International Harvester 1486 or J.I. Case 1370?
Which should you choose?
On performance, every comparable figure that differs favours the J.I. Case 1370: hydraulic flow. On features, the International Harvester 1486 is ahead on drive.
- The J.I. Case 1370 suits loader and hydraulic implement work better on this data: 67% (30.3 L/min / 8.0 gpm) more hydraulic flow.
- The International Harvester 1486 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 | 1486 | 1370 | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 107.2 kW (143.8 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “IHC 1486” | 107.1 kW (143.6 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Case 1370” | 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 1486 and the 1370. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the 1486 and the 1370. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | 45.4 L/min (12.0 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “IHC 1486” | 75.7 L/min (20.0 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Case 1370” | AheadThe J.I. Case 1370 has 67% more hydraulic flow (30.3 L/min / 8.0 gpm) than the International Harvester 1486 (both pump flow, as stated by the source). |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | — | 5,500 kg (12,125 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Case 1370” | No figureNo call on three-point lift: no figure on record for the 1486. |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 6,630 kg (14,617 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “IHC 1486” | 6,935 kg (15,289 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Case 1370” | 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 1486 and the 1370. |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 8 to 16Traktorenlexikon, “IHC 1486” | 12Traktorenlexikon, “Case 1370” | 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 1486 and the 1370. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 30 km/h (18.6 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “IHC 1486” | 30 km/h (18.6 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Case 1370” | 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? | 1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “IHC 1486” | 1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Case 1370” | EvenEven on PTO speeds: the same speeds (1000 rpm). |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | — | independentTraktorenlexikon, “Case 1370” | No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the 1486. |
| Which drives on both axles? | 2WD / 4WDTraktorenlexikon, “IHC 1486” | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Case 1370” | AheadThe International Harvester 1486 is available with four-wheel drive; the J.I. Case 1370 is two-wheel drive (as stated by the sources). |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1976–1981 | 1972–1978 | 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 1370 has 67% more hydraulic flow (30.3 L/min / 8.0 gpm) than the International Harvester 1486 (both pump flow, as stated by the source).
- The International Harvester 1486 is available with four-wheel drive; the J.I. Case 1370 is two-wheel drive (as stated by the sources).
- 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 difference is under the 10% threshold, too small to call.
- Even on PTO speeds: the same speeds (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.
- 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