AXOS vs.

JD
5R

Competitive comparison
AXOS vs. JD 5 R
Harsewinkel, January 2009

d en tial
ly confi
strict
1 January 2009 Competitive comparison AXOS vs. JD 5 R
 Engine AXOS vs. JD
Overview 5R

AXOS AXOS AXOS AXOS Model JD JD JD

310 320 330 340 5080R 5090R 5100R
PERKINS PERKINS PERKINS PERKINS engine PowerTech PowerTech PowerTech
Tier 3, 2V Tier 3, 2V Tier 3, 2V Tier 3, 2V Tier 3, 2V Tier 3, 2V Tier 3, 2V
4T 4T 4TI 4TI cylinder 4 TI 4TI 4TI

4,4 4,4 4,4 4,4 capacity (cm³) 4,5 4,5 4,5

ECE - R 24 power data in ECE - R 24

74 86 90 100 effective 76 86 96
horsepower (hp)
307 373 393 410 max. torque (Nm) 334 376 416

Brochure statements

Power data in ECE R 24 Power data in ECE R 24

2 January 2009 Competitive comparison AXOS vs. JD 5 R

 Engine AXOS vs. JD
5R

Engine: PERKINS 1104D-44TA Engine: John Deere

Exhaust norm: TIER 3 PowerTech
Cylinders: 4 Exhaust norm: TIER 3
Capacity: 4,4 litres Cylinders: 4
Capacity: 4,5 litres

- intercooler 330 - 340

- 2 valve cylinder head - 2 valve cylinder head
- mechanical injection - common rail injection
- turbo charger - turbo charger
- internal exhaust recirculation - intercooler over the engine
- internal exhaust recirculation

9145 l fuel capacity 9130 l fuel capacity, optionally 150 l

3 January 2009 Competitive comparison AXOS vs. JD 5 R

 Transmission
Versions
9 3 transmission variants available:
1. C-Version: 10F/10R (5 walks, 2
groups) with synchronized mechanical
reverser, optional with mechanical
splitter 20F/20R)
2. CL-Version: 10F/10R (5 walks, 2
groups) with electro-hydraulic reverser
REVERSHIFT
3. CX-Version: 20F/20R (5 walks, 2
groups) with electro-hydraulic reverser
REVERSHIFT and two power steps
TWINSHIFT (optional with creeper
30F/30R)
4 January 2009 Competitive comparison AXOS vs. JD 5 R
AXOS vs. JD
5R
- 2 transmission variants available:
1. PowrQuad plus: 16F/16R (4 walks, 4
power steps) with automatic walk
adaptation, electro-hydraulic
reverser, optional with creeper
(32V/32R)
2. AutoQuad plus: 16F/16R (4 walks, 4
power steps) with automatic walk
adaptation, automatic function for
power steps, electro-hydraulic
reverser, optional with creeper
(32V/32R)
 Transmission AXOS vs. JD
5R

9 C-Version 10F/10R (optional with ¾ PowrQuad plus 16F/16R 40 km/h

mechanical splitter 20F/20R) (optional with creeper 32F/32R)
Æ 5 full synchronized walks Æ 4 full synchronized walks
Æ 2 groups Æ 4 power steps with automatic walk
adaption while shifting
Æ mechanical reverser
Æ electro-hydraulic reverser
Æ optional mechanical splitter
Æ 6 rather 12 walks in the main working range
¾ 11 walks in the main working range

5 January 2009 Competitive comparison AXOS vs. JD 5 R

 Transmission AXOS vs. JD
5R

9 CX-Version 20F/20R (optional with ¾ AutoQuad plus 16F/16R 40 km/h

creeper 30F/30R) (optional with creeper 32F/32R)
Æ 5 full synchronized gears Æ 4 full synchronized walks
Æ 2 power steps TWINSHIFT Æ 4 power steps with automatic walk
adaption while shifting and automatic
Æ 2 groups
function
Æ electro-hydraulic reverser
Æ electro-hydraulic reverser
REVERSHIFT
9 12 gears in the main working range
¾ 11 walks in the main working range

6 January 2009 Competitive comparison AXOS vs. JD 5 R

 Transmission AXOS vs. JD
Reverser 5R

Mechanical reverser in C-Version ¾ shift in direct with electro-hydraulic reverser

9 mech. reverser on the left of at the hillside without using brake possible
the steering wheel, good - "hard" reverser
accessibility and easy
to handle - Grip-protection of the reverser annoys by the
handling and is shaky

REVERSHIFT in CL and CX-Version - only 1 clutch possibility

9 shift in direction at the hillside without using

brake possible
9 REVERSHIFT: the best reverser in the
market
9 modulated reverser with wet multi-disc
clutches
9 3 clutch possibilities:
Æ foot pedal
Æ gearshift
Æ reverser lever

7 January 2009 Competitive comparison AXOS vs. JD 5 R

 PTO AXOS vs. JD
5R

9 2 or 3 PTO speeds possible:

Æ 540 / 1000 in serial
Æ 540 / 540 Eco option for all models
Æ 540 / 540 Eco / 1000 option for CL & CX

9 mechanical or hydraulical activation

(according to configuration)
9 PTO speed selectable in the cab
9 PTO with freewheeling
9 dry & screwable PTO-stub ¾ 3 PTO speeds optional: 540 / 540E / 1000
¾ PTO speed selectable in the cab
¾ electro-hydraulic activation with multi-disc
clutch
¾ dry & turnable PTO-stub
- freewheels in the prop shafts of the
hydraulic version attachments are necessary, because PTO
stops immediately
- outside activation only with HMS
Æonly possible by prior pre-selection in the
cab & pressing the outside activation
mechanical version button 5 sec.
8 January 2009 Competitive comparison AXOS vs. JD 5 R
 Construction AXOS vs. JD
5R

9 low barycentre caused by monobloc-
construction
9 front axle actuation without cardan joints
9 low castor angle, because compact
construction
- hydraulic pump placed on rear axle, thereby
lower lifting capacity (drive shaft is placed
higher, kinematics)
- main focus higher, engine is on the
framework
- between engine and gearbox is a cardan
shaft with cardan joints without grease
nipples

9 January 2009 Competitive comparison AXOS vs. JD 5 R

 Hydraulics AXOS vs. JD
5R

9 2 gear pumps with 24 and 60 l / min, with
REVERSHIFT 48 and 60 l / min
9 open circuit
9 single adjustment of flow rate for 1st spool
valve (according to configuration)
- one hydraulic pump feeds all consumers,
steering has priority
- open circuit
- standard pump 60 l, optional 65 l pump
¾ single adjustment of flow rate for 3rd spool
valve

10 January 2009 Competitive comparison AXOS vs. JD 5 R

 Hydraulics AXOS vs. JD
5R

9 up to 3 DA spool valves ¾ up to 3 DA spool valves

9 option: up to 2 spool valves as joystick for - joystick only available for front loader or
an optimal control spool valves, which are mounted in the
middle of the tractor
2 2
1 1

11 January 2009 Competitive comparison AXOS vs. JD 5 R

 Rear linkage AXOS vs. JD
5R

9 maximum lifting capacity at the cross points: ¾ maximum lifting capacity at the cross points:
AXOS 310: 3300 kg
AXOS 320 / 330: 4200 kg all JD 5 R models: 4200 kg
AXOS 340: 5100 kg

12 January 2009 Competitive comparison AXOS vs. JD 5 R

 Rear linkage AXOS vs. JD
Operation 5R

9 mechanical or electronic lift control - only electronic lift control

9 oscillation acquittance with electronic lift - fast-lift-switch without stop-position!

control ¾ oscillation acquittance
9 external operation with electronic and ¾ external operation on left side in series, on
mechanical lift control right side optional

13 January 2009 Competitive comparison AXOS vs. JD 5 R

 Cab AXOS vs. JD
5R

AXOS 120 cm
JD 5 R 107 cm

CLAAS AXOS: 120 cm = +12,1%

JD 5 R: 107 cm
12,1% more view on the front working area

14 January 2009 Competitive comparison AXOS vs. JD 5 R

 Cab AXOS vs. JD
5R

9 cab doors open far to the front, are
detectable and do not overlap
9 passenger-seat hinged to the downside and
does not hinder the passageway
- cab doors open to the back and overlap
much
Æ dangerous in narrow buildings
- narrow entry, passenger-seat hinders the
passageway

15 January 2009 Competitive comparison AXOS vs. JD 5 R

 Cab AXOS vs. JD
5R

9 good entry-possibility from the right, - narrow entry at the right side, because
because operating elements are operating elements (front loader joystick) as
drawn to the back and do not obstruct well as bracket are in the way
the way

16 January 2009 Competitive comparison AXOS vs. JD 5 R

 Cab
9 optimal view to the front-wheels by
Æ narrow & conical dashboard
Æ big lower front windows
Æ big distance between dashboard
and front-post
17 January 2009 Competitive comparison AXOS vs. JD 5 R
AXOS vs. JD
5R
¾ view to the front-wheels acceptable
Æsmaller lower front windows
Æsmaller distance between dashboard
and front-post
- tight cab, little space
 Cab AXOS vs. JD
5R

9 very good view to the front, because narrow - wiper engine in the front view area
and low bonnet
- no lowered bonnet
9 maximum view with minimal dead corner
while loading & perfect view of the front- ¾ small dead corner due to glass roof
wheels and tramlines
9 good survey of the front working area caused
by the lowered bonnet

18 January 2009 Competitive comparison AXOS vs. JD 5 R

 Cab AXOS vs. JD
5R

9 spacious cab - very narrow cab

9 adequate passenger-seat - driver-seat does not go sufficiently far to the
back
9 good clearness
- no flat cab ground in low roof version
9 flat cab ground in every configuration

19 January 2009 Competitive comparison AXOS vs. JD 5 R

 Cab
9 all operation elements in the right bracket
9 oddments trays in right and left bracket
9 cable fairlead well accessible and durable
9 gearshift lever and lever for the groups
well accessible
20 January 2009 Competitive comparison AXOS vs. JD 5 R
AXOS vs. JD
5R
¾ all operation elements in the right bracket
¾ oddments trays in right and left bracket
¾ cable fairlead well accessible and durable
- difficult gear shifting gate guidance
 Dimensions and weights AXOS vs. JD
5R

AXOS AXOS AXOS AXOS model JD 5080R JD 5090R JD 5100R

310 320 330 340
3650 3730 3730 4200 empty weight kg 3750 3775 3800

7500 7500 7500 8500 max. total weight kg 6600 6600 6600

3850 3770 3770 4300 payload kg 2850 2825 2800

4500 4500 4500 5500 max. load kg 2900 2900 2900

front axle at 40 kph
2428 2476 2476 2525 min. height mm 2545 2545 2545
LR 2495 LR 2495 LR 2495
2489 2489 2489 2489 wheelbase mm 2250 2250 2250

1910 1910 1910 1910 min. width mm 2175 2175 2175

4300 4300 4300 4300 turn radius mm 3960 3960 3960

All statements according to CLAAS All statements according to John Deere brochure.
brochure with standard tyres, oil, fuel
Min. height with tyres 420/85R30 !
and without driver.
LR = low roof

21 January 2009 Competitive comparison AXOS vs. JD 5 R

 Dimensions and weights AXOS vs. JD
5R

9 turn radius: 4,3 m (AXOS 340 4,4m) ¾ turn radius: 3,96 m

9 wheelbase: 2489 mm - wheelbase: only 2250 mm, restless

driving-qualities
9 compact construction of the AXOS - - Height (low-roof-version) 2,54 m with 16,9
series: 2,5 m of height (with 16,9 R 34) R 34, then no flat cab ground but
AXOS 310: 2428 mm (R 30) tunnel!

9 ideal distribution of weight, 50 percent on - 2,5 m height only with 16,9 R 30

front- / 50 percent on rear axle - low max. load on front axle
- low payload

22 January 2009 Competitive comparison AXOS vs. JD 5 R

 Maintenance AXOS vs. JD
Accessibility 5R

9 one-piece bonnet = ¾ one-piece bonnet = with one movement all

with one movement all access possibilities
access possibilities
- battery in front of the coolers, problematic air
9 hinged coolers for intake for the coolers, corrosion danger
optimal accessibility
¾ extricable cooler for easier cleaning

23 January 2009 Competitive comparison AXOS vs. JD 5 R

 Maintenance AXOS vs. JD
Accessibility 5R

9 air filter in front of the cooler packages ¾ air filter in front of the cooler packages
well accessible well accessible
9 engine oil level can be controlled without - engine oil level can be controlled only with
opening the bonnet opening of a side part

24 January 2009 Competitive comparison AXOS vs. JD 5 R

 Maintenance AXOS vs. JD
Accessibility & maintenance intervals 5R

9 engine oil service (and filter change) ¾ engine oil service (and filter change)
Æ 500 h Æ 500 h
9 hydraulic oil service (gearbox) ¾ hydraulic oil service (gearbox)
Æ1000 h Æ 1500 h
9 simple cab air filter change - cab air filter with bad accessibility
9 battery and toolbox simply attainable - toolbox on the right side and under the
exhaust
Æ combustion danger

25 January 2009 Competitive comparison AXOS vs. JD 5 R

 Accessory AXOS vs. JD
Front loader 5R

Professional frame Front loader made by John Deere

9 3 types for AXOS: FL 60, 80, and 100
9 due to FITLOCK, driver has to dismount only
one time!
9 optimal overview
9 completely protected hoses (against outer
damages and radiation)
9 hoses and electric cables are safe in the frame
9 hoses and cables are protected at the holes
¾ 3 types are available: 533, 583, 633
- old loader with small modifications
- hoses are placed outside of the frame
- shorings are only attached
Æ wheels have to be direct
- manual bolting
Æ driver has to dismount min. two times

26 January 2009 Competitive comparison AXOS vs. JD 5 R

 Accessory AXOS vs. JD
Front loader 5R

9 bracket and tractor are designed together
Æ best accessibility (service)
9 transverse traverse has no other parts
Æ optimal view
Æ in work area are no components or cables
- transverse traverse is mounted in a very high
position in the frame Æ overview?
- handling only over mechanical joystick
¾ power steps on the joystick shiftable

9 PROPILOT handling
Æone hand joystick with Bowden cable
Æprecise and simple handling
Æhandling with an extra joystick

9 FLEXPILOT handling
Ælow pressure spool valve with one hand joystick
Æprecise and simple handling
Æhandling with an extra joystick

27 January 2009 Competitive comparison AXOS vs. JD 5 R

 Summary of the John Deere 5 R counter-arguments AXOS vs. JD
5R

1. PTO stops immediately; freewheels in the prop shafts are necessary

2. Only one hydraulic pump for all customers
3. No joystick available, only for front loader or spool valves, which are mounted in the
middle of the tractor
4. Only electronic lift control available
5. Cab doors with big overlap
6. Small and tight cab
7. Height (low roof version) 2,49 m; only with 16,9 R 30 and then there is no flat cab
ground
8. Wheelbase: only 2250 mm, agitated driving qualities, front axle gets fast discharged
9. Low payload
10. Low max. load on front axle
11. Cab air filter badly accessible
12. Toolbox on the right side of the cab; long ways, if tolls are needed

28 January 2009 Competitive comparison AXOS vs. JD 5 R