International Harvester 1206 or J.I. Case 1090?
Which should you choose?
On performance, every comparable figure that differs favours the J.I. Case 1090: hydraulic flow. On features, the International Harvester 1206 is ahead on top speed.
- The J.I. Case 1090 suits loader and hydraulic implement work better on this data: 33% (15.1 L/min / 4.0 gpm) more hydraulic flow.
- The International Harvester 1206 suits road haulage better on this data: 20% (5.0 km/h / 3.1 mph) more top speed.
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 | 1206 | 1090 | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 79.5 kW (106.6 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “IHC 1206” | 77.5 kW (104.0 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Case 1090” | 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 1206 and the 1090. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the 1206 and the 1090. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | 45.5 L/min (12.0 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “IHC 1206” | 60.6 L/min (16.0 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Case 1090” | AheadThe J.I. Case 1090 has 33% more hydraulic flow (15.1 L/min / 4.0 gpm) than the International Harvester 1206 (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 1206 and the 1090. |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 4,588 kg (10,115 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “IHC 1206” | 4,715 kg (10,395 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Case 1090” | 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 1206 and the 1090. |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 8 to 16Traktorenlexikon, “IHC 1206” | 8 to 12Traktorenlexikon, “Case 1090” | 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 1206 and the 1090. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 30 km/h (18.6 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “IHC 1206” | 25 km/h (15.5 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Case 1090” | AheadThe International Harvester 1206 has 20% more top speed (5.0 km/h / 3.1 mph) than the J.I. Case 1090 (both top speed forward, as stated by the source). |
| Which offers more PTO speeds? | 1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “IHC 1206” | 1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Case 1090” | EvenEven on PTO speeds: the same speeds (1000 rpm). |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | — | — | No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the 1206 and the 1090. |
| Which drives on both axles? | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “IHC 1206” | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Case 1090” | EvenEven on drive: all two-wheel drive. |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1965–1967 | 1970 | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The J.I. Case 1090 is newer: production began 5 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 1090 has 33% more hydraulic flow (15.1 L/min / 4.0 gpm) than the International Harvester 1206 (both pump flow, as stated by the source).
- The International Harvester 1206 has 20% more top speed (5.0 km/h / 3.1 mph) than the J.I. Case 1090 (both top speed forward, as stated by the source).
- The J.I. Case 1090 is newer: production began 5 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 figures vary by configuration and the ranges overlap.
- Even on PTO speeds: the same speeds (1000 rpm).
- Even on drive: all two-wheel drive.
- 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