J.I. Case 1570 or John Deere 4840?

Which should you choose?

On performance, every comparable figure that differs favours the John Deere 4840: hydraulic flow. It is also ahead on drive.

  • The John Deere 4840 suits loader and hydraulic implement work better on this data: 15% (11.4 L/min / 3.0 gpm) more hydraulic flow.
  • The John Deere 4840 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?

Buyer questions for J.I. Case 1570 and John Deere 4840, with the call on each
Question15704840Call
Which puts more power through the PTO shaft?134.5 kW (180.4 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Case 1570”134.7 kW (180.6 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “John Deere 4840”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 1570 and the 4840.
Which pulls harder at the drawbar?No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the 1570 and the 4840.
Which pumps more oil for implements?75.7 L/min (20.0 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Case 1570”87.1 L/min (23.0 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “John Deere 4840”AheadThe John Deere 4840 has 15% more hydraulic flow (11.4 L/min / 3.0 gpm) than the J.I. Case 1570 (both pump flow, as stated by the source).
Which lifts more on the three-point hitch?3,600 kg (7,937 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Case 1570”3,762 kg (8,294 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “John Deere 4840”EvenEven on three-point lift (both lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source): the difference is under the 10% threshold, too small to call.
Which is heavier, for traction?7,389 kg (16,290 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Case 1570”6,758 kg (14,899 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “John Deere 4840”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 1570 and the 4840.
Which has the wider choice of gears?12Traktorenlexikon, “Case 1570”8 to 16Traktorenlexikon, “John Deere 4840”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 1570 and the 4840.
Which is faster on the road?30 km/h (18.6 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Case 1570”30 km/h (18.6 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “John Deere 4840”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, “Case 1570”1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “John Deere 4840”EvenEven on PTO speeds: the same speeds (1000 rpm).
Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive?independentTraktorenlexikon, “Case 1570”independentTraktorenlexikon, “John Deere 4840”EvenEven on PTO independence: every PTO is independent.
Which drives on both axles?2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Case 1570”Two-wheel or four-wheel driveTraktorenlexikon, “John Deere 4840”AheadThe John Deere 4840 is available with four-wheel drive; the J.I. Case 1570 is two-wheel drive (as stated by the sources).
Which is newer, and what about parts?1976–19781978–1982EvenSame 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 John Deere 4840 has 15% more hydraulic flow (11.4 L/min / 3.0 gpm) than the J.I. Case 1570 (both pump flow, as stated by the source).
  • The John Deere 4840 is available with four-wheel drive; the J.I. Case 1570 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 three-point lift (both lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source): the difference is under the 10% threshold, 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).
  • Even on PTO independence: every PTO is independent.
  • 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, maximum permissible mass and a creeper range.

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