Sorry for the delay. I only get around to checking every few days. I suppose I was venting a bit at Case, perhaps hoping that someone within the organization would hear the frustration that exists out here and the need to change things fast. Here 8010s are being traded off for green, yellow, and even back for 2388s. They have stubbed their foot and it will take time to fix that reputation. like I said, there are many good things, but those are not what farmers are talking about. Cleaning shoe geometry. High moisture corn is most pronounced. Recent '05 updates did help, but still not up to par with JD and Cat combines cleaning systems in this condition. '03 and '04 machines were terrible and this was known to Case reps in this area as soon as we discovered it. Stroke and speed of sieve box not right for North American crops, perhaps okay on the New Holland TX. Pneumatic returns conveyor. I'm still scratching my head over this one. Perhaps my biggest beef. I've been around combines for many years now and one of the most fundamental rules of a cleaning system is that you don't disrupt the air pattern of the cleaning fan. So I'd like to know who thought of this pressurized pneumatic returns blower to convey the tailings back into the shoe. The area at the top of the chaffer must have a blanket of air in order to keep chaff levitated and in suspension. The returns system blows material and air perpendicular to the blanket of air above the chaffer and throws the whole air pattern awry. Very frustrating in wheat and soybeans. A couple minutes with a camera mounted back there and they can see what it's doing. Self-leveling cleaning system. Good concept, way too complex. The drive system for the SlS has far too many moving parts and grease fittings. Granted, this is nothing more than a borrowed concept from the New Holland TX, but there should have been some improvement. The electric actuator used in conunction with the inclination sensor fail with high frequency, and usually it has to be run in a fixed manner with a rod to lock out the leveling ability of the shoe frame because the system will have a mind of its own otherwise. A hydraulic cylinder would be a much better choice here - spend the extra money on it. Also, while it is a good concept, if they could have gotten away with using a copy of Claas's 3D sieve, it would be far better. All the benefits but far, far less complicated and it's reliable. Also still need a better method of regulating material distribution on grain pan, particularly with this single rotor machine. The NH has such provisions, and in diverse small grains conditions especially, the ability to shift distribution is a plus. Electric shifting actuator. Similar to SlS problem above. The actuator can have difficulty shifting transmission gears and it has been necessary to use the emergency shifting wrench to manually change the gears on the transmission in order to get into 4th gear. Chopper shaft. The straw chopper shaft is heavily loaded on the machine's left side and there have been many failures at higher hour levels (read above 500 sep. hours). Rotor speed control pressure. Hopefully this was just a "supplier issue" as was told us. Time will tell. The CVT rotor drive is a great idea. Still have to get all of the hydraulic lines braced properly, as higher hour machines are failing key fittings due to vibration and fatigue. Hydraulic cleaning fan motors have failed. What was wrong with a beltIJ Other things that have appeared that I didn't point out to engineers but should be evident from the service and warranty records: Reliability of header drive countershaft gearbox Quality of various welds on machine Quality of idlers used Numerous nuisance electronic glitches that can disable machine for hours, even days during harvest Great job on the cab, though.
