Image not recorded
Head to head · Utility
Apollo 454 vs CaseIH Farmall 50C
Image not recorded
CaseIHModel B
CaseIH Farmall 50C
Utility
- power
- 45.6 hp
- displacement
- 135 ci
- Cylinders
- 4
- Forward gears
- 16
ApolloApollo 454
vs
CaseIHCaseIH Farmall 50C
How they compare
Headline specs vs. the whole Utility
Engine Power
▲ Farmall 50C higher · +0.6 hp (+1%)45445 hp
Farmall 50C45.6 hp
Median Utility Tractor55 hp
454 is in the 39th percentile; Farmall 50C is in the 40th · 5,383 models
Engine Displacement
▲ 454 higher · +20 ci (+15%)454155 ci
Farmall 50C135 ci
Median Utility Tractor183 ci
454 is in the 42nd percentile; Farmall 50C is in the 33rd · 5,580 models
Cylinders
= Effectively tied4544
Farmall 50C4
Median Utility Tractor4
454 is in the 50th percentile; Farmall 50C is in the 50th · 5,720 models
Forward Gears
▲ Farmall 50C higher · +8 (+100%)4548
Farmall 50C16
Median Utility Tractor12
454 is in the 23rd percentile; Farmall 50C is in the 73rd · 4,941 models
454 (A)Farmall 50C (B)Median Utility Tractor
Full comparison
Every spec, side by side
General Information
| Spec | Apollo 454 | CaseIH Farmall 50C | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Manufacturer | Apollo | CaseIH | — |
| Model | 454 | Farmall 50C | — |
| Category | Utility | Utility | Same |
Engine
| Spec | Apollo 454 | CaseIH Farmall 50C | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Manufacturer | Changfa | Shibaura | — |
| Model | CF4B35T | N844L-F-34 | — |
| Power Output | 45hp | 45.6hp | ▲ Farmall 50C+0.6 hp · +1% |
| Rated RPM | 2,400RPM | 2,600RPM | ▲ Farmall 50C+200 RPM · +8% |
| Cylinders | 4 | 4 | Same |
| Displacement | 155ci | 135ci | ▲ 454+20 ci · +15% |
| Bore | Not recorded | 3.3in | — |
| Stroke | Not recorded | 3.9in | — |
Transmission
| Spec | Apollo 454 | CaseIH Farmall 50C | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type | Shuttle | Synchronized shuttle | — |
Dimensions & Weight
| Spec | Apollo 454 | CaseIH Farmall 50C | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Length | 167in | Not recorded | — |
| Width | 61in | Not recorded | — |
| Height | 90.6in | 98.3in | ▲ Farmall 50C+7.7 in · +8% |
| Operating Weight | 4,365lb | 3,869lb | ▲ 454+496 lb · +13% |
Hydraulics
| Spec | Apollo 454 | CaseIH Farmall 50C | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| System Type | Not recorded | Open center | — |
| Steering Type | Power | Power | Same |
Tires
| Spec | Apollo 454 | CaseIH Farmall 50C | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Front Tire Size | 6.5x16 | Not recorded | — |
| Rear Tire Size | 12.4x24 | Not recorded | — |
Hitch & Towing
| Spec | Apollo 454 | CaseIH Farmall 50C | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hitch Type | Rear Type I | Category I | — |
| Hitch Position | Rear | Rear | Same |
| Hitch Capacity | Not recorded | 5,500lb | — |
Chassis & Drive
| Spec | Apollo 454 | CaseIH Farmall 50C | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chassis Type | 4x4 MFWD 4WD | 4x4 MFWD 4WD | Same |
| Drive Type | 4WD | 4WD | Same |
| Steering Type | Power | Power | Same |
Electrical
| Spec | Apollo 454 | CaseIH Farmall 50C | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Starter Type | Electric | Electric | Same |
Emissions
| Spec | Apollo 454 | CaseIH Farmall 50C | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Control System | Not recorded | Diesel particulate filter | — |
Operator Station
| Spec | Apollo 454 | CaseIH Farmall 50C | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type | Not recorded | ROPS | — |
Category context
Both models against the field
Engine Power
median 55 hpA · 39th percentile (45 hp)B · 40th percentile (45.6 hp)
Engine Displacement
median 183 ciA · 42nd percentile (155 ci)B · 33rd percentile (135 ci)
Cylinders
median 4A · 50th percentile (4)B · 50th percentile (4)
Forward Gears
median 12A · 23rd percentile (8)B · 73rd percentile (16)
Operating Weight
median 5,303 lbA · 42nd percentile (4,365 lb)B · 35th percentile (3,869 lb)
A · 454B · Farmall 50CMedian Utility Tractor