Case-IH MXU 115 or Deutz-Fahr AgroStar 6.38?
Which should you choose?
The data can’t decide this. Power at the PTO shaft cannot be compared: the MXU 115: power at the PTO, measured by a laboratory at maximum power (OECD Test 2228); the AgroStar 6.38: power at the PTO, claimed (Traktorenlexikon, “Deutz-Fahr AgroStar 6.38”) — not the same quantity, basis and condition.
- The Case-IH MXU 115 suits loader and hydraulic implement work better on this data: 45% (26.0 L/min / 6.9 gpm) more hydraulic flow.
- The Deutz-Fahr AgroStar 6.38 suits road haulage better on this data: 13% (1,000 kg / 2,205 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 | MXU 115 | AgroStar 6.38 | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 78.1 kW (104.7 hp)OECD Test 2228Measured PTO power is 8% below the claimed engine power (gross or net not stated) (84.6 kW (113.5 hp)) — a different quantity: the gap is what the engine claim does not reach the shaft. | 76 kW (102 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Deutz-Fahr AgroStar 6.38” | Not comparableNot comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the MXU 115: power at the PTO, measured by a laboratory at maximum power (OECD Test 2228); the AgroStar 6.38: power at the PTO, claimed (Traktorenlexikon, “Deutz-Fahr AgroStar 6.38”) — 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 MXU 115 and the AgroStar 6.38. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | 64.7 kW (86.8 hp)OECD Test 2228 | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the AgroStar 6.38. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | 84.0 L/min (22.2 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH MXU115” | 58.0 L/min (15.3 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Deutz-Fahr AgroStar 6.38” | AheadThe Case-IH MXU 115 has 45% more hydraulic flow (26.0 L/min / 6.9 gpm) than the Deutz-Fahr AgroStar 6.38 (both pump flow, as stated by the source). |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | — | 6,500 kg (14,330 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Deutz-Fahr AgroStar 6.38” | No figureNo call on three-point lift: no figure on record for the MXU 115. |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 5,370 kg (11,839 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH MXU115” | 4,640 kg (10,229 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Deutz-Fahr AgroStar 6.38” | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The Case-IH MXU 115 is 16% heavier (730 kg / 1,609 lb) than the Deutz-Fahr AgroStar 6.38 (both unladen weight, as stated by the source). |
| Which may carry more ballast and load? | 7,500 kg (16,535 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH MXU115” | 8,500 kg (18,739 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Deutz-Fahr AgroStar 6.38” | AheadThe Deutz-Fahr AgroStar 6.38 has 13% higher maximum permissible mass (1,000 kg / 2,205 lb) than the Case-IH MXU 115 (both maximum permissible mass, as stated by the source). |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 16 to 24Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH MXU115” | 40 to 48Traktorenlexikon, “Deutz-Fahr AgroStar 6.38” | Sources disagreeNo call on forward gears: sources disagree on the figure for the MXU 115. |
| Which offers a creeper range? | — | YesTraktorenlexikon, “Deutz-Fahr AgroStar 6.38” | No figureNo call on a creeper range: not stated for the MXU 115. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 40 km/h (24.9 mph) to 50 km/h (31.1 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH MXU115” | 30 km/h (18.6 mph) to 40 km/h (24.9 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Deutz-Fahr AgroStar 6.38” | 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? | 540E/540/1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Case-IH MXU115” | 1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Deutz-Fahr AgroStar 6.38” | AheadThe Case-IH MXU 115 offers 540 rpm at the PTO, which the Deutz-Fahr AgroStar 6.38 does not (as stated by the sources). |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | — | independentTraktorenlexikon, “Deutz-Fahr AgroStar 6.38” | No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the MXU 115. |
| Which drives on both axles? | 4WDOECD test report 2228, 2005; OECD test report 2253, 2005; Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH MXU115” | 4WDTraktorenlexikon, “Deutz-Fahr AgroStar 6.38” | EvenEven on drive: every machine is available with four-wheel drive. |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 2004–2006 | 1993–1995 | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The Case-IH MXU 115 is newer: production began 11 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 MXU 115 has 45% more hydraulic flow (26.0 L/min / 6.9 gpm) than the Deutz-Fahr AgroStar 6.38 (both pump flow, as stated by the source).
- The Case-IH MXU 115 is 16% heavier (730 kg / 1,609 lb) than the Deutz-Fahr AgroStar 6.38 (both unladen weight, as stated by the source).
- The Deutz-Fahr AgroStar 6.38 has 13% higher maximum permissible mass (1,000 kg / 2,205 lb) than the Case-IH MXU 115 (both maximum permissible mass, as stated by the source).
- The Case-IH MXU 115 offers 540 rpm at the PTO, which the Deutz-Fahr AgroStar 6.38 does not (as stated by the sources).
- The Case-IH MXU 115 is newer: production began 11 years later. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts.
- Even on top speed (both top speed forward, as stated by the source): the figures vary by configuration and the ranges overlap.
- Even on drive: every machine is available with four-wheel drive.
- Not comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the MXU 115: power at the PTO, measured by a laboratory at maximum power (OECD Test 2228); the AgroStar 6.38: power at the PTO, claimed (Traktorenlexikon, “Deutz-Fahr AgroStar 6.38”) — not the same quantity, basis and condition.
- No call on forward gears: sources disagree on the figure for the MXU 115.
- No figure on record for every machine, so no call on: fuel efficiency at the shaft, drawbar power, three-point lift, a creeper range and PTO independence.
← Every figure for both machines, side by side, with sources