Combines Combine Questions

The 1986-1989 1680s had the 466 moter then in late 1989 you could get a 505 cummins but the 1989s and the 1990s had a two ring piston that fell apart almost all have been changed to three rings by now then in 1991 you could get a long shoe in them this is a must for wheat and other small grains. the 1688s are just like a late 1680 but there moters run a 2250rpm vs 2650rpm on the 1680s the 88 has 25 more horsepower and the 88 came with the cross flow cleaning fan a must for small grains. Are axil flow has 5250 hours and still runs 400 hours per year hope this helps

JC, We have had 2 1680s and currently have a honey of a 1688. Personally i would spring for the 1688. Those 1680s were really good but the final refinement came with the 1688. The 1688 has the long sieve where most of the 1680s had the short sieve. Our 1688 came with the three section top sieve. They removed that shaker pan that shakes apart and put a simple pan on the tail. The seat in the 1688 is much improved also. The cross flow fan is great and the oil bath gearbox on the unloader is a plus. Unless you run a lot of soybeans I would stick with the conventional rotor. With the 1688 you are basically buying a 2188 combine with the old style cab.

are the changes the same between the 1660 and the 1666, 1640 and 1644IJ

The 60_66 has similar changes in that the engine was slowed down from a rated RPM of 2500 on the 60 down to 2200 on the 66 and HP was increased from 190HP on the Cummins-powered 1660s to 215 on the 66. In addition to the new Cross-flow fan, the 66s and 44s were equipped with long Seives like their big brothers. Now on the 44, the 5.9l still ran at 2500 rated RPMs like the 40s, although HP went up from 160 to 175HP. The big difference is from early to late model 44s, early ones still had the lighter frame_final drives_ transmissions like the 40s that had a bad reputation for axle breakage, especially with big heads and bin extensions. late 44s used the same heavier frame_finals_ transmissions as the 66s and 88s. As far as the 8.3l_505 engine, the original problem was that the ring-land area around the n2 ring did not have a nickle-insert in it so the ring would eventually pound out the ring-land area on the piston, causing ring breakage and piston failure. These were changed by CaseIH nearly 10 years ago in a big update program to the heavier piston with the nickel insert.