J.I. Case 2290 or VOLVO-BM 2654?
Which should you choose?
On performance, every comparable figure that differs favours the J.I. Case 2290: hydraulic flow and three-point lift. On features, the VOLVO-BM 2654 is ahead on drive.
- The J.I. Case 2290 suits loader and hydraulic implement work better on this data: 69% (32.5 L/min / 8.6 gpm) more hydraulic flow and 32% (1,100 kg / 2,425 lb) more three-point lift.
- The VOLVO-BM 2654 suits heavy draft work (ploughing, cultivating) better on this data: 21% (1,286 kg / 2,835 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 | 2290 | 2654 | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 96.0 kW (128.7 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Case 2290” | 95.6 kW (128 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Bolinder-Munktell T 2654” | 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 2290 and the 2654. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the 2290 and the 2654. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | 79.5 L/min (21.0 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Case 2290” | 47.0 L/min (12.4 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Bolinder-Munktell T 2654” | AheadThe J.I. Case 2290 has 69% more hydraulic flow (32.5 L/min / 8.6 gpm) than the VOLVO-BM 2654 (both pump flow, as stated by the source). |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | 4,500 kg (9,921 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Case 2290” | 3,400 kg (7,496 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Bolinder-Munktell T 2654” | AheadThe J.I. Case 2290 has 32% more lift (1,100 kg / 2,425 lb) than the VOLVO-BM 2654 (both lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source). |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 5,792 kg (12,769 lb) to 6,214 kg (13,700 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Case 2290” | 7,500 kg (16,535 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Bolinder-Munktell T 2654” | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The VOLVO-BM 2654 is 21% heavier (1,286 kg / 2,835 lb) than the J.I. Case 2290 (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 2290 and the 2654. |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 8 to 12Traktorenlexikon, “Case 2290” | 14Traktorenlexikon, “Bolinder-Munktell T 2654” | 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 2290 and the 2654. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 25 km/h (15.5 mph) to 30 km/h (18.6 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Case 2290” | 30 km/h (18.6 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Bolinder-Munktell T 2654” | 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 2290” | 540/1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Bolinder-Munktell T 2654” | EvenEven on PTO speeds: the same speeds (540, 1000 rpm). |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | independentTraktorenlexikon, “Case 2290” | independentTraktorenlexikon, “Bolinder-Munktell T 2654” | EvenEven on PTO independence: every PTO is independent. |
| Which drives on both axles? | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Case 2290” | 4WDTraktorenlexikon, “Bolinder-Munktell T 2654” | AheadThe VOLVO-BM 2654 is available with four-wheel drive; the J.I. Case 2290 is two-wheel drive (as stated by the sources). |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1978–1983 | 1978–1984 | 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 2290 has 69% more hydraulic flow (32.5 L/min / 8.6 gpm) than the VOLVO-BM 2654 (both pump flow, as stated by the source).
- The J.I. Case 2290 has 32% more lift (1,100 kg / 2,425 lb) than the VOLVO-BM 2654 (both lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source).
- The VOLVO-BM 2654 is 21% heavier (1,286 kg / 2,835 lb) than the J.I. Case 2290 (both unladen weight, as stated by the source).
- The VOLVO-BM 2654 is available with four-wheel drive; the J.I. Case 2290 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 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 figures vary by configuration and the ranges overlap.
- Even on PTO speeds: the same speeds (540, 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