Image not recorded
CaseIHModel A
CaseIH Puma 200
Row Crop
- power
- 200 hp
- displacement
- 411 ci
- Cylinders
- 6
- Forward gears
- 18
Head to head · Row Crop
CaseIH Puma 200 vs Challenger 35
Image not recorded
ChallengerModel B
Challenger 35
Crawler
- power
- 210 hp
- displacement
- 403 ci
- Cylinders
- 6
- Forward gears
- 16
CaseIHCaseIH Puma 200
vs
ChallengerChallenger 35
How they compare
Headline specs vs. the whole Row Crop
Engine Power
▲ 35 higher · +10 hp (+5%)Puma 200200 hp
35210 hp
Median Row Crop Tractor138 hp
Puma 200 is in the 77th percentile; 35 is in the 79th · 1,206 models
Engine Displacement
▲ Puma 200 higher · +8 ci (+2%)Puma 200411 ci
35403 ci
Median Row Crop Tractor391 ci
Puma 200 is in the 60th percentile; 35 is in the 56th · 1,409 models
Cylinders
= Effectively tiedPuma 2006
356
Median Row Crop Tractor6
Puma 200 is in the 50th percentile; 35 is in the 50th · 1,417 models
Forward Gears
▲ Puma 200 higher · +2 (+13%)Puma 20018
3516
Median Row Crop Tractor16
Puma 200 is in the 61st percentile; 35 is in the 50th · 1,200 models
Puma 200 (A)35 (B)Median Row Crop Tractor
Full comparison
Every spec, side by side
General Information
| Spec | CaseIH Puma 200 | Challenger 35 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Manufacturer | CaseIH | Challenger | — |
| Model | Puma 200 | 35 | — |
| Category | Row Crop | Crawler | — |
Engine
| Spec | CaseIH Puma 200 | Challenger 35 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Manufacturer | FPT | Caterpillar | — |
| Model | Not recorded | 3116 | — |
| Power Output | 200hp | 210hp | ▲ 35+10 hp · +5% |
| Rated RPM | 2,200RPM | 2,100RPM | ▲ Puma 200+100 RPM · +5% |
| Cylinders | 6 | 6 | Same |
| Displacement | 411ci | 403ci | ▲ Puma 200+8 ci · +2% |
| Bore | 4.1in | 4.1in | Same |
| Stroke | 5.2in | 5in | ▲ Puma 200+0.2 in · +4% |
Transmission
| Spec | CaseIH Puma 200 | Challenger 35 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type | Full power shift | Full Power Shift | Same |
Dimensions & Weight
| Spec | CaseIH Puma 200 | Challenger 35 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Length | Not recorded | 211in | — |
| Width | 60in | 91in | ▲ 35+31 in · +52% |
| Height | Not recorded | 125in | — |
| Operating Weight | 18,940lb | 22,262lb | ▲ 35+3,322 lb · +18% |
Hydraulics
| Spec | CaseIH Puma 200 | Challenger 35 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| System Type | Closed center pressure flow compensating (PFC) | Variable-displacement load-sensing pressure-compensated | — |
| Steering Type | Hydrostatic power | Differential Power | — |
Hitch & Towing
| Spec | CaseIH Puma 200 | Challenger 35 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hitch Type | 2/3N | Not recorded | — |
| Hitch Category | Not recorded | III/II | — |
| Hitch Position | Rear | Rear | Same |
Chassis & Drive
| Spec | CaseIH Puma 200 | Challenger 35 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chassis Type | 4x4 MFWD 4WD | Not recorded | — |
| Drive Type | 4WD | Not recorded | — |
| Steering Type | Hydrostatic power | Differential Power | — |
Electrical
| Spec | CaseIH Puma 200 | Challenger 35 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Voltage | Not recorded | 12V | — |
| Starter Type | Electric | Electric | Same |
Emissions
| Spec | CaseIH Puma 200 | Challenger 35 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard | Interim Tier 4 | Not recorded | — |
| Control System | Selective catalytic reduction (SCR) | Not recorded | — |
Capacities
| Spec | CaseIH Puma 200 | Challenger 35 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coolant | Not recorded | 8.6gal | — |
Category context
Both models against the field
Engine Power
median 138 hpA · 77th percentile (200 hp)B · 79th percentile (210 hp)
Engine Displacement
median 391 ciA · 60th percentile (411 ci)B · 56th percentile (403 ci)
Cylinders
median 6A · 50th percentile (6)B · 50th percentile (6)
Forward Gears
median 16A · 61st percentile (18)B · 50th percentile (16)
Operating Weight
median 12,307 lbA · 81st percentile (18,940 lb)B · 89th percentile (22,262 lb)
A · Puma 200B · 35Median Row Crop Tractor