Case-IH Puma 155 or Renault Ares 816 RZ?
Which should you choose?
The data can’t decide this. Power at the PTO shaft cannot be compared: the Puma 155 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the Ares 816 RZ has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft.
- The Renault Ares 816 RZ suits loader and hydraulic implement work better on this data: 40% (3,303 kg / 7,282 lb) more three-point lift.
- The Renault Ares 816 RZ suits road haulage better on this data: 12% (1,280 kg / 2,822 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 | Puma 155 | Ares 816 RZ | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 116.2 kW (155.8 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH Puma 155” | 114.8 kW (153.9 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Renault Ares 816 RZ” | Not comparableNot comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the Puma 155 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the Ares 816 RZ 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 Puma 155 and the Ares 816 RZ. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the Puma 155 and the Ares 816 RZ. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | 104.4 L/min (27.6 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH Puma 155” | — | No figureNo call on hydraulic flow: no figure on record for the Ares 816 RZ. |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | 8,257 kg (18,204 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH Puma 155” | 11,560 kg (25,485 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Renault Ares 816 RZ” | AheadThe Renault Ares 816 RZ has 40% more lift (3,303 kg / 7,282 lb) than the Case-IH Puma 155 (both lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source). |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 6,615 kg (14,584 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH Puma 155” | 7,300 kg (16,094 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Renault Ares 816 RZ” | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The Renault Ares 816 RZ is 10% heavier (685 kg / 1,510 lb) than the Case-IH Puma 155 (both unladen weight, as stated by the source). |
| Which may carry more ballast and load? | 10,500 kg (23,149 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH Puma 155” | 11,780 kg (25,970 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Renault Ares 816 RZ” | AheadThe Renault Ares 816 RZ has 12% higher maximum permissible mass (1,280 kg / 2,822 lb) than the Case-IH Puma 155 (both maximum permissible mass, as stated by the source). |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 18 to 28Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH Puma 155” | 32Traktorenlexikon, “Renault Ares 816 RZ” | 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 Puma 155 and the Ares 816 RZ. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 40 km/h (24.9 mph) to 50 km/h (31.1 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Case-IH Puma 155” | 40 km/h (24.9 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Renault Ares 816 RZ” | 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 Puma 155” | 540/1000 rpmOECD test report 2108, 2004 | EvenEven on PTO speeds: the same speeds (540, 1000 rpm). |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | independentTraktorenlexikon, “Case-IH Puma 155” | independentTraktorenlexikon, “Renault Ares 816 RZ” | EvenEven on PTO independence: every PTO is independent. |
| Which drives on both axles? | 4WDTraktorenlexikon, “Case-IH Puma 155” | 4WDTraktorenlexikon, “Renault Ares 816 RZ”; OECD test report 2108, 2004 | EvenEven on drive: every machine is available with four-wheel drive. |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 2007–2011 | 2001–2005 | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The Case-IH Puma 155 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 Renault Ares 816 RZ has 40% more lift (3,303 kg / 7,282 lb) than the Case-IH Puma 155 (both lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source).
- The Renault Ares 816 RZ is 10% heavier (685 kg / 1,510 lb) than the Case-IH Puma 155 (both unladen weight, as stated by the source).
- The Renault Ares 816 RZ has 12% higher maximum permissible mass (1,280 kg / 2,822 lb) than the Case-IH Puma 155 (both maximum permissible mass, as stated by the source).
- The Case-IH Puma 155 is newer: production began 6 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 Puma 155 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the Ares 816 RZ 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, hydraulic flow and a creeper range.
← Every figure for both machines, side by side, with sources