The short answer
When a manufacturer publishes both Average Air Consumption and Air Consumption @ Load, keep them as separate inputs. Do not substitute one for the other because the numbers look close, and do not rename a load field as “maximum” unless the manufacturer uses that term.
The matcher gives you a choice because it compares the field you select. It does not decide which field is right for a real equipment purchase, installation, or safety decision.
What the manufacturer actually publishes
The Ingersoll Rand 231C specification table lists three relevant fields side by side:
| Published field | 231C value | Stated pressure |
|---|---|---|
| Air Consumption @ Load | 22 CFM | 90 PSI |
| Average Air Consumption | 4.2 CFM | 90 PSI |
The Ingersoll Rand 293 table uses the same labels, but lists 64 CFM at load and 12 CFM average at 90 PSI. The difference is not a data-entry error. They are different fields in the manufacturer table.
This site preserves the labels because the source does. It does not claim that average means a universal duty cycle or that load is a guaranteed peak demand. Those interpretations depend on the manufacturer’s documentation and the application.
Keep the label with the value
The following shorthand causes trouble: “this wrench needs 22 CFM.” The 231C page does publish 22 CFM, but it publishes that number under Air Consumption @ Load, at 90 PSI. The same page also publishes 4.2 CFM under Average Air Consumption, at 90 PSI.
Writing down only 22 CFM loses the part of the record that tells a reader what they are looking at. The safer note is: 231C: 22 CFM at load, 90 PSI, manufacturer specification table checked 2026-09-19. It is longer, but it can be checked. That distinction is the reason the matcher shows a field choice rather than one generic demand number.
What choosing a field changes
The matcher performs visible arithmetic on the selected field. For two 231C tools:
Average field: 4.2 CFM × 2 = 8.4 CFM
Load field: 22 CFM × 2 = 44 CFM
The calculation is straightforward. The judgment is not. An 8.4 CFM result and a 44 CFM result describe two different published inputs. Neither result, by itself, proves that a compressor will run two tools in a particular shop.
A quick source-field check before you compare
Use this short check when you read a pneumatic tool page:
| Check | What to look for |
|---|---|
| Model | The exact model, configuration, or variant named by the table. |
| Field name | Whether the page says average, load, or something else. |
| Unit | CFM, L/min, or another stated unit. Do not replace it with a preferred unit. |
| Pressure | The PSI or bar shown beside the specification. |
| Missing fields | A blank or absent average field stays blank. |
The check takes seconds and avoids a common failure: carrying one number into a comparison after its label, unit, or pressure has been dropped.
Why this guide does not choose the field for you
A tool page can show two valid published inputs without telling a reader which one should control every use case. That choice can depend on how the tool is used, how often it is triggered, the rest of the air system, and requirements outside the narrow source comparison on this site.
For that reason, the matcher does not attach labels such as “safe,” “enough,” or “best” to average or load CFM. It lets you inspect each stated field separately. The useful result is not a forced recommendation. It is a clear record of what changes when you choose a different manufacturer input.
If the application requires selecting or operating equipment, take the model-specific table and the working conditions to the manufacturer or a qualified professional. That is more useful than treating a single CFM figure as a complete compressor specification.
The same principle applies when several tools share one air supply. Multiply only the field you intentionally selected, retain the source condition beside the result, and keep any other site conditions outside the claim unless they have been separately verified.
What happens when the average field is missing
Some product tables publish load consumption but no average field. Ingersoll Rand's 1702 series page lists 15 CFM at load for the 1702P1 and 13 CFM at load for the 1702SB1, while the average field is not stated.
When a selected model lacks the requested field, the matcher returns insufficient data. It does not borrow an average value from another model or invent a category average. A blank source field is a reason to stop, not a reason to make the number look complete.
How to use the choice in this utility
- Open the source link for the exact model.
- Check whether the table publishes average consumption, load consumption, or both.
- Select only a field that appears for that model.
- Confirm the pressure and compressor output label before reading the result.
- Treat the output as a comparison of stated figures, then get application-specific advice where the decision involves equipment selection or operation.
The companion guide, How to Compare Air Tool CFM With Compressor Output, explains why the pressure and unit label matter alongside the chosen tool field.
What this page does not settle
This page does not determine tank capacity, recovery time, duty cycle, hose or regulator losses, electrical suitability, installation requirements, or pressure safety. Those factors can change an equipment decision even when two published figures are at the same PSI.
Use this page to identify the correct source field and inspect the arithmetic. For a decision involving those excluded factors, verify the application with the manufacturer or a qualified professional.
Sources checked
- Ingersoll Rand 231C specifications
- Ingersoll Rand 293 specifications
- Ingersoll Rand 1702 series specifications
Checked 2026-09-19. Product pages can change. The site retains source links and checked dates with each record.