1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Case-IH MX255” | 540/1000 rpmOECD test report 2377, 2007 | Sources disagreeNo call on PTO speeds: sources disagree on the PTO speeds of the MX 255. |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | independentTraktorenlexikon, “Case-IH MX255” | independentTraktorenlexikon, “John Deere 8230” | EvenEven on PTO independence: every PTO is independent. |
| Which drives on both axles? | 4WDTraktorenlexikon, “Case-IH MX255”; OECD test report 2188, 2004 | 4WDTraktorenlexikon, “John Deere 8230”; OECD test report 2377, 2007 | EvenEven on drive: every machine is available with four-wheel drive. |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 2002–2005 | 2006–2009 | 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 John Deere 8230 has 33% more lift (2,651 kg / 5,844 lb) than the Case-IH MX 255 (both lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source).
- 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 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 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 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.
- No call on PTO speeds: sources disagree on the PTO speeds of the MX 255.
- No figure on record for every machine, so no call on: fuel efficiency at the shaft, drawbar power, hydraulic flow and a creeper range.
← Every figure for both machines, side by side, with sources