CaseIHModel A
CaseIH Puma 195
Row Crop
- power
- 195 hp
- displacement
- 411 ci
- Cylinders
- 6
- Forward gears
- Not recorded
Head to head · Row Crop
CaseIH Puma 195 vs Challenger MT565B
Image not recorded
ChallengerModel B
Challenger MT565B
Agricultural
- power
- 186 hp
- displacement
- 402 ci
- Cylinders
- 6
- Forward gears
- 24
CaseIHCaseIH Puma 195
vs
ChallengerChallenger MT565B
How they compare
Headline specs vs. the whole Row Crop
Engine Power
▲ Puma 195 higher · +9 hp (+5%)Puma 195195 hp
MT565B186 hp
Median Row Crop Tractor138 hp
Puma 195 is in the 75th percentile; MT565B is in the 72nd · 1,206 models
Engine Displacement
▲ Puma 195 higher · +9 ci (+2%)Puma 195411 ci
MT565B402 ci
Median Row Crop Tractor391 ci
Puma 195 is in the 63rd percentile; MT565B is in the 52nd · 1,409 models
Cylinders
= Effectively tiedPuma 1956
MT565B6
Median Row Crop Tractor6
Puma 195 is in the 50th percentile; MT565B is in the 50th · 1,417 models
Operating Weight
▲ Puma 195 higher · +1,000 lb (+6%)Puma 19517,635 lb
MT565B16,635 lb
Median Row Crop Tractor12,307 lb
Puma 195 is in the 75th percentile; MT565B is in the 72nd · 1,350 models
Puma 195 (A)MT565B (B)Median Row Crop Tractor
Full comparison
Every spec, side by side
General Information
| Spec | CaseIH Puma 195 | Challenger MT565B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Manufacturer | CaseIH | Challenger | — |
| Model | Puma 195 | MT565B | — |
| Category | Row Crop | Agricultural | — |
Engine
| Spec | CaseIH Puma 195 | Challenger MT565B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Manufacturer | CNH | Perkins | — |
| Model | Not recorded | VK 31483 | — |
| Power Output | 195hp | 186hp | ▲ Puma 195+9 hp · +5% |
| Rated RPM | 2,200RPM | 2,200RPM | Same |
| Cylinders | 6 | 6 | Same |
| Displacement | 411ci | 402ci | ▲ Puma 195+9 ci · +2% |
| Bore | 4.1in | Not recorded | — |
| Stroke | 5.2in | Not recorded | — |
Transmission
| Spec | CaseIH Puma 195 | Challenger MT565B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type | Full power shift | Selective gear fixed ratio with partial (6) range-operator controlled power shift | — |
Dimensions & Weight
| Spec | CaseIH Puma 195 | Challenger MT565B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Length | Not recorded | 182in | — |
| Width | Not recorded | 81.1in | — |
| Height | 123in | 113in | ▲ Puma 195+10 in · +9% |
| Operating Weight | 17,635lb | 16,635lb | ▲ Puma 195+1,000 lb · +6% |
Hydraulics
| Spec | CaseIH Puma 195 | Challenger MT565B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| System Type | Pressure flow compensating (PFC) | Direct engine drive | — |
| Steering Type | Hydrostatic power | Hydrostatic | — |
Hitch & Towing
| Spec | CaseIH Puma 195 | Challenger MT565B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hitch Type | Three-Point Hitch | Rear | — |
| Hitch Category | II/IIIN | II/III | — |
| Hitch Position | Rear | Rear | Same |
| Hitch Capacity | Not recorded | 11,230lb | — |
Chassis & Drive
| Spec | CaseIH Puma 195 | Challenger MT565B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chassis Type | 4x2 2WD | Not recorded | — |
| Steering Type | Hydrostatic power | Hydrostatic | — |
| Brake Type | Not recorded | Multiple wet disc hydraulically operated | — |
Electrical
| Spec | CaseIH Puma 195 | Challenger MT565B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Starter Type | Electric | Electric Starter | — |
Capacities
| Spec | CaseIH Puma 195 | Challenger MT565B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coolant | Not recorded | 6.7gal | — |
Operator Station
| Spec | CaseIH Puma 195 | Challenger MT565B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type | Cab | Cab | Same |
Category context
Both models against the field
Engine Power
median 138 hpA · 75th percentile (195 hp)B · 72nd percentile (186 hp)
Engine Displacement
median 391 ciA · 63rd percentile (411 ci)B · 52nd percentile (402 ci)
Cylinders
median 6A · 50th percentile (6)B · 50th percentile (6)
Operating Weight
median 12,307 lbA · 75th percentile (17,635 lb)B · 72nd percentile (16,635 lb)
Height
median 114 inA · 80th percentile (123 in)B · 47th percentile (113 in)
A · Puma 195B · MT565BMedian Row Crop Tractor