David Brown 1490 (A) or J.I. Case 1490 (DT)?
Which should you choose?
The data can’t decide this. Power at the PTO shaft cannot be compared: the 1490 (A) has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 1490 (DT) has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft.
- The J.I. Case 1490 (DT) suits heavy draft work (ploughing, cultivating) better on this data: four-wheel drive.
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 | 1490 (A) | 1490 (DT) | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 61 kW (82 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “David Brown 1490” | 61 kW (82 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Case 1490” | Not comparableNot comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the 1490 (A) has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 1490 (DT) 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 1490 (A) and the 1490 (DT). |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the 1490 (A) and the 1490 (DT). |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | 33.6 L/min (8.9 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “David Brown 1490” | — | No figureNo call on hydraulic flow: no figure on record for the 1490 (DT). |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | 2,019 kg (4,451 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “David Brown 1490” | 2,019 kg (4,451 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Case 1490” | EvenEven on three-point lift (both lift through the full range at the hitch ends, as stated by the source): the difference is under the 10% threshold, too small to call. |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 3,140 kg (6,923 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “David Brown 1490” | 3,340 kg (7,363 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Case 1490” | 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? | — | — | No figureNo call on maximum permissible mass: no figure on record for the 1490 (A) and the 1490 (DT). |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 12Traktorenlexikon, “David Brown 1490” | 12Traktorenlexikon, “Case 1490” | 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 1490 (A) and the 1490 (DT). |
| Which is faster on the road? | — | 30 km/h (18.6 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Case 1490” | No figureNo call on top speed: no figure on record for the 1490 (A). |
| Which offers more PTO speeds? | 540/1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “David Brown 1490” | 540/1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Case 1490” | EvenEven on PTO speeds: the same speeds (540, 1000 rpm). |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | independentTraktorenlexikon, “David Brown 1490” | — | No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the 1490 (DT). |
| Which drives on both axles? | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “David Brown 1490” | Two-wheel or four-wheel driveTraktorenlexikon, “Case 1490” | AheadThe J.I. Case 1490 (DT) is available with four-wheel drive; the David Brown 1490 (A) is two-wheel drive (as stated by the sources). |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1980–1984 | 1980–1984 | 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 J.I. Case 1490 (DT) is available with four-wheel drive; the David Brown 1490 (A) is two-wheel drive (as stated by the sources).
- Even on three-point lift (both lift through the full range at the hitch ends, as stated by the source): the difference is under the 10% threshold, 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 forward gears (both forward gears, as stated by the source): the difference is under the 25% threshold, too small to call.
- Even on PTO speeds: the same speeds (540, 1000 rpm).
- Same era: production began within 5 years of each other. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts.
- Not comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the 1490 (A) has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 1490 (DT) 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, maximum permissible mass, a creeper range, top speed and PTO independence.
← Every figure for both machines, side by side, with sources