Combines 9760 or 9860IJ

[useless]

We run a 9660 STS over similar acres in s.w. Ontario. In high yielding wheat, power is not the limiting factor as mush as grain loss is. We have 625 hydra-flex and run max 4 mph and average 3.5 in 90 bushel wheat. The greener the straw the more power it takes, but I think Deere has to expand it's cleaning system to really utilize the power of the 9860. The hydra-flex works great in most conditions,excellent feeding in wheat, 5 mph in knee high soys, 6+ in anything taller. BUT we had to remove the stone dam, and it did a horrible job in edible beans.

 

[kinzepower]

Well this is what I don't understand about these deere combines. If the 9660 hp is enough in wheat, how in the hen$ are you ever going to utilize the 400 hp of the 12.5IJ WTFIJ There are AlOT of combines on the market with substantially bigger cleaning systems, I think deere is fooling themselves that they have a true class 8, what a joke. Right now, there are a ton of used 60 series STS's over the border, and with the low US dollar, they are cheap. I also have a good dealer minutes from my farming operation, so that is also a major factor to go with the green one. If I really needed a monster of a combine though, it would not be a 9860.

 

[G_MAN]

First, the 9860 does not have 400 horsepower. It is rated at 375 horsepower with a power boost level of 408 horsepower for unloading, as Deere has always done on the 9000 combines. And unless I'm mistaken, combine classifications are not based on cleaning capacity, as each different type of cleaning system could have different capacities even when similarly sized. I'm still doing some research into how combine class is determined and could be completely wrong, but so far it my understanding that it's based on engine horsepower, grain tank capacity and unloading rate. And the Deere 9860 meets those requirements assigned to Class 8 machines. 275 horsepower may be plenty for wheat, but hang a 12-row corn head on front, a big big extension on top and go run through 240 bushel 21-28% moisture corn and you can use every bit of 375 horsepower, especially unloading on the go and if the field is muddy.

 

[useless]

You may be right. But our 9660 will start to throw some out the back before I lose power in 180 bpa corn and 5 mph. I've also heard that guys with 12 rows and 9760's having problems with the clean grain elevator not being able to handle alot of corn, I mean to the point of wrecking their bottom seive because the corn can't get away fast enough. We do have to slow down while unloading on the go, that's the only reason why I think a 9760 could really do more. Also, in wheat with a ton of straw like Harvard, when you really start to push it the feed excelerator starts growling and banging... more horsepower is not gonna fix that.

 

[Ted]

I was under the assumption from some articles that i have read that they class combines by the horsepower, actually ISO kilowatts which is then converted to Hp, of the engine. The article said the proposed class 8 combine would be 375Hp and over.

 

[Ted]

I was under the assumption from some articles that i have read that they class combines by the horsepower, actually ISO kilowatts which is then converted to Hp, of the engine. The article said the proposed class 8 combine would be 375Hp and over.

 

[Kevco]

That is a good point about the feed accelerator belt. I have worked for a harvest crew out west and if you push a 9660 to hard in corn the belt will start to slip if it is not at the proper tension. This happened with an 8 row 30 inch corn head. The same thing happened with a 12 row 22 inch head on a 9760. It almost seemed like the limiting factor was not horsepower or how much the clean grain elevator could handle but how much the belts on the machine could take

 

[kinzepower]

"First, the 9860 does not have 400 horsepower. It is rated at 375 horsepower with a power boost level of 408 horsepower for unloading, as Deere has always done on the 9000 combines. " Well I don't know why you felt you had to make an issue of this, especially when you don't have your facts straight. The 9860 has 375hp at rated speed of 2200 rpm - has 401hp at 2100 rpm - has 406hp when unloading So my point that the Threashing system cannot utilize 400hp still is valid. It would appear many agree with me. I am still leaning toward the 12.5 though as it appears to be a little better on fuel while doing the same work, plus I will be running a stalk chopper (harvetec) head. The 6081 in the 9760 puts out a maximum hp of 373, this is getting to the upper limit of this motor and I would probably feel more comfotable in the long run with a bit of a buffer. Has anybody run a 9760 or 9860 side by side and checked the fuel per acre or fuel per hourIJIJIJIJ Thanks

 

[G_MAN]

I'm making it an issueIJ I'd call it setting the record straight, which I do any time I see misinformation posted on forums. Rated speed of the 6125 is 2200 rpm, as you said. If you load it to 2100, you're lugging the engine. It is designed to run and is rated at 2200, and the horsepower rating at that engine speed is 375. Pulling an engine down past rated rpm is done to establish a torque curve and compute torque-rise, not in order to get 400 horsepower out of a 375 horsepower engine. It's a Class VIII machine, whether you think so or not. I can get 340 out of an 8520 if I pull it down far enough, but that doesn't make it a 340 PTO-hp tractor. My facts come directly off of Deere.com. If you want to get technical about 408 horsepower unloading or 410, I can tell you that a 20 degree rise in fuel temperature during the day will make more than 2 hp difference at the flywheel. And that 408_410 horsepower level is not achieved by lugging the engine down, it's done by increasing fuel delivery during power-boost situations. I based my comments on the fact that I'm a JD tech and although I work mainly on big row-crop tractors, I did some service work on one of the 3 9860s we had running here this year, and rode several rounds in it doing the harvesting I described - high-yielding corn with a 12-row head and a combine loaded to the maximum. I can't speak to it's performance in wheat, and didn't do so. I could clue you in on some faults and potential problems you might encounter with the 9860, and we also had several 9760s running here this year in one of the best corn years for a long time, so I could give you my thoughts on the 9760 vs 9860 debate, but you probably don't want to hear them, as that could be called "making them an issue". I would say that the 373 hp being the upper limit of the 6081 might be accurate to an extent, but since that horsepower level only occurs during unloading on an intermittent basis, I wouldn't be scared of it, as an 8520 has to produce similar flywheel numbers in order to make the PTO horsepower they do, which is usually in the 280-290 range, and we've had very few problems with those. The 6081 HPCR engine is extremely rugged and strong, but clearly Deere realizes that the 450-series needs to get bigger, which is why the 4-valve 6090 will be coming along.

 

[kinzepower]

Actually, I WOUlD like to here you opion about the diff. between a 9860 and a 9760, that is why i posted this query. However I felt you wanted to get in a pizzing match when you started to correct me on some frivilaous details. For the sake of arguement, the 9860 is 400+_-. Whether it is 375 or 408 or what ever, MY point is I question Deere's wisdom of putting that much hp in THAT threashing system. I realize that unloading speed, bin size, hp all relate to class size, however my concern is that these atributes are inconsequential if the dn$n combine spits out crop. The systems have to match for the machine to be most efficient, hp - threshing_separating_and cleaning size must all be proportional to have the best machine. So it makes very little sense for Deere to have a class 6,7,and 8 all with identical threashing and cleaning components. Anyway, please comment on what you have seen, both pros and cons of both machines. I right now am looking at a used 9860 with x-tended wear package, so the bigger motor fits with the philosophy of a long term machine. I realize the 6081 has been a durable engine, but it is WAY more relaxing when you don't feel you have your engine on it's knees all day. Thanks in advance g-man