Image not recorded
Head to head · Row Crop
AGCO DT200 vs CaseIH Puma 230
CaseIHModel B
CaseIH Puma 230
Row Crop
- power
- 231 hp
- displacement
- 411 ci
- Cylinders
- 6
- Forward gears
- Not recorded
AGCOAGCO DT200
vs
CaseIHCaseIH Puma 230
How they compare
Headline specs vs. the whole Row Crop
Engine Power
▲ DT200 higher · +4 hp (+2%)DT200235 hp
Puma 230231 hp
Median Row Crop Tractor138 hp
DT200 is in the 85th percentile; Puma 230 is in the 84th · 1,206 models
Engine Displacement
▲ DT200 higher · +94 ci (+23%)DT200505 ci
Puma 230411 ci
Median Row Crop Tractor391 ci
DT200 is in the 89th percentile; Puma 230 is in the 63rd · 1,409 models
Cylinders
= Effectively tiedDT2006
Puma 2306
Median Row Crop Tractor6
DT200 is in the 50th percentile; Puma 230 is in the 50th · 1,417 models
Operating Weight
▲ Puma 230 higher · +100 lb (<1%)DT20019,700 lb
Puma 23019,800 lb
Median Row Crop Tractor12,307 lb
DT200 is in the 84th percentile; Puma 230 is in the 84th · 1,350 models
DT200 (A)Puma 230 (B)Median Row Crop Tractor
Full comparison
Every spec, side by side
General Information
| Spec | AGCO DT200 | CaseIH Puma 230 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Manufacturer | AGCO | CaseIH | — |
| Model | DT200 | Puma 230 | — |
| Category | Row Crop | Row Crop | Same |
Engine
| Spec | AGCO DT200 | CaseIH Puma 230 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Manufacturer | Cummins | FPT | — |
| Model | C8.3 | Not recorded | — |
| Power Output | 235hp | 231hp | ▲ DT200+4 hp · +2% |
| Rated RPM | 2,200RPM | 2,200RPM | Same |
| Cylinders | 6 | 6 | Same |
| Displacement | 505ci | 411ci | ▲ DT200+94 ci · +23% |
| Bore | 4.5in | 4.1in | ▲ DT200+0.4 in · +10% |
| Stroke | 5.3in | 5.2in | ▲ DT200+0.1 in · +2% |
Transmission
| Spec | AGCO DT200 | CaseIH Puma 230 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type | Full Power Shift | Continuously variable transmission (CVT) | — |
Dimensions & Weight
| Spec | AGCO DT200 | CaseIH Puma 230 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Length | 203in | Not recorded | — |
| Width | 98in | Not recorded | — |
| Height | 121in | Not recorded | — |
| Operating Weight | 19,700lb | 19,800lb | ▲ Puma 230+100 lb · <1% |
Hydraulics
| Spec | AGCO DT200 | CaseIH Puma 230 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| System Type | Closed Center Pressure Flow Compensated (PFC) | Closed center pressure flow compensating (PFC) | — |
| Steering Type | Hydrostatic Power | Hydrostatic power | Same |
Power Take-off (PTO)
| Spec | AGCO DT200 | CaseIH Puma 230 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type | Independent | Not recorded | — |
| Speed 1 | 1,000rpm | Not recorded | — |
Hitch & Towing
| Spec | AGCO DT200 | CaseIH Puma 230 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hitch Type | Three-Point Hitch | Rear Type: 2/3N | — |
| Hitch Category | Category 3/3N | Not recorded | — |
| Hitch Position | Rear | Rear | Same |
| Hitch Capacity | 19,000lb | Not recorded | — |
Chassis & Drive
| Spec | AGCO DT200 | CaseIH Puma 230 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chassis Type | 4x4 MFWD 4WD | 4x4 MFWD 4WD | Same |
| Drive Type | 4WD | 4WD | Same |
| Steering Type | Hydrostatic Power | Hydrostatic power | Same |
| Brake Type | Hydraulic Wet Disc | Not recorded | — |
Electrical
| Spec | AGCO DT200 | CaseIH Puma 230 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Starter Type | Electric | Electric | Same |
Operator Station
| Spec | AGCO DT200 | CaseIH Puma 230 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type | Cab Standard | Not recorded | — |
Category context
Both models against the field
Engine Power
median 138 hpA · 85th percentile (235 hp)B · 84th percentile (231 hp)
Engine Displacement
median 391 ciA · 89th percentile (505 ci)B · 63rd percentile (411 ci)
Cylinders
median 6A · 50th percentile (6)B · 50th percentile (6)
Operating Weight
median 12,307 lbA · 84th percentile (19,700 lb)B · 84th percentile (19,800 lb)
A · DT200B · Puma 230Median Row Crop Tractor