IMT 549 (DV-E) or J.I. Case 1190?
Which should you choose?
On performance, every comparable figure that differs favours the J.I. Case 1190: hydraulic flow.
- The J.I. Case 1190 suits loader and hydraulic implement work better on this data: 88% (13.8 L/min / 3.6 gpm) more hydraulic flow.
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 | 549 (DV-E) | 1190 | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 28.8 kW (38.7 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “IMT 549” | 28.8 kW (38.6 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Case 1190” | 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 549 (DV-E) and the 1190. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the 549 (DV-E) and the 1190. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | 15.6 L/min (4.1 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “IMT 549” | 29.4 L/min (7.8 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Case 1190” | AheadThe J.I. Case 1190 has 88% more hydraulic flow (13.8 L/min / 3.6 gpm) than the IMT 549 (DV-E) (both pump flow, as stated by the source). |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | 1,417 kg (3,124 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “IMT 549” | 1,428 kg (3,148 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Case 1190” | Not comparableNot comparable on three-point lift: the 549 (DV-E): lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source (Traktorenlexikon, “IMT 549”); the 1190: lift through the full range at the hitch ends, as stated by the source (Traktorenlexikon, “Case 1190”) — not the same quantity, basis and condition. |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 2,090 kg (4,608 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “IMT 549” | 2,096 kg (4,621 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Case 1190” | 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 549 (DV-E) and the 1190. |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 10Traktorenlexikon, “IMT 549” | 12Traktorenlexikon, “Case 1190” | 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 549 (DV-E) and the 1190. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 30 km/h (18.6 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “IMT 549” | 30 km/h (18.6 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Case 1190” | EvenEven on top speed (both top speed forward, as stated by the source): the difference is under the 10% threshold, too small to call. |
| Which offers more PTO speeds? | 540 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “IMT 549” | 540 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Case 1190” | EvenEven on PTO speeds: the same speeds (540 rpm). |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | — | — | No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the 549 (DV-E) and the 1190. |
| Which drives on both axles? | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “IMT 549” | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Case 1190” | EvenEven on drive: all two-wheel drive. |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1986–1996 | 1980–1983 | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The IMT 549 (DV-E) 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 J.I. Case 1190 has 88% more hydraulic flow (13.8 L/min / 3.6 gpm) than the IMT 549 (DV-E) (both pump flow, as stated by the source).
- The IMT 549 (DV-E) is newer: production began 6 years later. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts.
- 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 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 difference is under the 10% threshold, too small to call.
- Even on PTO speeds: the same speeds (540 rpm).
- Even on drive: all two-wheel drive.
- Not comparable on three-point lift: the 549 (DV-E): lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source (Traktorenlexikon, “IMT 549”); the 1190: lift through the full range at the hitch ends, as stated by the source (Traktorenlexikon, “Case 1190”) — not the same quantity, basis and condition.
- No figure on record for every machine, so no call on: fuel efficiency at the shaft, drawbar power, maximum permissible mass, a creeper range and PTO independence.
← Every figure for both machines, side by side, with sources