Image not recorded
CaseIHModel A
CaseIH Puma 145
Row Crop
- power
- 146 hp
- displacement
- 411 ci
- Cylinders
- 6
- Forward gears
- 18
Head to head · Row Crop
CaseIH Puma 145 vs McCormick Intl X7.660
Image not recorded
McCormick IntlModel B
McCormick Intl X7.660
Row Crop
- power
- 151 hp
- displacement
- 411 ci
- Cylinders
- 6
- Forward gears
- 24
CaseIHCaseIH Puma 145
vs
McCormick IntlMcCormick Intl X7.660
How they compare
Headline specs vs. the whole Row Crop
Engine Power
▲ X7.660 higher · +5 hp (+3%)Puma 145146 hp
X7.660151 hp
Median Row Crop Tractor138 hp
Puma 145 is in the 55th percentile; X7.660 is in the 58th · 1,206 models
Engine Displacement
= Effectively tiedPuma 145411 ci
X7.660411 ci
Median Row Crop Tractor391 ci
Puma 145 is in the 60th percentile; X7.660 is in the 60th · 1,409 models
Cylinders
= Effectively tiedPuma 1456
X7.6606
Median Row Crop Tractor6
Puma 145 is in the 50th percentile; X7.660 is in the 50th · 1,417 models
Forward Gears
▲ X7.660 higher · +6 (+33%)Puma 14518
X7.66024
Median Row Crop Tractor16
Puma 145 is in the 61st percentile; X7.660 is in the 81st · 1,200 models
Puma 145 (A)X7.660 (B)Median Row Crop Tractor
Full comparison
Every spec, side by side
General Information
| Spec | CaseIH Puma 145 | McCormick Intl X7.660 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Manufacturer | CaseIH | McCormick Intl | — |
| Model | Puma 145 | X7.660 | — |
| Category | Row Crop | Row Crop | Same |
Engine
| Spec | CaseIH Puma 145 | McCormick Intl X7.660 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Manufacturer | FPT | McCormick Intl | — |
| Model | Not recorded | BetaPower | — |
| Power Output | 146hp | 151hp | ▲ X7.660+5 hp · +3% |
| Rated RPM | 2,200RPM | 2,200RPM | Same |
| Cylinders | 6 | 6 | Same |
| Displacement | 411ci | 411ci | Same |
| Bore | 4.1in | 4.1in | Same |
| Stroke | 5.2in | 5.2in | Same |
Transmission
| Spec | CaseIH Puma 145 | McCormick Intl X7.660 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type | Full power shift | Four-speed power shift | — |
Dimensions & Weight
| Spec | CaseIH Puma 145 | McCormick Intl X7.660 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Length | Not recorded | 207in | — |
| Width | 61.4in | 95.7in | ▲ X7.660+34.3 in · +56% |
| Height | Not recorded | 115in | — |
| Operating Weight | 14,350lb | 14,440lb | ▲ X7.660+90 lb · <1% |
Hydraulics
| Spec | CaseIH Puma 145 | McCormick Intl X7.660 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| System Type | Closed center pressure flow compensating (PFC) | Closed center | — |
| Steering Type | Not recorded | Hydrostatic power | — |
Hitch & Towing
| Spec | CaseIH Puma 145 | McCormick Intl X7.660 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hitch Type | 2/3N | III/IIIN | — |
| Hitch Category | Not recorded | Category 3 | — |
| Hitch Position | Rear | Rear | Same |
Chassis & Drive
| Spec | CaseIH Puma 145 | McCormick Intl X7.660 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chassis Type | 4x4 MFWD 4WD | 4x4 MFWD 4WD | Same |
| Drive Type | 4WD | 4WD | Same |
| Steering Type | Not recorded | Hydrostatic power | — |
| Brake Type | Electro-hydraulic wet disc | Not recorded | — |
Electrical
| Spec | CaseIH Puma 145 | McCormick Intl X7.660 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Starter Type | Electric | Electric | Same |
Emissions
| Spec | CaseIH Puma 145 | McCormick Intl X7.660 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard | Interim Tier 4 | Not recorded | — |
| Control System | Selective catalytic reduction (SCR) | Not recorded | — |
Operator Station
| Spec | CaseIH Puma 145 | McCormick Intl X7.660 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type | Not recorded | Cab | — |
Category context
Both models against the field
Engine Power
median 138 hpA · 55th percentile (146 hp)B · 58th percentile (151 hp)
Engine Displacement
median 391 ciA · 60th percentile (411 ci)B · 60th percentile (411 ci)
Cylinders
median 6A · 50th percentile (6)B · 50th percentile (6)
Forward Gears
median 16A · 61st percentile (18)B · 81st percentile (24)
Operating Weight
median 12,307 lbA · 63rd percentile (14,350 lb)B · 64th percentile (14,440 lb)
A · Puma 145B · X7.660Median Row Crop Tractor