International Harvester Hydro 86 or J.I. Case 870?
Which should you choose?
The data can’t decide this. Power at the PTO shaft cannot be compared: the Hydro 86 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 870 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft.
- The J.I. Case 870 suits loader and hydraulic implement work better on this data: 33% (15.1 L/min / 4.0 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 | Hydro 86 | 870 | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 53 kW (71 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “IHC Hydro 86” | 52.7 kW (70.7 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Case 870” | Not comparableNot comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the Hydro 86 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 870 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 Hydro 86 and the 870. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the Hydro 86 and the 870. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | 45.5 L/min (12.0 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “IHC Hydro 86” | 60.6 L/min (16.0 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Case 870” | AheadThe J.I. Case 870 has 33% more hydraulic flow (15.1 L/min / 4.0 gpm) than the International Harvester Hydro 86 (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 Hydro 86 and the 870. |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 3,704 kg (8,166 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “IHC Hydro 86” | 4,175 kg (9,204 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Case 870” | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The J.I. Case 870 is 13% heavier (471 kg / 1,038 lb) than the International Harvester Hydro 86 (both unladen weight, as stated by the source). |
| Which may carry more ballast and load? | — | — | No figureNo call on maximum permissible mass: no figure on record for the Hydro 86 and the 870. |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | Stepless (CVT)Traktorenlexikon, “IHC Hydro 86” | 8 to 12 forwardTraktorenlexikon, “Case 870” | DifferTransmissions differ in kind: the International Harvester Hydro 86 is stepless (CVT) and the J.I. Case 870 has 8 to 12 forward gears — not called. |
| Which offers a creeper range? | — | — | No figureNo call on a creeper range: not stated for the Hydro 86 and the 870. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 30 km/h (18.6 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “IHC Hydro 86” | 25 km/h (15.5 mph) to 30 km/h (18.6 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Case 870” | 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 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “IHC Hydro 86” | 540/1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Case 870” | AheadThe J.I. Case 870 offers 1000 rpm at the PTO, which the International Harvester Hydro 86 does not (as stated by the sources). |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | — | independentTraktorenlexikon, “Case 870” | No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the Hydro 86. |
| Which drives on both axles? | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “IHC Hydro 86” | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Case 870” | EvenEven on drive: all two-wheel drive. |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1976–1980 | 1969–1973 | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The International Harvester Hydro 86 is newer: production began 7 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 870 has 33% more hydraulic flow (15.1 L/min / 4.0 gpm) than the International Harvester Hydro 86 (both pump flow, as stated by the source).
- The J.I. Case 870 is 13% heavier (471 kg / 1,038 lb) than the International Harvester Hydro 86 (both unladen weight, as stated by the source).
- The J.I. Case 870 offers 1000 rpm at the PTO, which the International Harvester Hydro 86 does not (as stated by the sources).
- The International Harvester Hydro 86 is newer: production began 7 years later. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts.
- Transmissions differ in kind: the International Harvester Hydro 86 is stepless (CVT) and the J.I. Case 870 has 8 to 12 forward gears — not called.
- 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.
- Not comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the Hydro 86 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the 870 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, three-point lift, maximum permissible mass, a creeper range and PTO independence.
← Every figure for both machines, side by side, with sources