- Home/
- Comparison/
- Four-Wheel Drive Tractor/
- Challenger MT875B vs. McCormick CX95
Challenger MT875B vs. McCormick CX95
6 reasons to buy Challenger MT875B:
Operation
Fuel Capacity | 1254 l. and 155 l. | 88 % more or 1099 l. |
Motor
Torque increase | 42 % and 33 % | 21 % more or 9 % |
Displacement | 18.1 l. and 4.4 l. | 76 % more or 13.7 l. |
Cylinders number | 6 and 4 | 33 % more or 2 |
Full power | 425 kW and 67.1 kW | 84 % more or 357.9 kW |
Hydraulic system
Pump bandwidth | 164.7 l/min and 60 l/min | 64 % more or 104.7 l/min |
4 reasons to buy McCormick CX95:
Motor
Power measured at | 2200 rev / min and 2100 rev / min | 5 % more or 100 rev |
Gear box
Forward gears number | 24 and 16 | 33 % more or 8 |
Reverse gears number | 24 and 4 | 83 % more or 20 |
Maximum speed | 40 km/h and 39.6 km/h | 1 % more or 0.4 km/h |
Neutral reasons:
Sizes
Outer frame width | 3601 mm and 2147 mm |
Dimensional length | 6863 mm and 4209 mm |
Height to cab upper part | 3509 mm and 2540 mm |
Wheelbase | 2997 mm and 2356 mm |
Operation
Working weight | 19141.6 kg and 3770 kg |
Motor
Aspiration | Turbocharged engine with subsequent cooling of charging air by oncoming air flow and Turbocharger with wastegate |
Gear box
Transmission type | powershift transmission and Powershift / power drive |
Images
Sizes
1. Dimensional length | 6863 mm | 1. Dimensional length | 4209 mm |
2. Outer frame width | 3601 mm | 2. Outer frame width | 2147 mm |
3. Height to cab upper part | 3509 mm | 3. Height to cab upper part | 2540 mm |
4. Wheelbase | 2997 mm | 4. Wheelbase | 2356 mm |