J.I. Case 2090 or J.I. Case 2094?
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 2094 is ahead on drive.
- The J.I. Case 2094 suits heavy draft work (ploughing, cultivating) better on this data: 18% (979 kg / 2,158 lb) heavier and 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 | 2090 | 2094 | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 81.1 kW (108.8 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Case 2090” | 82.4 kW (110.5 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Case 2094” | 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 2090 and the 2094. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the 2090 and the 2094. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | 79.5 L/min (21.0 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Case 2090” | — | No figureNo call on hydraulic flow: no figure on record for the 2094. |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | 4,500 kg (9,921 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Case 2090” | 4,535 kg (9,998 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Case 2094” | 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? | 5,402 kg (11,909 lb) to 5,457 kg (12,031 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Case 2090” | 6,436 kg (14,189 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Case 2094” | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The J.I. Case 2094 is 18% heavier (979 kg / 2,158 lb) than the J.I. Case 2090 (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 2090 and the 2094. |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 8 to 12Traktorenlexikon, “Case 2090” | 12Traktorenlexikon, “Case 2094” | 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 2090 and the 2094. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 25 km/h (15.5 mph) to 30 km/h (18.6 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Case 2090” | 30 km/h (18.6 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Case 2094” | 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? | 540/1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Case 2090” | 540/1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Case 2094” | EvenEven on PTO speeds: the same speeds (540, 1000 rpm). |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | independentTraktorenlexikon, “Case 2090” | — | No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the 2094. |
| Which drives on both axles? | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Case 2090” | Two-wheel or four-wheel driveTraktorenlexikon, “Case 2094” | AheadThe J.I. Case 2094 is available with four-wheel drive; the J.I. Case 2090 is two-wheel drive (as stated by the sources). |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1978–1983 | 1984–1985 | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The J.I. Case 2094 is newer: production began 6 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 2094 is 18% heavier (979 kg / 2,158 lb) than the J.I. Case 2090 (both unladen weight, as stated by the source).
- The J.I. Case 2094 is available with four-wheel drive; the J.I. Case 2090 is two-wheel drive (as stated by the sources).
- The J.I. Case 2094 is newer: production began 6 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 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 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 figures vary by configuration and the ranges overlap.
- Even on PTO speeds: the same speeds (540, 1000 rpm).
- 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