• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About SDman

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday 05/03/1971

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Highmore, South Dakota

Recent Profile Visitors

876 profile views
  1. Covering discs are 8" when new. They should be replaced at 7 1/2".
  2. 2-3 years ago I made the big plunge and bought new 3/8", 1/2". and 3/4" torque wrenches. I figure the ones I traded in lasted me 25 years or better, so if these last me another 25 years or so, they should carry me to retirement. I elected to go with the newer Snap-Ons with the lights, vibrator, and beeper. Takes a little getting used to, but now its second nature to me in how they operate. Another big thing that I like about them is that when you use the angle turn setting, it shows you what the final torque applied to the bolt is in ft. lbs. Say what you want, I feel this feature saved my bacon last summer. I was installing the head/head gasket on an Iveco engine out of an 8120. When I was doing my final turn, I wrote down the final torque of each fastener/head bolt as I went through the sequence. I noticed that one outside row of head bolts was consistently 100-125 ft. lbs less than the rest of the head bolts(150-175 ft. lbs instead of the 275-300 ft. lbs on the rest). I decided to remove the head and inspect for a problem. I found that the head gasket was nearly twice as think on side as the other, causing the unusual torque results. We got a different head gasket, and ended up with a pretty even torque across all the head bolts. If I did the angle turn by just marking the bolt head/cylinder head with marks(like I used to do) I probably would not have found this problem during assembly, causing a rework on a $25-30K repair job. As far as I'm concerned, that torque wrench paid for itself in one job. The guy ran the combine for 200 hours last fall with no problems after the repair.
  3. I always thought that I grew up with the original "Axial-Flow" in the 1970s working around my Dad's Minneapolis-Moline corn shellers. When did they come out-sometime right after WWII? I remember joking with him that that was where IH got the idea for their rotary combines. IIRC, John Deere offered a corn sheller about the same time; was it a rotary design, too? I never seen a Deere model up close.
  4. R190, I'm not sure how new your 400 series service manual is, but this might help. If you go to the page "Engine gear train timing specification chart", there are 2 values listed(.024" for the camshaft with a .020 intake valve lash spec., .029" for the camshaft with .025" intake valve lash spec.), depending on which camshaft is used. In my manual, the specs are listed on page 1-20, the procedure is listed on the page before it. I would think it would be on nearly the same page in all versions of the 400 series manual. Hope this helps.
  5. I'm sure Deere felt compelled to keep the conventional combine after their rotary(sorry, its a "Single Tine Separator" I guess) was introduced in 1999-2000. After all, for over 20 years they had convinced their customers that they knew how to build a better combine by staying with their conventional design after most of the rest of the industry had long abandoned the conventional design in favor of rotary machines. If Deere would have totally abandoned conventionals, some of their customers would have thought it was the anti-Christ because Deere told them for all those years prior that rotaries were inferior. I don't blame them, IH did the same thing when the Axial-Flow was introduced. IH kept the best selling conventionals(the 715 SP and the 914PT) in their product line for a couple years after the rotaries were introduced. It made sense as both of these machines did well in sales in their respective markets. One could even make the argument that the rotaries that replaced them (the 1420 and the 1482) never did sell as well as the machines that they replaced. However, you could also argue that the market for those machines declined as a whole after their introduction. IIRC, Deere bragged at the intro of the STS that their Moline factory could build all 3 combines (STS, CTS, conventional) on the same line with maximum parts commonality. Hate to say it, but the market pretty much made the conventional machine worthless in just a few years. When did Deere finish making their last walker machine in Moline? 2007-2008 with the 9660 walker machine? I find it more than ironic that it took Deere far fewer years to retire their conventional machine after introduction of their STS/rotor machines than it did for them to develop/build a rotary after everyone else introduced rotary machines(7-8 years vs. 20+). Also, Deere guys always like to brag how green holds so much better resale value over red-that sure doesn't hold true in combine values when you're talking machines from the late 1970s to the late 1990s, where the red ones enjoy a much better resale value factor over their green counterparts. I'll give Deere credit, when they introduce their new product 20 years later after a red one, they can compete with a red design that is starting to show of its age and limitations. The 2388 was starting to show that the overall original 1480 design was needing some improvements for the future. That tends to happen when you are dealing with a 50% HP increase(280HP on a 2388, 190HP on the original 1480)over the years. I've got one of those 20-25 page sales comparison brochures that CaseIH put out after the STS introduction that showed the differences/features between the 2. I'm not gonna lie to you, some of the "red kool-aid" information is far from correct, no matter how much they want you to think otherwise. Same thing with the Quadtrac-its starting to show its age and need for some further improvement. Here again, we've increased the HP by 50% over the original design-you can only do so much before you have to start over with a new design. As far as the CTS, I only ever saw one around here. A customer cutter from Kansas used to cut wheat around here with a JD CTS and a CaseIH 2188 Axial-Flow. As far as he was concerned, they were both good machines. Last I knew he told me they both had over 4000 hours on them when he retired years ago. One of our customers still has 2 JD walker machines, 2-9650 machines that he keeps for combining millet and some small grain. He bales the straw for his livestock so likes them for that. He has 2-8120s that he uses for everything else. We actually sold a new NH conventional combine 3 years ago. They are built in Belgium. Does Deere offer a European-built conventional for the US market anymore? The thing that makes every farmer that has a red rotary combine laugh is the die-hard John Deere guy that had every excuse in the world 20 years ago for not having a rotary/STS machine-and now he's got a John Deere STS combine and thinks the world can't get any better. Face it, we all know someone that fits that description.
  6. Doc, if you look at the 12.5Liter Deere engine used in Deere 4wds and a Series 60 Detroit engine, they look like sisters from the same father as well.
  7. In all honesty, I would think six Steigers in the entire state of North Dakota would be a pretty good year. There's a lot of them up there. We had a customer burn up a 600 Quadtrac 2 years ago this spring. He was running a VT implement(think it was a Salford) through a corn stalk field that had 160-180 bpa corn the year before at 12mph with the Quad. The way the operator described it, it sounded to me like the trash built up in the undercarriages and probably caught the undercarriage of one track on fire. We've seen this before with other tracked outfits(Cat Challengers, John Deere 8000T tractors, as well as older Quadtracs), so it was only a matter of time before it was going to happen to one of our customers on a newer machine.. I met the insurance adjuster at the tractor a few days after the fire. After he learned that this machine was an emissions machine his first comment was, "Let me guess, this is like all the John Deere emissionized tractors I deal with; the engine went into regeneration mode, the muffler got red hot, it started a fire, end of story". I had to give him a crash course of how CNH engines do NOT have a regeneration whatsoever, and that our exhaust system runs much cooler by NOT having to ever regen. He took notes the whole time I was explaining this system, to which he commented "why doesn't Deere figure out how to do it this way so we don't have so many claims on THEIR machines to deal with." I told him to ask Deere about that.
  8. Deere was no different when they introduced their "not a rotary" rotary combine in 1999-comparing it to a design that was introduced in 1977 in the Axial-Flow. That would have been like comparing an 8410 Deere to a 1086 IH in terms of age difference. Also, CaseIH used the merits of their new tractor design when trying to sell them-they didn't have to run around to every farmer in the country that had a new John Deere 4450/55 and offer them $10K over what they paid for it to trade it in for a Magnum like Deere did with their "bounty program" towards owners of 2388s. In doing so, they upset a lot of loyal Deere customers by more or less telling them that they didn't want their 9600/9610 Deere conventionals in trade, but they sure wanted their neighbor's new Axial-Flow on their lot. Now that Deere was rotary, their conventionals were something that nobody wanted anymore. 9600/9610 values dropped by nearly a third in just a few months after the rotary introduction. Many loyal Deere customers felt like they got slapped in the face over the way the bounty program was handled.
  9. Ken, no doubt....that's typical Deere marketing. Sounds like the fire problem originates around the Cummins engine on the Deeres-which looks like what happened to these units. Not sure if they don't have enough shielding to keep the debris coming off the tracks from accumulating around the exhaust manifold or what. We went through a similar situation in 2003-2004 with STX450s. That's why the later machines had the perforated shields around the engine-too much debris getting into the exhaust manifold area. In defense of Deere, we went through our own teething pains on the first Quadtracs. I remember well in the summer of 1999 having to replace all the axles on 6 Quadtracs we had sold. I'm sure that cost Case some serious $$$$ to do that.
  10. Sounds like you have a flow divider stuck in the Mud Hog/RWA valve. I remember running into this on a 2188 RWA years ago. The valve is located where the rear axle mounts to the back end of the combine. Good luck!!!
  11. The newer undercarriages are built up at Fargo. The older undercarriage frames say China on them, the center sections of the axles that house the differential, ring and pinion, etc say China on the housings, the wishbone frame that connects the outer axle to the undercarriage under the drive wheels says Germany on it. Its no different than the CDC 8.3L engine in the Magnums from 20 years ago. The block and head were made in Brazil, the crankshaft said it was built in the UK, the connecting rods and pistons said Japan IIRC, the sleeves had a US patent# on them, and the fuel system was made in Germany. That was truly an "International" engine.
  12. You could say the Deere Quads have been a "flaming success". Sounds like this has happened numerous times around the country last year.
  13. There is a fix for this from Cummins. You need Cummins part#3800797, which is a hard start/hot start kit. Its designed for the N14 engines, but I would think it would be fairly easy to make it fit an M11 since they both have STC(Step Timing Control) and the PT fuel system. Here's the background on this. First off, its not a battery/starter/ground problem-its an internal engine problem. When you shut the engine off, a small amount of fuel drips through the injector tips onto the hot pistons. This fuel vaporizes in the cylinder, building up a lot of pressure. Now you hit the starter-WHAM!!!! The engine sounds/feels like its loaded up with ether. The starter cannot overpower the cylinder pressure. Now you let off on the ignition key, count 2-3 seconds, and hit the starter again. the engine starts like it normally should. Another part of the problem is that Cummins raised the compression ratio on the STC engines compared to the older 855s/L10s. This hot start kit contains an accumulator that relieves the pressure in the fuel rail, so that no fuel drips into the engine anymore. The engine starts just as good when it hot as when it was cold now. The kit was pretty cheap and easy to install. Hope this helps.
  14. CaseIH still uses 30W in brand-new equipment. All the idlers and rollers on all the Quadtracs, RowTracs, MagnaTracs, and combine tracks all specify 30W engine oil. Granted they don't use a lot of oil in each hub, it all adds up to a lot of oil. I don't think its being discontinued anytime soon.
  15. The hitch staying up all the way with the hydraulics on high pressure standby is a more immediate problem. Seen more than one top cover/rockshaft cover break the casting due to this. The internal hitch cylinder will keep pushing against the underside of the cover until something breaks. That casting was over $4K the last time we replaced one years ago due to this problem. With the hitch all the way up, you should be able to lift the lower links an 1" or so above what the hitch maximum height is with the hitch controls(think of it as 1" of free travel or free play above the hitch's maximum height). If this is an earlier Magnum with just 1 hydraulic filter, I could see a misadjusted hitch causing high hydraulic oil temperature. This was just one of the many reasons why they went to the improved flow hydraulic system after tractor serial # JJA0027701. The older Magnums had just one hydraulic pump sending 12GPM to the cooler; the later ones(with the 2 hydraulic filter system) had up to 64 GPM of oil flow to the cooler-which made a huge difference in cooling. The older Magnums running on high-pressure standby would heat the oil up pretty quickly.