Combines CTS II

[Harvester]

A great design. Don't know of many used in corn either, but given that the CTS concept is similar to what a lexion combine is with all of the capacity, performance advantages already mentioned, I think the biggest reason Deere axed it and pushed the STS onto everyone (or has at least tried to) boils down to one simple but oh so important word: COST. The STS is a remarkably cheap machine to produce, whereas a hydrid processing system such as the CTS and lexion rotaries use, is more costly. JD makes a killing on every STS they sell. Not the best combine, but it puts the most $$ into the pockets of the stockholders which is the most important of course.

 

[MostlyGreen]

I'm not sure if I agree with your logic completely, Harvester, as the CTS is still being built and promoted in the Europe; - it must be selling enough in THAT market. Perhaps Deere was just disappointed that the CTS didn't gain more market share than it did within the years that it WAS on the market in North America; - who knows.

 

[Rockpicker]

First off all I farm out west in MT just south of Alberta. Most of the small grains CTS combines were sold in Canada with a few around here. When I visted the Moline Works in 1996, the tour guide said 1 out of every 4 combines JD sold in the US was the CTS. So it was gaining market share. Problem was as soon as the STS hit the market, you never heard another peep out of JD about the CTS. I believe the CTS was the better combine. A few more tweaks like variable speed rotors, different concave_rotor configurations for corn_soybeans and maybe a taking the crop under the beater instead of over it and JD would have a hell of a combine that would work in all crops. When the CTS first showed up around here, it had the red dealers running scared. Not shi!!ting you. In fact, the first time I heard about the CTS was from one of the local red dealers. Exact qoute was "that CTS is kicking our @$$ and you can seed whats in the grain tank." And for the record, I do run a CTS II. The last 2 years I have also run a 9760 STS along with the CTS. The CTS does a better job cleaning the grain and does not wear out as fast.

 

[Harvester]

Different market. Different conditions. Very good point though. Cost is always a consideration in any move made by these companies - John Deere certainly isn't alone in that respect. Very few single rotor combines enjoy any success in Europe from what I understand. Walkers are still dominant, with hybrid processing systems like the lexion and CTS doing quite well also. New Holland has even tried to put the CR combine into places to replace thier TF series combines, which were hybrid processors also, and the CRs have struggled, additional merit to the hybrid concept. I firmly believe that as the market demands more class 9 machines and beyond, that the hybrid processing system lends itself much more readily to these expected capacities than do single rotor platforms. Just too much MOG to process through one rotor.

 

[Farmerman]

I agree with the previous posts. The CTS is very good in cereals, but did not have good capacity in canola due to the limited cleaning area.

 

[MostlyGreen]

Yes, I have to agree with you Harvester; - the European's do, in fact, have a very different market_harvesting conditions. I've never been "up close" to a CTS, I've never seen one work but, from what I've heard from owners_operators, it was a great machine with even greater potential had Deere decided to pursue the technology. I particularly liked the fact that you could actually "pull" the entire seperation mechanism out the back of the machine for servicing.

 

[Rockpicker]

I think the limited capacity in canola is due to the rotors creating too much MOG where once again I think variable speed rotors would help. Mine had more capacity then our 8820 in canola.

 

[Twinscrew]

The CTS is a good machine. Deere didn't do away with it as some sort of diabolical plot. Profit is a factor, but not the entire reason that it's no longer around. It has the potential to eat plenty of parts....probably more that an STS under high wear conditions. If it was such a great combine, with lots of high wear_moving parts, Deere would be stupid to do away with it. Deere's not dumb when it comes to selling iron that leads to more sales of iron to support the original sale. If you have a CTS and you think that it's the best combine ever made and you're happy with it, you're good to go. I've owned both running in wet, high yielding, highly abrasive rice and I'll take the STS over the cTS hands down. I told the Deere folks just that in 2000 after running the prototype rice machine for a year. They promoted the CTS as "the" rice machine until about 2005. There's not enough difference capacity or cost wise to justify having two distinct combine models. The STS under my shed may not be the greatest in everyone's book, but it has gotten my crops out of the field reliably since 2000.