Combines TR and CR updates etc

bob

Guest
ah! a mechanic at local dealership has more knowledge of the inner company intricacies than the product design managerIJ think i'll stick with the word of someone who has been with the company 20+ years and actually has a title with the company, thanks though! the fact that the CR and AFX are based off a CX platform only reiterates my point of a rush to market! and the fact the CR carries a myriad of CX workings contributes nothing to the fact that a larger TR was actually in the works. it actually helps establish relevance to the contrary, again a rush to market and a rush to product simplicity(ie...one base machine for all colors) after the merger.
 

JHEnt

Guest
Actually they carry over TX design not CX design. The CX and CR are common platform design. I had also heard a rumor in the past that the NA side of the company was working on bigger combine designs, but that rumor has never produced any pictures on the internet for everyone to see. The same group of people who you quote from have also said in the past that CaseIH was handed a CR_CX chassis in 2002 and told to make a new Case combine fit that chassis. Was the AFX rushed to market with just 1-1_2 years work in it, I'd say yes. The CR and CX have not had the troubles that the Case machine has had because they are vastly different mechanically. Incedentally the CR and CX were introduced at the same time. Do some homework and you will find that the CR and CX prootypes were around long before the merger. The fact is that the NA engineering dept and the European engineering have had very little in common in the past. Thats why there have been as many as 4 series of combines availible in Europe that were never availible in NA with the exception of the TX starting in 1993. I remeber seeing prototype pictures back around the time that the Fiat_Allis and Fiat_Hitachi ect construction brands were being rolled into the New Holland Construction brand name and that was a good 6 months before NH purchased Case corp. When it comes down to it the execs decided to have common platform large capacity combines both cyl_walker and rotary. This is what killed the TR since the TX chassis and cleaning system already had a prechaffer and a self leveling shoe with much larger capacity than any TR ever made. They kept the TX larger cab body and then just built the 1st grain tank with turret unloadeing auger that NH has ever had. As far as a rush to market lets look at the CR updates so far: 1st update made a number of changes to 2003 build machines. This was approx 60-70 machines assembled before the line was even setup for them. Basically there was sheetmetal mount reinforcement, An added hole in the chaff spreader hight adjustment, replacement of the feeder drum from using bearing flanges with 3 bolt mount to 6 bolt mount, replacement of all SuaerDanfoss hydrostats due to SD manufacturing error. Then there was the replacement of all electric shoe actuators. Warner Electric used potentiometers that were of lower quality than those speced out by NH. Dual wheel hardware update. Some relocation of wire harnesses to keep them out of the way if a belt failed. Moved the chaff spreader back by about 2.75 inches. Updates to the chopper floor and knives for wide heads. Software changes to the combine controllers and to the mapping datalogging and PC software. Compare that to any other company today. They are just as bad and think of the Deere 50 series STS updates. They were alot worse.
 

JHEnt

Guest
I was wrong. The CX was introduced July 2001 and the CR July 2002. a year later.
 
 
Top