Combines 9010

[Case_Farmer]

Is there even such a machineIJ

 

[nicky]

My dealer had a pic .looking for more.

 

[Big_Al]

OK here is the story on that picture your dealer has. I heard from a Case rep. who has an in with RandD at CNH combine headquartes THAT. And now this is the REAl BIG NEWS someone took an 8010 and changed the decal to read 9010. His reason for this was to get something going with Deere, Cat and Agco so they will think that CNH has this monster combine. And now as Paul Harvey would say "You know the rest of the story" All you readers of this post must realize that as I write this post that my tongue is firmly inserted in my cheek. Wink, Wink, nudge, nudge

 

[Case_Farmer]

I kinda thought it might be photo shop I have a ape looking man behind my house here ive been trying to post a pic on other websites but nobody believes me.

 

[Case_Farmer]

Won't combines at some point if they want to get bigger start needing to take the hopper off of the machine and put it behind the combine like it used to be. or what do you thinkIJ I just feel the weight of the combines even the 8010 would be a drawback in some case's

 

[canuck]

Machinery size will getting smaller again as the fuel gets scarcer and more expensive. There comes a point of diminishing returns when the fuel required just to move 30 or 40 tons around the field consumes more fuel than the actual threshing takes. At this point it becomes more dollar efficient to have smaller machines even if it requires the cost of an extra operator. The "Spruce Goose" was also a monster machine but was more of a novelty than a useful machine. The future will revolve around efficiency

 

[hunter]

Just what is the cost of moving a heavy machine vs the cost of moving a light machine as a per-centage of total harvesting capacityIJ Example an c gleaner weights appr 10K lbs. an 403 weights about the same. Both were about 300 bushel per hour max capacity in good corn. Burning gasoline they both would suck appr 6 gallons per hour. let's say a diesel would run at 4 1_2 gallons per hour. Give these machines another 100 bushels capacity and compare it to an 8010 or big claas at 5,000 bushel per hour 5000_400=12.5 Do the big modern (heavy) combines burn 12.5 * 4.5 = 56 gallons per hourIJ I do not think so! So which is the most efficient the new machines or the old machinesIJ 10,000 lbs * 12.5 more capacity makes the modern machines much lighter per bu. of capacity. Top it off with the hugh difference in grain tank capacity 80 vs 400. What difference would this make to efficiencyIJ The smaller machine would spend 5 more unloads in the same 400 bu. harvested. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[CORNKING]

Well said Mr. Hunter I am really getting tired of canucks doom and gloom, we are way more efficent now on cost per acre then we were 5-10 years ago. Our 27ton Quad tracs burn 20 gals per hr but will work over 40acres per hr. So do I want to go back to 560s burning 3-4 gals per hr taking 6 of them with 10ft diggers or 400 gas burning 7-8IJ I dont think so.

 

[canuck]

Sorry to upset you cornKING.That is not my intention. As far as being more efficent now than ever before ,not true. Some of the most efficient machines were the old JD 6600 and MF510 and those still had old technology engines. Don't belive me but maybe check into the "News and Updates" banner at www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net As said there"Deal with reality or it will deal with you". By the way fuel is up 18 cents a gallon in the last 2 weeks. Sorry cornking

 

[Wind]

Thought that maybe they had a pic of the old Case RandD Machine. My opinion, worth what you pay for it, is that how can machines get much bigger with out the supporting front end equipmentIJ What size platform would it take to feed a class 9 or 10 machineIJ Is there any way to build an 18 row corn head or a 50' flex platformIJ I would think that would be out of the realm of technology, but then 25 years ago we thought 12 rows was out of the realm of possibility.