J.I. Case 2390 or J.I. Case 3294?

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 3294 is ahead on drive.

  • The J.I. Case 3294 suits heavy draft work (ploughing, cultivating) better on this data: 15% (1,054 kg / 2,324 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?

Buyer questions for J.I. Case 2390 and J.I. Case 3294, with the call on each
Question23903294Call
Which puts more power through the PTO shaft?119.9 kW (160.8 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Case 2390”121.3 kW (162.7 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Case 3294”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 2390 and the 3294.
Which pulls harder at the drawbar?No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the 2390 and the 3294.
Which pumps more oil for implements?87.1 L/min (23.0 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Case 3294”No figureNo call on hydraulic flow: no figure on record for the 2390.
Which lifts more on the three-point hitch?6,100 kg (13,448 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Case 2390”2,993 kg (6,598 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Case 3294”Not comparableNot comparable on three-point lift: the 2390: lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source (Traktorenlexikon, “Case 2390”); the 3294: lift through the full range 610 mm behind the ends, as stated by the source (Traktorenlexikon, “Case 3294”) — not the same quantity, basis and condition.
Which is heavier, for traction?7,072 kg (15,591 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Case 2390”8,126 kg (17,915 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Case 3294”Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The J.I. Case 3294 is 15% heavier (1,054 kg / 2,324 lb) than the J.I. Case 2390 (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 2390 and the 3294.
Which has the wider choice of gears?12Traktorenlexikon, “Case 2390”12Traktorenlexikon, “Case 3294”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 2390 and the 3294.
Which is faster on the road?30 km/h (18.6 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Case 2390”30 km/h (18.6 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Case 3294”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 2390”1000 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Case 3294”EvenEven on PTO speeds: the same speeds (1000 rpm).
Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive?independentTraktorenlexikon, “Case 2390”independentTraktorenlexikon, “Case 3294”EvenEven on PTO independence: every PTO is independent.
Which drives on both axles?2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Case 2390”4WDTraktorenlexikon, “Case 3294”AheadThe J.I. Case 3294 is available with four-wheel drive; the J.I. Case 2390 is two-wheel drive (as stated by the sources).
Which is newer, and what about parts?1978–19831984–1985Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The J.I. Case 3294 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 3294 is 15% heavier (1,054 kg / 2,324 lb) than the J.I. Case 2390 (both unladen weight, as stated by the source).
  • The J.I. Case 3294 is available with four-wheel drive; the J.I. Case 2390 is two-wheel drive (as stated by the sources).
  • The J.I. Case 3294 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 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 PTO speeds: the same speeds (1000 rpm).
  • Even on PTO independence: every PTO is independent.
  • Not comparable on three-point lift: the 2390: lift at the hitch ends, as stated by the source (Traktorenlexikon, “Case 2390”); the 3294: lift through the full range 610 mm behind the ends, as stated by the source (Traktorenlexikon, “Case 3294”) — not the same quantity, basis and condition.
  • No figure on record for every machine, so no call on: fuel efficiency at the shaft, drawbar power, hydraulic flow, maximum permissible mass and a creeper range.

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