Combines 06 production machines

I'm working at tring to get you a couple real good comparisons. Two '05 65s with QSC and two '06 65s with Sisu. All with Bisons and moderate degree of steep pitch thresher helicals. They run from Texas to North Dakota in wheat, barley, canola, soybeans, corn, and likely a couple other crops. He was struggleing a bit with HP in all machines in some extremely tough barley until I got him onto a simple refinement in his basically proto type Bisons. Now you likely read earlier where I claimed a '06 R65 with Sisu and bone stock setup CDF was using about 10% less fuel than his last years '05 R65 with standard eight bar with all forward bars and sweeps. Of course that was last year as compared to this year when it was hot and dry and yields were down. Now for the guy with four '65s he seems very happy with capacity but will go ahead with some more tweaking for this year. Now as far as your 65 with CDF I believe you should think about the reverse bar situation and stay tuned to the steep pitch helicals. I'm thinking steep pitch thresher helicals and maybe even shimmed when using the CDF could be an even better answer to your currant setup. One must be most concerned with saving and preventing damage to crop even if it should take some more fuel per hour. That's kind of what this hyperizing is all about. Tweaking great design to get less loss, better quality, more ground covered with same HP, and most often use less fuel.

I will give a good comparison on fuel usage. In 160 bushel corn 6 row head. 2005 R65 10.5 Gallon hour. 2006 R65 with improved torque curve 12.4 Gallon hour. Both cdf rotors. 18% more fuel with slightly less performance out of Sisu. Measured with a fuel transfer pump not the display in the cab over multiple days. In short 20 bushel beans the cummins was down to around 8 gal hr. and the sisu was around 10 gal. per hr.

Thanks for the comparison, it is dissappointing that the Sisu could not at least have matched the Cummins QSC in fuel efficiency. Especially since this engine is to be Agco's benchmark engine. I guess that the Sisu is a Tier III and the QSC a Tier IIIJ If so that would indicate some of the difference. One other question, how did the Sisu compare to the Cummins in overall torque in harvesting conditions such as unloading on the go while keeping the rotor fullIJ

Its does not have as much power and torque as the cummins. Maybe not a huge difference, but the Sisu sure is not any better.

I surely won't debate the Sisu tier 3 using more fuel than the Cummins QSC tier 2 especially when worked equivatlantly hard or light. I also won't question all the varibles of field conditions and machine setups between the machines. I will say that most all the engines that have come around have had some refining when they got to real world of powering a combine. That would include all the mechanical and electronic fuel pump systems that I know of. I didn't agree with but I remember just a couple years ago someone on hear cutting down the Cummins QSC in a combine big time. I'm sure software upgrades are still coming for the Sisu and hopefully they will address your concerns. In the meantime a guy should look into machine setup to see if they can reduce power consumption while saving the crop. That would go for all machines no matter which power unit they have. Have a great day.