Home > Farm Tractors > Challenger MT685C

Challenger MT685C

Details Rankings Comparisons Alternatives Related

Compare with other Farm Tractors
Compare

Challenger MT685C

VS

All other Farm Tractors

Production
Model Year		2009
Production Manufacturer		Challenger	vs	0.7% Farm Tractors have Challenger	compare Challenger Farm Tractors
Factory		Beauvais, France

Capacity
Capacity Fuel		155.9 Gal [590.1 L] 182.3 Gal [690.0 L] (without E3)	vs	0.3% Farm Tractors have 155.9 gal [590.1 L] 182.3 gal [690.0 L] (without e3)
Exhaust fluid (DEF)		7.9 gal (20.09 gal lower than average)	vs	27.99 gal

Power Take-off (PTO)
Rear RPMs		540 (68.25 lower than average)	vs	608.25
Rear PTO		Independent Electro-hydaulic	vs	0.9% Farm Tractors have independent electro-hydaulic
Front PTO		Optional	vs	86.9% Farm Tractors have optional
Front RPMs		1000 (24.69 lower than average)	vs	1024.69

Mechanical
Chassis		4x4 Mfwd 4wd	vs	52.8% Farm Tractors have 4x4 MFWD 4WD
Brakes		Hydraulic Wet Disc	vs	24.3% Farm Tractors have hydraulic wet disc
Cab		Cab Standard With Heat And Air-conditioning. Optional Heated Seat, Power Adjustable Mirrors, And Automatic Temperature Control.

Engine
Engine Fuel		Diesel	vs	87.6% Farm Tractors have diesel
Engine Type		AGCO SISU POWER 84CTA (1696.72 lower than average)	vs	1.1% Farm Tractors have AGCO SISU POWER 84CTA
Engine Aspiration		Turbocharged Intercooled	vs	18.6% Farm Tractors have turbocharged intercooled
Engine Cylinders		6 (1.54 higher than average)	vs	4.46
Engine Bore/Stroke		4.37x5.71 Inches [111 X 145 Mm]
Engine Displacement		512.6 ci (206.5 ci higher than average)	vs	306.10 ci	Compare similar Engine Displacement (512.6) ci
Engine Cooling		Liquid	vs	86% Farm Tractors have Liquid
Engine Compression		16.7:1
Engine Rated RPMs		2200 (2198 higher than average)	vs	2,340	Compare similar Engine Rated RPMs (2,200)
Engine Torque		1136 lb (675.9 lb higher than average)	vs	460.10 lb
Engine Torque RPMs		1500 (49.19 higher than average)	vs	1450.81
Engine Comments		The Engine Uses Agco's E3 Selective Catalytic Reduction (scr) System To Reduce Nitrogen Oxides (nox). The System Uses A Diesel Exhaust Fluid That Is Injected Into The Exhaust Gas.
Engine Power		340 hp (210.86 hp higher than average)	vs	129.14 hp	Compare similar Engine Power (340) hp
Engine Starter type		Electric
Engine Emissions		Interim Tier 4
Maximum Power		370 hp (10.67 hp lower than average)	vs	380.67 hp

Transmission
Transmission Transmission		Dyna-vt
Transmission Gears		Infinite Forward And Reverse
Transmission Speeds

Dimensions
Wheelbase		122.2 inches (27.87 inches higher than average)	vs	94.33 inches
Length		223.2 inches (61.24 inches higher than average)	vs	161.96 inches
Height (cab)		133.1 inches (23.56 inches higher than average)	vs	109.54 inches
Weight (max capacity)		38890 lbs (38841 lbs higher than average)	vs	49,610 lbs

Hydraulics
Hydraulics Type		Closed Center Load Sensing
Hydraulics Valves		4 to (1.36 to higher than average)	vs	2.64 to
Pressure		2901 psi (2899 psi higher than average)	vs	2,737 psi
Valve flow		26.4 gpm (9.32 gpm higher than average)	vs	17.08 gpm
Total flow		46.2 gpm (21.55 gpm higher than average)	vs	24.65 gpm

Loader
Loader Loader type		Challenger Ml99b
Loader Height (to pin)		187 inches (70.3 inches higher than average)	vs	116.70 inches
Loader Dump angle		55 (5.94 higher than average)	vs	49.06
Loader Rollback angle		41 (6.92 higher than average)	vs	34.08
Loader Breakout force (bucket)		10560 lbs (10556 lbs higher than average)	vs	4,271 lbs
Loader Lift to full height (at pin)		5610 lbs (5608 lbs higher than average)	vs	2,412 lbs
Loader Lift to full height (at 800mm)		4950 lbs (4947 lbs higher than average)	vs	3,565 lbs
Loader Breakout force (lift)		7700 lbs (7697 lbs higher than average)	vs	3,764 lbs

3-Point Hitch
Rear Type		III IV (36.36 lower than average)	vs	1% Farm Tractors have III IV
Rear lift (at 24"/610mm)		21336 lbs (21330 lbs higher than average)	vs	6,099 lbs
Front Hitch		III (2 lower than average)	vs	7.8% Farm Tractors have III
Rear lift (at ends)		26460 lbs (26454 lbs higher than average)	vs	6,180 lbs
Front lift (at ends)		11020 lbs (11011 lbs higher than average)	vs	9,829 lbs

Power
PTO (claimed)		320 hp (207.32 hp higher than average)	vs	112.68 hp
Engine		340 hp (192.18 hp higher than average)	vs	147.82 hp	Compare similar Engine (340) hp

Electrical
Charging system		Alternator
Charging amps		240 (128.88 higher than average)	vs	111.12

Tires
Ag front		480/70R34
Ag rear		520/85R46

Battery
Volts		12 (equals average)	vs	12.00

Related Comparisons

Challenger MT685C

Challenger MT665C

Challenger MT685C

Challenger MT685C

CaseIH MXM175 Maxxum

Challenger MT685C

CaseIH Steiger 385

Challenger MT685C

CaseIH Steiger 485QT Quadtrac

Challenger MT685C

John Deere 9330

Popular Items

AGCO DT225B Compare

Challenger MT665C Compare

CaseIH MXM175 Maxxum Compare

CaseIH Steiger 385 Compare

CaseIH Steiger 485QT Quadtrac Compare

Related Questions

how big is the engine in Challenger MT685C farm tractor? What is the fuel capacity of Challenger MT685C?