J.I. Case 1294 (DT) or J.I. Case 1494 (DT)?
Which should you choose?
On performance, no comparable figure differs by more than its threshold: on this data the machines are level. On features, the J.I. Case 1494 (DT) is ahead on PTO speeds.
- The J.I. Case 1494 (DT) suits PTO-driven implements (mowers, balers, pumps) better on this data: offers 1000 rpm.
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 | 1294 (DT) | 1494 (DT) | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 41.2 kW (55.2 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Case 1294” | 41.1 kW (55.1 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Case 1494” | 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 1294 (DT) and the 1494 (DT). |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the 1294 (DT) and the 1494 (DT). |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | 27.3 L/min (7.2 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Case 1294” | — | No figureNo call on hydraulic flow: no figure on record for the 1494 (DT). |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | 1,345 kg (2,965 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Case 1294” | 1,456 kg (3,210 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Case 1494” | EvenEven on three-point lift (both lift through the full range 610 mm behind the ends, as stated by the source): the difference is under the 10% threshold, too small to call. |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 2,865 kg (6,316 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Case 1294” | 3,345 kg (7,374 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Case 1494” | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The J.I. Case 1494 (DT) is 17% heavier (480 kg / 1,058 lb) than the J.I. Case 1294 (DT) (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 1294 (DT) and the 1494 (DT). |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 12Traktorenlexikon, “Case 1294” | 12Traktorenlexikon, “Case 1494” | 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 1294 (DT) and the 1494 (DT). |
| Which is faster on the road? | 30 km/h (18.6 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Case 1294” | 30 km/h (18.6 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Case 1494” | 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, “Case 1294” | 540/1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Case 1494” | AheadThe J.I. Case 1494 (DT) offers 1000 rpm at the PTO, which the J.I. Case 1294 (DT) does not (as stated by the sources). |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | — | independentTraktorenlexikon, “Case 1494” | No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the 1294 (DT). |
| Which drives on both axles? | Two-wheel or four-wheel driveTraktorenlexikon, “Case 1294” | Two-wheel or four-wheel driveTraktorenlexikon, “Case 1494” | EvenEven on drive: every machine is available with four-wheel drive. |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1984–1985 | 1984–1985 | 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 1494 (DT) is 17% heavier (480 kg / 1,058 lb) than the J.I. Case 1294 (DT) (both unladen weight, as stated by the source).
- The J.I. Case 1494 (DT) offers 1000 rpm at the PTO, which the J.I. Case 1294 (DT) does not (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 three-point lift (both lift through the full range 610 mm behind the ends, 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 drive: every machine is available with four-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, hydraulic flow, maximum permissible mass, a creeper range and PTO independence.
← Every figure for both machines, side by side, with sources