Combines no doubt

What you might call a weakness I call a strength. One rotor costs less to repair than two. Two sets of concaves, grates, bars, etc. Don't get me wrong, I like the twin rotor concept, but MF has really got it. Simplicity, capacity, and performance. And remember, that one little rotor is almost 12 feet long!!! You can do an awful lot in 12 feet.

Not a big fan of the twin rotor. Too touchy of a feed especially in windrows. Have run TRs in the past and no thanks. Gleaner in my book is the only way to go. One rotor rules.

Won't argue with you. love the Gleaner myself and one transverse rotor has so many capabilities. The TR's true weakness is in windrow crops, struggles evenly feeding both rotors. Gleaner is not to be beat in small grains and a monster in corn and beans. TR doesn't have Gleaner cleaning capacity but I'd sure have a TR before a Deere.

I don't know what you're talking about having trouble feeding. It must have been set wrong or something. YOu can adjust the front feeder drum, and if you do it according to the book it works fine. YOu have to change that for windrowed crops, also, the face plate must be in the proper position, and in the manual it outlines the header you're using, and your tire size to determine proper setting, each adjustment only takes a couple minutes. I guess any machine not adjusted properly probably wouldn't work right either. WE've run TR's for years in many, many, many different crops, we've never had a problem feeding.

In my part of the world being central Sask.there are a lot of TR combines which has more to do with agressive pricing than any thing else.Most of my neighbours have them and they would love to get out of them.Very high up keep and poor reliability.They apparently do a good job in barley but so do a lot of other combines.Some have told me that with the apparent demise of CNH that they will be tradeing out of them very soon before its to late.

Guy, I really think you may be stepping over line hereIJ I value your opinions on MF but, the reliability of a TR is not even a arguable issue. I frent that you even mention it as a third party viewerIJ JD

I must at least partially agree with GC. Having worked on a few TRs in comparison to Gleaners, MFs, Cases and Deeres, the TR doesn't tend to be as robust in the long haul. Problem areasIJ Augers, chains, liners and floors, concaves, unloader gearbox. I like the TR concept, and it can often be a strong performer, but there are machines that require less attention on a year-to-year basis. Talking with the TR owners locally, many have now seen the CR and like the MF better.

Can you define long haul for meIJ Have run several TR's over 4000+ hrs without ever wearing through any metal work engaging grainIJ Chains seem to wear about like any chainIJ Augers, yes they wear but they are gonna on any brandIJ Unloader gearboxIJIJIJIJ I assume you mean to the bubble up augerIJ Yes, we rebuilt one gearbox twice on a TR-85 but the first time we botched it up. My '97 has 1400+ hrs on it now, I have re-knived the straw chopper this past year and replaced a few belts. Had motor problems but that had nothing to do with poor quality metal on the machineIJ Some years we pick alot of dirt too! When we have corn blown down by hurricanes_tropical systems and when beans have been muddied in with clods everywhere that get scooped up in the header at picking. I like the looks of the Massey_Challenger, it may be the next machine I buy yetIJ And you know how I feel about the CRIJ Did you see Ilnh's yearly record of expenses on his TR-98 that he posted over on the NH boardIJ It was a few months ago, seems like he spent a little over a hundred dollars last year on his machine if I recall correctlyIJ I have read these complaints before on these sites, about TR's being repair prone. But honestly, can't say we spend anymore on them over the years than when we ran Deere's or our neighboring farmers with other brandsIJ JD

Yes, I agree with JD. People complain New Hollands are too heavy. ITs because they are built heavier! The gearbox problem was adressed back with the TR-96 and up so don't go there. Take a look at the pan underneath the cross augers. HEavier than even CAT_Claas. like JD said, are you using JAPANESE chain or whatIJ You want to complain about chain ask me about our Brand New JD Air Cart 1900. That is cheap chain! New Hollands are very reliable. Our Tr-96 had one gearbox go out which only cost us 2 hours down time cause the dealer had a new_rebuilt one on hand, and installed it during morning maintenance. Using good quality oils_greases and a good preventative maintenance schedule will keep them going trouble free.

Well, I can't say that Claas impresses me. Those things exhibit astonishing wear with age as well. There is merely this expectation with Claas, and with the CAT name on the side, that the machine will be overbuilt. That is certainly not the case in many areas of the machine. lots of iron in the frame, just like the CR_new Cases, but when was the last time you pulled a chisel plow with a combineIJ The areas I see on the TRs, and I do like these combines but am not afraid to call a spade a spade, are the gearbox driving the unloader, which was a problem on TR88_98 models (perhaps just a certain production run) and cross auger and trough in grain tank. Those are the two big areas that stand out for what I would call premature wear. I believe they addressed these in the TR89_99 series so they should be pretty good machines. Have also replaced concaves and grates perhaps a bit early, but like I said, pretty good performers otherwise.