Combines 8010 vs CR960 970

Everytime you post something I cringe before I open it up. I think you have a pillar of knowledge, but your bias comes through in everything. How can you possibly say the big new holland will outperform an 8010. There is now way in the world this statement is true. We ran both machines for two weeks in wet corn and then into dry corn. No comparision. The NH actually stayed together better. We had less problems as far as keeping the machine together, less sensors replaced less little problems. But as far as going through the field cutting 200 bu corn day and night. The 8010 would go a min. of .5 miles per hour and that was translating into much less bu per day for the NH. In 14 days of harvest, even with all the problems we were having getting things set exactly right, the 8010 put more bu through it than the NH by a lot. Everything was set up on these machines for perfect harvest. The 8010 cab was quieter and controls much more user friendly. The hydrostat lever in the NH was the biggiest piece of junk I have seen, it reminded me of the lexion, it had a safety that would not let you back up and go forward without holding in another button and stopping completely every time. It drove me crazy. I think if NH and case would come together on that combine. Drop the double rotor thing they have going, and work together to build one awesome combine, they would both benifit. For those two weeks, I was stuck in the NH quite a bit of the time and after every single operator we had ran both machines, they all said exactly the same thing, "I would rather run the 8010." I swear it was a competion in the morning to see who ended up in the 8010 and who ended up in the CR.

You are right about belt. One could replace every belt every year and still be tons of money ahead of the game.Besides the extra initial cost of hydraulics there is also the maintenance cost and efficiency to account for. Belts will run 90-95 percent while hydraulics may only get 80. That could add up to an extra gallon an hour on a big machine

I believe that if you will research the history of International Harvester you will find that they had both types of machines running in r and d during the last 60's using 403 and 503 chassis. There came a point in time where a decision was made to support the single rotor design. Really ticked at least one engineer off, who took the twin rotor design, left IH and went to work for NH. Took a long time to settle the court cases on that one.

Good point so for the people that like belts over hydraulics well let see here lets all go back to manual rope trips on our tillage equipment also. Boy I sure dont like to add that gallon of oil every month. That stuff is really expencive. Come on guys get out of the stone ages the cvts or ivts are here to stay with more manufactures using them as time progresses. Take a look at all specialty equipment thats all they build now pea harvesters sweetcorn harvesters beet lifters all use hydaulics to drive them belts gone.

It's nice to see some spirited conversation on here! Anyway, I have pretty good experience with both designs, not the CR and 8010 but the older axial-flows and the TR's. I'm not an engineer and am not going to ramble on about why one is better than the other, I will simply say this-- the axial flow machine is superior in corn as far as capacity compared to the twin rotor, but the twin will put just as good of grain quality in the tank as the axial flow. In soybeans, when they are tough, the twin rotor really shines. It will outperform the axial flow in capacity. The twin just seems to handle the green stems better and it will still clean and thresh excellent. The axial flow will still clean and thresh tough soybeans but it just can't put the material through the machine like the twin. As for other crops, I don't have any experience. Wheat, barley small crops, edible beans, etc, I don't know how they compare so I can't say. Axial flow is a better corn machine, twin rotor is a better soybean machine.

Patents are the reason no other company went to a twin rotor style machine. Then as time goes by moving to such a design becomes just bad marketing. Deere could get away with going to a rotor after so many years of saying rotors are nt needed and were worse than cylinder machines because of their overly loyal core customers. But do take note that at first they refused to call it a rotor.

Yeah i love it when i hear a green guy say the R word i liked going to farm progress that first year and they marched there tractors and combines out in a parade type deal and the announcer was boasting about how great a rotor is lol I lOVE IT

Thats interesting. I've heard from several owners of 2300 sries machines that it is just about impossible to get small squares made behind it. Maybe being such a big windrow and being a big square baler does the trick then. On the other hand I know a couple of guys who ran small squares behind CR's with no trouble.

Well I don't know how the 8010 cab can be quiter since they are both the same cab body. Both are just a slight md of the NH TX european combine cab. The hydro control takes getting used to. I think thats true whe moving from any one brand to another. I know guys who had JD have alot of trouble getting used to the idea that UP arrow on the header control button equals raise header. I have spent enough time driving a few that I don't even notice the center stop. It becomes a reflex that you just squeaze the button to move in the other direction in one non stop movement. I think tr had it right in that the axialflow does have more capacity in corn but the twin rotor really shines in beans. Everyone has bias toward one brand more than another.

It all depends on how you set your machine and with what concaves.. you can bale behind the 23 series if the machine is set up right