Combines Bullet RotorIJIJ

[stsman]

I'd like to know that also,since I have a earlier STS without the Bullet, I've also noticed the new 2006 STS combines are longer,I thought the clening system would be larger also because of this extra space, but they did other things with that space. STSMAN....

 

[Unit_11]

In optimal harvesting conditions the bullet rotor didn't improve capacity but seemed to improve grain quality a little. In tough conditions like green or damp straw and big windrows the bullet rotor pulled through much easier and didn't rattle the machine like the reguler rotor. White caps were a problem with the gentle threshing though. Were I was they weren't worried about them so I didn't try to hard to get them out. What I saw so far I think it'll be a good concept.

 

[Unit_11]

Yeah it would be nice to have a longer shoe, but we did get more room in the engine compartment,rid of that acces door, and best of all more fuel. Hopefully that doesn't mean the gpa went up again.

 

[Bundy]

Pity they didn't put a more fuel efficent motor in them instead of a larger fuel tank!!They are the the WORST combines on fuel that we have ever had working here!!! Even on a per acre ratio! last year had (9750)and CTSII and sts was terrible. This year we had 2388's with us and their fuel use wasn't much different to the 9500 in fuel use per day in good standing dry conditions. When rain came and it lodged badly and going was heavy it was only 150 to 200 litre max above the old 9500 and it was still getting along at 10 and 13 km_hr in 30 plus bushell crops. Neighbour had a CR 960 working with their 2 machines and while it was thirtier than the Case's, it was still better then the STS. Very hesitant to get an STS back here again. One thing about the old walker machines. The fuel costs are less!

 

[gaucho]

Bundy, I can't agree with you. We are using two 9760 STS and the fuell use per hectare is less than NH TX 68 Plus we used before and this TX machines with the Iveco Motor are well known fore less fuell use. Well we are using more ltr._day but we are doing a lot more hectares _ hr. and day

 

[nbterveen]

the fuel tank capacities for 06 remain the same except for the 9860 which gains an extra 50 gallons. the new 9.0 motor in the 9660STS and 9760STS is supposed to be 2-5% more fuel efficient than the motor it replaces.

 

[Bundy]

I assume you are harvesting heavier crops and taking a lot more straw then we do. So maybe they can be used to "capacity" and acheive more acres per litre. That said I can only relate to you what has happened and I have seen on my own country. Per Day - Walker then red rotor then green. Per acre - Probably Red first, walker then Green. The neighbour on the other side of us had 2 new 9760's do his harvest this year and he was horrified by their fuel use also. They were his same guys whom had run two TR99 over the past three years so it was the same operators, same size fronts (36ft) but huge difference in fuel consumption. In our country it is "usually" terrain_soil conditions and feeding_cutting performance that dictate ground speed with larger combines, not crop yeild. Even in our heaviest crop this year 3.7t_ha the Case was doing over 11km_hr with minimal loss. But I have seen similar performance from the STS, TX66 and the CTS.

 

[Rockpicker]

We ran both a CTS and STS this year. The STS used more fuel but it also had more capacity and cut more acres per hour then the CTS. Fuel economy on our JD combines hasn't been any worse than other combines around here.