Combines STS vs walker

[Dave]

You need to check out farmshow.com and look up issue vol.26, No.1, 2002 pg. 26. there are lots of unhappy custom cutters. Most didnt like the 96 as well as the9750 because of capacity, horsepower,etc. Ive heard many complaints about premature wear on major threshing components within 500 hours. These machines however are said to harvest at much faster ground speeds which means more acres per hour of seperator run. at 4.5 mph in 3 ton wheat it doesnt take long to cover acres and wear out components. Several guys say in the long run you will pay through the nose in expensive parts not quite perfected by Deere or Aftermarketn parts manufacturers. From what Ive seen by looking over an sts they are going to be much harder to do repairs on if you plan on doing your own repairs.And honestly rotor design doesnt always mean "less moving parts" good luck

 

[dakota]

Depends on, if you really need the extra capacity of an STS. It runs about a mile faster than a 9610. I doubt that the 50 walker has more capacity than a 9610 walker. From experience I know, that the 9610 as a walker runs cheaper than an STS.

 

[Dave]

The 9600 and 10 will almost always run cheaper. Ive read lots of info and heard lots of first hand stories of premature wear on all the new big bad sts. The parts are cheaper, especially if you like to run aftermarket parts which there hasnt been much developed for the latest deere machines. Dont forget about your fuel consumption and the price of working on the larger litre engines with all new quirks compared to those trusty 6076s.Fuel is high enough in my part of the country and im not interested in burning 200+ gallons in a days run.

 

[Wheaty1]

Depending on how one equips these machines is what will make the difference. If a 9660 Walker is equiped with all the heavy duty goodie options that are usually standard equip. on 9660 STS you will be within a few thousand dollars! But if you build a standard machine there can be as much as $15000 or more in price difference with the walker machine being the lower priced model. I had the same experience as some of the others on the forum when coming to trade, if you want a walker machine we can get you one, but why do you want it when the used demand is for STS's! If you remember back in 1989 and 1990 the demand was for 9600's I know of several other brands whether it was rotors or walkers that were traded for these machines over about a 5 year period until the market was saturated from Canada to Texas! For me it was time to change went with the STS's but I will be forever grateful to the walker machines and I'm almost sure there isn't a machine built today that will handle any type of harvesting conditions like a walker mmachine, I hope the STS's prove me wrong! I'm not looking for any color war, as far as I can see a rotor is a rotor and we have been JD loyal forever except for the little B and Super M which still run great!

 

[KS7Runner]

Glad to see all of the discussion about the rotor vs. walker. I think that it means that I will be able to buy a walker or CTS alot cheaper in a couple of years. The 7720 can hold on for a little while longer.

 

[dakota]

We bought a couple of walkers over a year ago and sold them this winter for the same price after adding about 500 sep. hours. That speaks enough for the walker resale and it reflects the adds in the HPJ. I have not priced a new STS, but thought about the following: If one harvests corn and wheat he needs two concaves for the STS versus one for the walker. From own experience I found that the STS wheat (small grain) concave is worn out after one season (maybe 400 sep. hours) and costs around $2500 to replace. On the walker machines a concave lasts us two seasons of wheat and corn and costs only around $1000. After two years that is $5000 for the STS and $1000 for the walker. The clean grain and shoe system is pretty much equal on both machines. The feederhouse is narrower on an STS and wears faster than a wide one. The STS requires more hp, consumes more fuel and has more capacity in high yielding wheat.

 

[Wheaty1]

The 7720 was one of the better more economical combines Deere ever produced, it always did a way better job of saving grain than the 88's and if maintained they never quit!

 

[Downunder_7720]

Thanks Wheaty, I'm the same, in fact I think I'll go give the old 7720 a pat on the nose!

 

[Downunder_7720]

Thanks Wheaty, I'm the same, in fact I think I'll go give the old 7720 a pat on the nose!

 

[magnum_man]

So what did you replace them withIJ If you got what you paid for them and still had to pay more to get a lower houred machine. what did it cost you per hour to up grade