Image not recorded
CaseIHModel A
CaseIH Puma 210
Row Crop
- power
- 210 hp
- displacement
- 411 ci
- Cylinders
- 6
- Forward gears
- 18
Head to head · Row Crop
CaseIH Puma 210 vs McCormick Intl MTX200
McCormick IntlModel B
McCormick Intl MTX200
Row Crop
- power
- 204 hp
- displacement
- 359 ci
- Cylinders
- 6
- Forward gears
- 32
CaseIHCaseIH Puma 210
vs
McCormick IntlMcCormick Intl MTX200
How they compare
Headline specs vs. the whole Row Crop
Engine Power
▲ Puma 210 higher · +6 hp (+3%)Puma 210210 hp
MTX200204 hp
Median Row Crop Tractor138 hp
Puma 210 is in the 79th percentile; MTX200 is in the 77th · 1,206 models
Engine Displacement
▲ Puma 210 higher · +52 ci (+14%)Puma 210411 ci
MTX200359 ci
Median Row Crop Tractor391 ci
Puma 210 is in the 63rd percentile; MTX200 is in the 41st · 1,409 models
Cylinders
= Effectively tiedPuma 2106
MTX2006
Median Row Crop Tractor6
Puma 210 is in the 50th percentile; MTX200 is in the 50th · 1,417 models
Forward Gears
▲ MTX200 higher · +14 (+78%)Puma 21018
MTX20032
Median Row Crop Tractor16
Puma 210 is in the 61st percentile; MTX200 is in the 91st · 1,200 models
Puma 210 (A)MTX200 (B)Median Row Crop Tractor
Full comparison
Every spec, side by side
General Information
| Spec | CaseIH Puma 210 | McCormick Intl MTX200 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Manufacturer | CaseIH | McCormick Intl | — |
| Model | Puma 210 | MTX200 | — |
| Category | Row Crop | Row Crop | Same |
Engine
| Spec | CaseIH Puma 210 | McCormick Intl MTX200 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Manufacturer | CNH | Cummins | — |
| Model | Not recorded | QSB | — |
| Power Output | 210hp | 204hp | ▲ Puma 210+6 hp · +3% |
| Rated RPM | 2,200RPM | 2,200RPM | Same |
| Cylinders | 6 | 6 | Same |
| Displacement | 411ci | 359ci | ▲ Puma 210+52 ci · +14% |
| Bore | 4.1in | 4in | ▲ Puma 210+0.1 in · +2% |
| Stroke | 5.2in | 4.7in | ▲ Puma 210+0.5 in · +11% |
Transmission
| Spec | CaseIH Puma 210 | McCormick Intl MTX200 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type | Full power shift | Powershift | — |
Dimensions & Weight
| Spec | CaseIH Puma 210 | McCormick Intl MTX200 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Length | Not recorded | 206in | — |
| Height | 120in | Not recorded | — |
| Operating Weight | 17,915lb | 17,000lb | ▲ Puma 210+915 lb · +5% |
Hydraulics
| Spec | CaseIH Puma 210 | McCormick Intl MTX200 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| System Type | Pressure flow compensating (PFC) | Pressure flow compensating | — |
| Steering Type | Hydrostatic power | Hydrostatic power | Same |
Hitch & Towing
| Spec | CaseIH Puma 210 | McCormick Intl MTX200 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hitch Type | Rear: II/IIIN | Not recorded | — |
| Hitch Category | Category 3 | III | — |
| Hitch Position | Rear | Not recorded | — |
Chassis & Drive
| Spec | CaseIH Puma 210 | McCormick Intl MTX200 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chassis Type | 4x4 MFWD 4WD | 4x4 MFWD 4WD | Same |
| Drive Type | 4WD | 4WD | Same |
| Steering Type | Hydrostatic power | Hydrostatic power | Same |
Electrical
| Spec | CaseIH Puma 210 | McCormick Intl MTX200 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Voltage | Not recorded | 12V | — |
| Starter Type | Electric | Electric | Same |
Operator Station
| Spec | CaseIH Puma 210 | McCormick Intl MTX200 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type | Cab | Not recorded | — |
Category context
Both models against the field
Engine Power
median 138 hpA · 79th percentile (210 hp)B · 77th percentile (204 hp)
Engine Displacement
median 391 ciA · 63rd percentile (411 ci)B · 41st percentile (359 ci)
Cylinders
median 6A · 50th percentile (6)B · 50th percentile (6)
Forward Gears
median 16A · 61st percentile (18)B · 91st percentile (32)
Operating Weight
median 12,307 lbA · 78th percentile (17,915 lb)B · 74th percentile (17,000 lb)
A · Puma 210B · MTX200Median Row Crop Tractor