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 MT645B
Image not recorded
ChallengerModel B
Challenger MT645B
Agricultural
- power
- 235 hp
- displacement
- 449 ci
- Cylinders
- 6
- Forward gears
- Not recorded
CaseIHCaseIH Puma 230
vs
ChallengerChallenger MT645B
How they compare
Headline specs vs. the whole Row Crop
Engine Power
▲ MT645B higher · +4 hp (+2%)Puma 230231 hp
MT645B235 hp
Median Row Crop Tractor138 hp
Puma 230 is in the 84th percentile; MT645B is in the 85th · 1,206 models
Engine Displacement
▲ MT645B higher · +38 ci (+9%)Puma 230411 ci
MT645B449 ci
Median Row Crop Tractor391 ci
Puma 230 is in the 63rd percentile; MT645B is in the 77th · 1,409 models
Cylinders
= Effectively tiedPuma 2306
MT645B6
Median Row Crop Tractor6
Puma 230 is in the 50th percentile; MT645B is in the 50th · 1,417 models
Operating Weight
▲ Puma 230 higher · +205 lb (+1%)Puma 23019,800 lb
MT645B19,595 lb
Median Row Crop Tractor12,307 lb
Puma 230 is in the 84th percentile; MT645B is in the 83rd · 1,350 models
Puma 230 (A)MT645B (B)Median Row Crop Tractor
Full comparison
Every spec, side by side
General Information
| Spec | CaseIH Puma 230 | Challenger MT645B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Manufacturer | CaseIH | Challenger | — |
| Model | Puma 230 | MT645B | — |
| Category | Row Crop | Agricultural | — |
Engine
| Spec | CaseIH Puma 230 | Challenger MT645B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Manufacturer | FPT | Sisu | — |
| Model | Not recorded | 74ETA | — |
| Power Output | 231hp | 235hp | ▲ MT645B+4 hp · +2% |
| Rated RPM | 2,200RPM | 2,200RPM | Same |
| Cylinders | 6 | 6 | Same |
| Displacement | 411ci | 449ci | ▲ MT645B+38 ci · +9% |
| Bore | 4.1in | 4.3in | ▲ MT645B+0.2 in · +5% |
| Stroke | 5.2in | 5.3in | ▲ MT645B+0.1 in · +2% |
Transmission
| Spec | CaseIH Puma 230 | Challenger MT645B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type | Continuously variable transmission (CVT) | continuously variable transmission (CVT) | Same |
Dimensions & Weight
| Spec | CaseIH Puma 230 | Challenger MT645B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Length | Not recorded | 206in | — |
| Width | Not recorded | 118in | — |
| Height | Not recorded | 124in | — |
| Operating Weight | 19,800lb | 19,595lb | ▲ Puma 230+205 lb · +1% |
Hydraulics
| Spec | CaseIH Puma 230 | Challenger MT645B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| System Type | Closed center pressure flow compensating (PFC) | Pressure Flow Compensated (PFC) | — |
| Steering Type | Hydrostatic power | Not recorded | — |
Hitch & Towing
| Spec | CaseIH Puma 230 | Challenger MT645B | 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 MT645B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chassis Type | 4x4 MFWD 4WD | Not recorded | — |
| Drive Type | 4WD | Not recorded | — |
| Steering Type | Hydrostatic power | Not recorded | — |
Electrical
| Spec | CaseIH Puma 230 | Challenger MT645B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Starter Type | Electric | Electric | Same |
Capacities
| Spec | CaseIH Puma 230 | Challenger MT645B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coolant | Not recorded | 8.9gal | — |
Category context
Both models against the field
Engine Power
median 138 hpA · 84th percentile (231 hp)B · 85th percentile (235 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 · 83rd percentile (19,595 lb)
A · Puma 230B · MT645BMedian Row Crop Tractor