CaseIHModel A
CaseIH Optum 270
Row Crop
- power
- 271 hp
- displacement
- 411 ci
- Cylinders
- 6
- Forward gears
- Not recorded
Head to head · Row Crop
CaseIH Optum 270 vs Challenger 65B
ChallengerModel B
Challenger 65B
Crawler
- power
- 285 hp
- displacement
- 638 ci
- Cylinders
- 6
- Forward gears
- 10
CaseIHCaseIH Optum 270
vs
ChallengerChallenger 65B
How they compare
Headline specs vs. the whole Row Crop
Engine Power
▲ 65B higher · +14 hp (+5%)Optum 270271 hp
65B285 hp
Median Row Crop Tractor138 hp
Optum 270 is in the 90th percentile; 65B is in the 92nd · 1,206 models
Engine Displacement
▲ 65B higher · +227 ci (+55%)Optum 270411 ci
65B638 ci
Median Row Crop Tractor391 ci
Optum 270 is in the 60th percentile; 65B is in the 98th · 1,409 models
Cylinders
= Effectively tiedOptum 2706
65B6
Median Row Crop Tractor6
Optum 270 is in the 50th percentile; 65B is in the 50th · 1,417 models
Operating Weight
▲ 65B higher · +10,881 lb (+47%)Optum 27023,149 lb
65B34,030 lb
Median Row Crop Tractor12,307 lb
Optum 270 is in the 92nd percentile; 65B is in the 99th · 1,350 models
Optum 270 (A)65B (B)Median Row Crop Tractor
Full comparison
Every spec, side by side
General Information
| Spec | CaseIH Optum 270 | Challenger 65B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Manufacturer | CaseIH | Challenger | — |
| Model | Optum 270 | 65B | — |
| Category | Row Crop | Crawler | — |
Engine
| Spec | CaseIH Optum 270 | Challenger 65B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Manufacturer | FPT | Caterpillar | — |
| Power Output | 271hp | 285hp | ▲ 65B+14 hp · +5% |
| Rated RPM | 2,100RPM | 2,100RPM | Same |
| Cylinders | 6 | 6 | Same |
| Displacement | 411ci | 638ci | ▲ 65B+227 ci · +55% |
| Bore | 4.1in | 4.8in | ▲ 65B+0.7 in · +17% |
| Stroke | 5.2in | 6in | ▲ 65B+0.8 in · +15% |
Transmission
| Spec | CaseIH Optum 270 | Challenger 65B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type | CVT | Full Power Shift | — |
Dimensions & Weight
| Spec | CaseIH Optum 270 | Challenger 65B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Length | 208in | 107in | ▲ Optum 270+101 in · +94% |
| Width | 119in | 24.5in | ▲ Optum 270+94.5 in · +386% |
| Height | 133in | Not recorded | — |
| Operating Weight | 23,149lb | 34,030lb | ▲ 65B+10,881 lb · +47% |
Hydraulics
| Spec | CaseIH Optum 270 | Challenger 65B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| System Type | Closed center pressure flow compensating (PFC) | Closed | — |
| Steering Type | Power | Hydrostatic Differential Steering | — |
Hitch & Towing
| Spec | CaseIH Optum 270 | Challenger 65B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hitch Type | Three-Point Hitch | Three-Point Hitch | Same |
| Hitch Category | III | III/IV | — |
| Hitch Position | Rear | Rear | Same |
Chassis & Drive
| Spec | CaseIH Optum 270 | Challenger 65B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chassis Type | 4x4 MFWD 4WD | Not recorded | — |
| Drive Type | 4WD | Not recorded | — |
| Steering Type | Power | Hydrostatic Differential Steering | — |
Electrical
| Spec | CaseIH Optum 270 | Challenger 65B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Starter Type | Electric | Electric | Same |
Emissions
| Spec | CaseIH Optum 270 | Challenger 65B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard | Tier IV | Not recorded | — |
| Control System | Selective catalytic reduction (SCR) | Not recorded | — |
Capacities
| Spec | CaseIH Optum 270 | Challenger 65B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coolant | Not recorded | 11gal | — |
Operator Station
| Spec | CaseIH Optum 270 | Challenger 65B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type | Cab | Not recorded | — |
Category context
Both models against the field
Engine Power
median 138 hpA · 90th percentile (271 hp)B · 92nd percentile (285 hp)
Engine Displacement
median 391 ciA · 60th percentile (411 ci)B · 98th percentile (638 ci)
Cylinders
median 6A · 50th percentile (6)B · 50th percentile (6)
Operating Weight
median 12,307 lbA · 92nd percentile (23,149 lb)B · 99th percentile (34,030 lb)
Length
median 180 inA · 83rd percentile (208 in)B · 1st percentile (107 in)
A · Optum 270B · 65BMedian Row Crop Tractor