CaseIHModel A
CaseIH Puma 230
Row Crop
- power
- 231 hp
- displacement
- 411 ci
- Cylinders
- 6
- Forward gears
- Not recorded
Head to head · Row Crop
CaseIH Puma 230 vs Challenger MT595D
Image not recorded
ChallengerModel B
Challenger MT595D
Agricultural
- power
- 234 hp
- displacement
- 449 ci
- Cylinders
- 6
- Forward gears
- 24
CaseIHCaseIH Puma 230
vs
ChallengerChallenger MT595D
How they compare
Headline specs vs. the whole Row Crop
Engine Power
▲ MT595D higher · +3 hp (+1%)Puma 230231 hp
MT595D234 hp
Median Row Crop Tractor138 hp
Puma 230 is in the 84th percentile; MT595D is in the 84th · 1,206 models
Engine Displacement
▲ MT595D higher · +38 ci (+9%)Puma 230411 ci
MT595D449 ci
Median Row Crop Tractor391 ci
Puma 230 is in the 63rd percentile; MT595D is in the 77th · 1,409 models
Cylinders
= Effectively tiedPuma 2306
MT595D6
Median Row Crop Tractor6
Puma 230 is in the 50th percentile; MT595D is in the 50th · 1,417 models
Operating Weight
▲ Puma 230 higher · +490 lb (+3%)Puma 23019,800 lb
MT595D19,310 lb
Median Row Crop Tractor12,307 lb
Puma 230 is in the 84th percentile; MT595D is in the 82nd · 1,350 models
Puma 230 (A)MT595D (B)Median Row Crop Tractor
Full comparison
Every spec, side by side
General Information
| Spec | CaseIH Puma 230 | Challenger MT595D | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Manufacturer | CaseIH | Challenger | — |
| Model | Puma 230 | MT595D | — |
| Category | Row Crop | Agricultural | — |
Engine
| Spec | CaseIH Puma 230 | Challenger MT595D | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Manufacturer | FPT | Sisu AGCO Power | — |
| Power Output | 231hp | 234hp | ▲ MT595D+3 hp · +1% |
| Rated RPM | 2,200RPM | 2,100RPM | ▲ Puma 230+100 RPM · +5% |
| Cylinders | 6 | 6 | Same |
| Displacement | 411ci | 449ci | ▲ MT595D+38 ci · +9% |
| Bore | 4.1in | 4.3in | ▲ MT595D+0.2 in · +5% |
| Stroke | 5.2in | 5.3in | ▲ MT595D+0.1 in · +2% |
Transmission
| Spec | CaseIH Puma 230 | Challenger MT595D | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type | Continuously variable transmission (CVT) | Selective gear fixed ratio with partial (6) range operator controlled powershift | — |
Dimensions & Weight
| Spec | CaseIH Puma 230 | Challenger MT595D | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Operating Weight | 19,800lb | 19,310lb | ▲ Puma 230+490 lb · +3% |
Hydraulics
| Spec | CaseIH Puma 230 | Challenger MT595D | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| System Type | Closed center pressure flow compensating (PFC) | Direct engine drive | — |
| Steering Type | Hydrostatic power | Hydrostatic power | Same |
Tires
| Spec | CaseIH Puma 230 | Challenger MT595D | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Front Tire Size | Not recorded | 540/65R30 | — |
| Rear Tire Size | Not recorded | 650/65R42 | — |
Hitch & Towing
| Spec | CaseIH Puma 230 | Challenger MT595D | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hitch Type | Rear Type: 2/3N | Three-Point Hitch | — |
| Hitch Category | Not recorded | III | — |
| Hitch Position | Rear | Rear | Same |
Chassis & Drive
| Spec | CaseIH Puma 230 | Challenger MT595D | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chassis Type | 4x4 MFWD 4WD | Not recorded | — |
| Drive Type | 4WD | Front wheel assist | — |
| Steering Type | Hydrostatic power | Hydrostatic power | Same |
Electrical
| Spec | CaseIH Puma 230 | Challenger MT595D | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Starter Type | Electric | 12 volt | — |
Category context
Both models against the field
Engine Power
median 138 hpA · 84th percentile (231 hp)B · 84th percentile (234 hp)
Engine Displacement
median 391 ciA · 63rd percentile (411 ci)B · 77th percentile (449 ci)
Cylinders
median 6A · 50th percentile (6)B · 50th percentile (6)
Operating Weight
median 12,307 lbA · 84th percentile (19,800 lb)B · 82nd percentile (19,310 lb)
A · Puma 230B · MT595DMedian Row Crop Tractor