Image not recorded
Head to head · Utility
Apollo 854 vs McCormick Intl X50.20m
Image not recorded
McCormick IntlModel B
McCormick Intl X50.20m
Utility
- power
- 85 hp
- displacement
- 208 ci
- Cylinders
- 4
- Forward gears
- 24
ApolloApollo 854
vs
McCormick IntlMcCormick Intl X50.20m
How they compare
Headline specs vs. the whole Utility
Engine Power
= Effectively tied85485 hp
X50.20m85 hp
Median Utility Tractor55 hp
854 is in the 75th percentile; X50.20m is in the 75th · 5,383 models
Engine Displacement
▲ 854 higher · +27 ci (+13%)854235 ci
X50.20m208 ci
Median Utility Tractor183 ci
854 is in the 63rd percentile; X50.20m is in the 58th · 5,580 models
Cylinders
= Effectively tied8544
X50.20m4
Median Utility Tractor4
854 is in the 50th percentile; X50.20m is in the 50th · 5,720 models
Forward Gears
▲ X50.20m higher · +14 (+140%)85410
X50.20m24
Median Utility Tractor12
854 is in the 39th percentile; X50.20m is in the 92nd · 4,941 models
854 (A)X50.20m (B)Median Utility Tractor
Full comparison
Every spec, side by side
General Information
| Spec | Apollo 854 | McCormick Intl X50.20m | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Manufacturer | Apollo | McCormick Intl | — |
| Model | 854 | X50.20m | — |
| Category | Utility | Utility | Same |
Engine
| Spec | Apollo 854 | McCormick Intl X50.20m | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Manufacturer | Changfa | Perkins | — |
| Model | CF4C80T | 854E-E34TA | — |
| Power Output | 85hp | 85hp | Same |
| Rated RPM | 2,200RPM | 2,200RPM | Same |
| Cylinders | 4 | 4 | Same |
| Displacement | 235ci | 208ci | ▲ 854+27 ci · +13% |
| Bore | Not recorded | 3.9in | — |
| Stroke | Not recorded | 4.3in | — |
Transmission
| Spec | Apollo 854 | McCormick Intl X50.20m | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type | Gear | Mechanical Shuttle | — |
Dimensions & Weight
| Spec | Apollo 854 | McCormick Intl X50.20m | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Length | 224in | 163in | ▲ 854+61 in · +37% |
| Width | 78.7in | 81.2in | ▲ X50.20m+2.5 in · +3% |
| Height | 110in | Not recorded | — |
| Operating Weight | 10,360lb | 7,326lb | ▲ 854+3,034 lb · +41% |
Hydraulics
| Spec | Apollo 854 | McCormick Intl X50.20m | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Steering Type | Power | Hydrostatic Power | — |
Hitch & Towing
| Spec | Apollo 854 | McCormick Intl X50.20m | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hitch Type | Not recorded | Three-Point Hitch | — |
| Hitch Category | II | II | Same |
| Hitch Position | Not recorded | Rear | — |
Chassis & Drive
| Spec | Apollo 854 | McCormick Intl X50.20m | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chassis Type | 4x4 MFWD 4WD | 4x2 2WD | — |
| Drive Type | 4WD | 2WD | — |
| Steering Type | Power | Hydrostatic Power | — |
Electrical
| Spec | Apollo 854 | McCormick Intl X50.20m | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Starter Type | Electric | Electric | Same |
Emissions
| Spec | Apollo 854 | McCormick Intl X50.20m | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard | Not recorded | Interim Tier 4 | — |
| Control System | Not recorded | EGR | — |
Category context
Both models against the field
Engine Power
median 55 hpA · 75th percentile (85 hp)B · 75th percentile (85 hp)
Engine Displacement
median 183 ciA · 63rd percentile (235 ci)B · 58th percentile (208 ci)
Cylinders
median 4A · 50th percentile (4)B · 50th percentile (4)
Forward Gears
median 12A · 39th percentile (10)B · 92nd percentile (24)
Operating Weight
median 5,303 lbA · 87th percentile (10,360 lb)B · 70th percentile (7,326 lb)
A · 854B · X50.20mMedian Utility Tractor