Combines future

If it ain't broke... Seriously, I can't foresee making any radical changes, and I hope they don't tamper with a great thing. The MF is a tremendous combine in its own right, and I'm a big fan of it as well. Each has its own place. I would not be surprised to see some common components, in fact the Gleaner and MF already share front axle, transmission, and final drives, and I think we'll see even more commonality in the future, but I don't think for a second they'll change the rotor orientation in either machine, as each has its own following.

If you don't think there is "cross breeeding" take a hard look at a C62. The down front cylinder is gone, feederhouse, and inside sure looks similar to a Ferguson to me.

I always took it that the C62 shared 60% of its components with the R Gleaners, and actually had originations back to Allis Chalmers to be the replacement for the l3. I guess it's still possible that there are similarities between it and the Claas_Massey, but I would tend to give credit to the design to the Gleaner folks. I certainly hope that we don't see much tampering with the basic design of the rotary Gleaner. It's well proven with a good history, which is something Massey can't say yet. That would be as dumb as painting a Massey tractor orange and advertising that it has Allis Chalmers origins. Oh yeah........AGCO has already done that.

You stand corrected!!! The Massey is a very proven and reliable machine. They are the updated version of the White 9700 series which was one heck of a machine. As for the C62 and Massey designs, seems that I remember the Deere design following the Massey's at one point not too long ago. The down front cylinder got dropped but the rear engine and many other Gleaner designs are there, so they are a cross breed of Gleaner and Massey_Claas. Agco has the best of the combines designs right now with Gleaner and Massey. Unmatched in simplicity, reliability and performance.

They may have dropped the down front cylinder so that the "head sized to specific combine" problem of the past wasn't repeated.

Almost hate to bring out the obvious, but they are not unmatched in everything. How about sales and market shareIJ

Oh, boy, one of these idiots again. listen up. Does every purchase you make hinge on market shareIJ Are you so insecure about your ability to choose a product on its own merits that you have to resort to copycat behavior so you can feel comfortableIJ I can't say for sure, buy you sure sound like a Deere combine owner. But, since this market share thing is obviously more important to you than product performance, let's talk market share. Which manufacturer sells the most combines in the worldIJ NOT DEERE!!!!!!!!!!! New Holland holds that position. Which tractor brand has the largest market share in the worldIJ NOT DEERE!!!!!!!!!!!! That honor has for 35 years been and remains today with Massey Ferguson, an AGCO brand!! For your sake, I hope you own a New Holland combine and MF tractors; otherwise you are nothing short of a hypocrite. If you are indeed a Gleaner man, I apologize for the harshness of this response, but I find it very difficult to tolerate the foolishness of emphasis placed on market share. That kind of nonsense belongs with the John Deere following.

The only thing Massey Ferguson on the C62 is the concept of the high-inertia cyliner. 60% of the C62 is common with the R62. In fact, the development of the internal workings of the C62 was, in large part, done by Allis Chalmers in the 80s, as the design was to be what would have been the l4. Many of us know that there were some l4s made in Mexico, but before the conventional was axed, the l4 to replace the l3 would also not have had the down front cylinder, adopting instead the dual feed chain principle then in use by the rotaries. The C62 is all Gleaner, and it will make most other conventional combines look silly in the field. Massey Ferguson had nothing to do with the development of the C62.

What the man said is true. I was told the same thing by a Gleaner sales engineer at an open house several years ago. The C62 was designed by AC as a replacement for the good ol' down-front cylinder conventionals we all love, but due to a cash crunch that lead to the demise of AC, the design was shelved. Once AGCO got ahold of the Gleaner line, they decided to do something with it since mnuch of the engineering was already completed. One thing I disagree with though - I doubt it would have been called an "l4". My guess is it would have gotten a whole new letter designation due to the huge increase in capacity over the l3's. Some may ask why they didn't just keep the down-front cylinder and add accelerator rolls. The guy said there wasn't enough height in the l_M separators where the grain dropped off the raddle chains onto the shoe to put a set of rolls in there. The engines would have to have been raised way up and major redesign of the separator. The cost of that, along with being able to build the C62 so much like the rotaries, made them decide to move the cylinder back. Besides, the C62 would be a lot better on sidehills because there's not those long raddles where grain slid to the downhill side. Tom langan