International Harvester Farmall 240 or J.I. Case 441?

Which should you choose?

On performance, every comparable figure that differs favours the J.I. Case 441: hydraulic flow.

  • The J.I. Case 441 suits loader and hydraulic implement work better on this data: 41% (9.4 L/min / 2.5 gpm) more hydraulic flow.

Generated by rule set compare@4 from the figures on the side-by-side table, allowed by route “similar machines”. 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?

Buyer questions for International Harvester Farmall 240 and J.I. Case 441, with the call on each
QuestionFarmall 240441Call
Which puts more power through the PTO shaft?24.1 kW (32.3 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Farmall Farmall 240”24.3 kW (32.5 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Case 441”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 Farmall 240 and the 441.
Which pulls harder at the drawbar?No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the Farmall 240 and the 441.
Which pumps more oil for implements?22.8 L/min (6.0 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Farmall Farmall 240”32.2 L/min (8.5 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Case 441”AheadThe J.I. Case 441 has 41% more hydraulic flow (9.4 L/min / 2.5 gpm) than the International Harvester Farmall 240 (both pump flow, as stated by the source).
Which lifts more on the three-point hitch?No figureNo call on three-point lift: no figure on record for the Farmall 240 and the 441.
Which is heavier, for traction?1,707 kg (3,763 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “IHC Farmall 240”1,642 kg (3,620 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Case 441”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 Farmall 240 and the 441.
Which has the wider choice of gears?4Traktorenlexikon, “IHC Farmall 240”4 to 12Traktorenlexikon, “Case 441”EvenEven on forward gears (both forward gears, as stated by the source): the figures vary by configuration and the ranges overlap.
Which offers a creeper range?No figureNo call on a creeper range: not stated for the Farmall 240 and the 441.
Which is faster on the road?23 km/h (14.3 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Farmall Farmall 240”20 km/h (12.4 mph) to 35 km/h (21.7 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Case 441”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?539 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Farmall Farmall 240”540 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Case 441”No figureNo call on PTO speeds: no standard PTO speed stated for the Farmall 240.
Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive?independentTraktorenlexikon, “Case 441”No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the Farmall 240.
Which drives on both axles?2WDTraktorenlexikon, “IHC Farmall 240”; Traktorenlexikon, “Farmall Farmall 240”2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Case 441”EvenEven on drive: all two-wheel drive.
Which is newer, and what about parts?1958–19611960–1969EvenSame 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 441 has 41% more hydraulic flow (9.4 L/min / 2.5 gpm) than the International Harvester Farmall 240 (both pump flow, 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 forward gears (both forward gears, as stated by the source): the figures vary by configuration and the ranges overlap.
  • 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: all two-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 figure on record for every machine, so no call on: fuel efficiency at the shaft, drawbar power, three-point lift, maximum permissible mass, a creeper range, PTO speeds and PTO independence.

← Every figure for both machines, side by side, with sources