Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Keith K

9000 series Deere combines

Recommended Posts

How does the 9400,9500 and 9600 JD combines compare to the 6620,7720 and 8820 combines as far as straw walkers and capacity. Isn't the 10 series Deere just have some updates from the others but the size is the same??? Thanks for any info!! Keith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had a 6620, 7720, and have had a 9510 for 6 seasons, going from a 20 series to a 9000 series is like going from a VW to a Cadillac! The cab on the 9000 is so much tighter and quieter than a 20 that it is not even funny, as well as being so much larger and having the buddy seat. Way less moving parts such as chains on the 9000's. The 9400 has the same cylinder and throat as a 9500, but the walkers are shorter, at least a foot and maybe more. Grain tank is also smaller, no factory extension like the 9500. Engine on the 9400 was a 359 turbo on the early ones, then they went to the 414 turbo, only 2 throttle positions on the 94, idle and wide open, all the others have low, mid, and full (three position switch). I've heard that the 9400 is light on power, but having never run one I can't say, Snowman on here has either a 9400 or 9410, so he can tell you on that. The 10 series has a fan on each side of the feederhouse that is driven by a belt on the left side to suck dust out so you can see where you are going in beans, does a good job. The concave on the 10 series has a digital readout in the cab, makes it easier to find that sweet spot again when changing crop settings. Any other questions PM me and I will try to answer, I had a 6620 for 16 years, and a 7720 for 6 years, so I have a little seat time in several models...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Red_Man, wasn't there two different engines available in the 9500s, or at least the early ones? Seemed that when I looked at a 9500 one time that was what the salesman said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We went from a 8820 to a 9600 and i agree its quite an improvement. Then last year we went from the 9600 to the 9650. WOW now that was no comparison. I see now why so many people like IH rotors all those years. Definitely no comparison from conventional to rotary. If you can find the money imo skip the 00s and get a 50.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We went from a 8820 to a 9600 and i agree its quite an improvement. Then last year we went from the 9600 to the 9650. WOW now that was no comparison. I see now why so many people like IH rotors all those years. Definitely no comparison from conventional to rotary. If you can find the money imo skip the 00s and get a 50.

WHAT !!!!! JD makes a rotary combine? :o:o I always thought that they denied the STSs were rotaries ;):wacko::lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wont argue you with you boog on that one. If you cant beat em join em.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wont argue you with you boog on that one. If you cant beat em join em.

We demoed a 9650 when they first came out then a 9860 two years ago. Both were hogs. Been running AFs since 1982 & have had good luck with them & a good service dept so never made the switch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first year (89') 00 series were nightmares. I worked around one that was a few years old. I have less breakdowns with a 20 year old machine than that one at 3 :blink: The later 00's were tons better. Stay away from the 9400's because of the engine. If I had to go buy a Deere combine a late 9600 or 9610 would be my choice. If this CIH stuff holds it's value like lately it might be cheaper for me to buy a greene one :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just started a feederhouse overhaul today on a customer 9500, I swear everything is a struggle to work on on a deere combine till you get to the rotors, I rebuilt the feederhouse on our 1660 in three hours, takes that long to replace three plastic wear strips on the top side of the feederhouse floor of the 9500, what a pile. Jon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Redman, the throttle thing isnt entirely true. It is my understanding that in 92 all machines went to a 3 position switch. Perhaps the 9400s stayed wit hthe 2, but I have ran a 92 9500 and a 93 9600 that were 3 I often wonder when i had circuit board trouble last fall if I couldnt have put a board for a 92 model machine in it and a different switch and had a 3 position throttle. WIsh I had thought to ask first.

my 1991 9600 only has 2 throttle positions, idle and wide open. It's less than ideal but doesnt seem to cause us any trouble, just idle down before engaging the unload auger.

Basically, the 20 series dont hold a candle to the 9000s. Far less moving parts, nicer controls that sit in the center of the combine, etc etc. Seems to be lots of gearboxes on a green machine, so lots of oil to check.

When we sat down and did the math, I was going to be around 22K for a nice clean 7720 Titan II with around 3000 hours and no heads, or 34 on a clean 91 9600, 2800 engine, 1900 sep hours with a '93 925 flex. I bought the 9600 but dont have a corn head yet. My preferred Deere salesman flat out told me the Titan/Titan IIs are a dying breed. Hopefully the 9600 will still be worth a little something in 5 or so years, but I am not holding my breath.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Redman, the throttle thing isnt entirely true. my 1991 9600 only has 2 throttle positions, idle and wide open. It's less than ideal but doesnt seem to cause us any trouble, just idle down before engaging the unload auger.

Our 91 had the 2 position throttle but the 94 and 95's we had were 3 positions. Idle is 1200 rpm. Mid was 1800 I think. It didn't cause us any trouble either. Of the three the 94 was the best one. Pushed a 30 foot flex with it and a 20 foot rigid rice head and never did have anything major go wrong other than a hydro charge pump blowing up roading her home from the very last field of the year.

Deere's throat is a headache. Their reverser is even worse than a headache. The 9750 we had wasn't any better at all either. :angry: The throat chain jumped time at least once a week and with the stripper on it did it daily. A 5/8ths bolt with a string attached makes getting it back in time a 5 minute job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We went from a 8820 to a 9600 and i agree its quite an improvement. Then last year we went from the 9600 to the 9650. WOW now that was no comparison. I see now why so many people like IH rotors all those years. Definitely no comparison from conventional to rotary. If you can find the money imo skip the 00s and get a 50.

WHAT !!!!! JD makes a rotary combine? :o:o I always thought that they denied the STSs were rotaries ;):wacko::lol:

Hi Boog, The JD system was a little confusing. The early STS's were not rotaries, but the updated ones had the Bullet Rotor, so I think they are now rotaries. They could have made it simple and called it the CopyCat Rotor. :o) ( We have one, stick with your AxialFlow)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The 9400 has the same cylinder and throat as a 9500, but the walkers are shorter, at least a foot and maybe more. Grain tank is also smaller, no factory extension like the 9500. Engine on the 9400 was a 359 turbo on the early ones, then they went to the 414 turbo, only 2 throttle positions on the 94, idle and wide open, all the others have low, mid, and full (three position switch). I've heard that the 9400 is light on power, but having never run one I can't say, Snowman on here has either a 9400 or 9410, so he can tell you on that.

Redman, I do have a 9400 its a 1993 with the 359 and 2 position throttle. I push a 918 flex and pick 6 rows of corn with it. The engine on the 9400, at least the 359's weren't short on power but do have a tendency to break crankshafts and throw the engine dampners. I have had 2 dampners thrown off and one broken crank. The only time I ever thought it was lacking in the power department was when I rented a Geringhoff 6 row chopping head, those seem to take a lot of power to run, IMO. I went from a 6600 to a 9400 and your statement about going from VW to a Caddillac is true only in my case it was like going from a model T Ford to a Caddy. The air on my 6600 didn't work so ran with the door open a lot of times in wheat. The engine was just to the right of me, deafing my right ear and burning the right side of my body. The cab and controls for the seperator are so nice I can't even articulate how much I like it. Short of the sieves I can set up the machine right from the seat. My kids love it as well, they spend ALOT of time in the buddy seat. All in all I love it. When I bought it I was looking for 6620 but nice low hour machines were going for $28,000 to $35,000 in my area, that was for 1500 to 1800 hour machines. I bought my 9400 with 2400 sep hours for $30,000 and they gave me $2000 for my old 443 high tin CH, so I had to finance about $20,000 after I got my insurnace settlement for my burnt 6600. I don't regret buying it even though I have had engine trouble with it. With the 9000's there are far less belts and moving parts than a 20 series, I know some people still don't like them but I think Deere really got their shitt together when they designed the 9000's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Snowman whats the 359 in the 9400 supposed to be putting out powerwise? I guess its turbo'd too? We have3 or 4 of them as irrigation motors. All of ours are just n/a engines, no turbo's and they probably put out 80 to 90 horse. All of ours are over 10,000 hours easily and other than one last summer chunking a rod through both sides of the block they have been pretty trouble free motors. The injectors give more trouble than anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Redman, the throttle thing isnt entirely true. It is my understanding that in 92 all machines went to a 3 position switch. Perhaps the 9400s stayed wit hthe 2, but I have ran a 92 9500 and a 93 9600 that were 3 I often wonder when i had circuit board trouble last fall if I couldnt have put a board for a 92 model machine in it and a different switch and had a 3 position throttle. WIsh I had thought to ask first.

my 1991 9600 only has 2 throttle positions, idle and wide open. It's less than ideal but doesnt seem to cause us any trouble, just idle down before engaging the unload auger.

Basically, the 20 series dont hold a candle to the 9000s. Far less moving parts, nicer controls that sit in the center of the combine, etc etc. Seems to be lots of gearboxes on a green machine, so lots of oil to check.

When we sat down and did the math, I was going to be around 22K for a nice clean 7720 Titan II with around 3000 hours and no heads, or 34 on a clean 91 9600, 2800 engine, 1900 sep hours with a '93 925 flex. I bought the 9600 but dont have a corn head yet. My preferred Deere salesman flat out told me the Titan/Titan IIs are a dying breed. Hopefully the 9600 will still be worth a little something in 5 or so years, but I am not holding my breath.

Jason, I have a friend who has a '97 model 9400 which still has the 2 position throttle. I don't know if they changed the 9410's to a 3 position throttle or not, never have been around one. Snowman, my friend with the 9400 bought an 8 row head for his last year as he has a Kinze 8 row planter, he said they only threw some corn out the back one time in some 230 bu corn when his son was driving too fast. They did have to slow down quite a bit from what they were running the 6 row head at. They run an 18' flex head on theirs in wheat and beans.

Red_Man, wasn't there two different engines available in the 9500s, or at least the early ones? Seemed that when I looked at a 9500 one time that was what the salesman said.

Yes Boog, there were 2 different hp ratings on the 9500's and 9510's, my 9510 has the 240 hp rating which is supposed to be good for unloading on the go. My manual is in the combine, so I don't remember off hand what the other rating is, I've slept since reading that! :D:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Snowman whats the 359 in the 9400 supposed to be putting out powerwise? I guess its turbo'd too? We have3 or 4 of them as irrigation motors. All of ours are just n/a engines, no turbo's and they probably put out 80 to 90 horse. All of ours are over 10,000 hours easily and other than one last summer chunking a rod through both sides of the block they have been pretty trouble free motors. The injectors give more trouble than anything.

I hate to admit this but I can't recall off the top of my head. I want to say 145 hp, the engine itself isn't bad, its the huge dampner and pulley system they have hung off the end of the crank that is the problem. I was told that the crank they put in my engine when it broke the end off of the crank had been re-engineered and was more stout, but I got a good look at the old one and the new one side by side and I could see no visible difference in the two. I wish I had known more about this problem when I was looking at them and I'd have bought a 1994 or later with the 414 in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A 6620 titan 2 with a 466 engine will walk all over a 9400 with 404 engine, The 9400 is a big improvement, but why did JD put a smaler engine in them? Run a 6 row head in good corn and a little mud and you'll see what I'm talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A 6620 titan 2 with a 466 engine will walk all over a 9400 with 404 engine, The 9400 is a big improvement, but why did JD put a smaler engine in them? Run a 6 row head in good corn and a little mud and you'll see what I'm talking about.

Thats a new one to me, I wasn't aware they ever put a 404 in the 9400's. Oh and I have run with a 6620 T2 and I sure don't recall having been walked all over, but I do recall the owner of the 6620 wanting me to trade him machines, must be he felt sorry for me having such a piece of shitt combine and wanted to take it off my hands.

Why they ever put a 359 in the 9400 is a mystery to me as well, it sure seems they could have used a bigger displacement engine and detuned it or ran it naturally aspirated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A 6620 titan 2 with a 466 engine will walk all over a 9400 with 404 engine, The 9400 is a big improvement, but why did JD put a smaler engine in them? Run a 6 row head in good corn and a little mud and you'll see what I'm talking about.

Thats a new one to me, I wasn't aware they ever put a 404 in the 9400's. Oh and I have run with a 6620 T2 and I sure don't recall having been walked all over, but I do recall the owner of the 6620 wanting me to trade him machines, must be he felt sorry for me having such a piece of shitt combine and wanted to take it off my hands.

Why they ever put a 359 in the 9400 is a mystery to me as well, it sure seems they could have used a bigger displacement engine and detuned it or ran it naturally aspirated.

I had a first year 6620 ('79 model) that was a hydro and I think the hp ratting on the 466 was 145 hp, it would get weak real quick in good corn and wet ground. I had a neighbor with a green lid 6620 with a 216 head to cut 155 acres of beans for me at the end of the season when we didn't know what the weather was going to do, man it looked small after running a 9510 for several years. My friend's 9400 has the 414 in it, he's had no engine trouble that I know of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Redman I have heard the 414's weren't prone to the crankshaft failures that the 359's had, thus the switch to the bigger engine. I know that when I backed the 9400 of the dealers trailer and pulled up next to 6600, the old 6600 sure did look small to me as well. But I have to admit that when I bought the 6600 I was still using my 45 squareback and the 6600 seemed gigantic in comparison to the 45. Its all a matter of perspective I guess, probably my 9400 would seem tiny to someone used to a 9860 or one of the big Cat Lexion's or to an 8010 IH owner. All I can say is I am happy with my little, outdated, out of production combine, it serves me nicely. I just wish I could afford to buy a 9450 and I'd probably never need to pruchase another machine until I quit farming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dammit Snowman,

you must remember those of us with green combines are traitors and Deere never built a good combine.

I went from an IH 915 to a 9600. words cant even describe how much easier it is to work on, set, run, etc etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jason it must mean were are fargin iceholes. :D I just like to stick with what I know, and I know the old cylinder/straw walker type combines.

Hows your mother doing? Haven't heard much lately, I hope shes improving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, Im glad you all got this thread going. I would like to upgrade combines someday too. I myself was thinking of staying with green just becasue we already have the heads. We have 2 7700's right now and can usually keep the newer one going. I have cut beans in the same field with a 6620 and the old 7700 never dissapointed me to say the least. So I was thinking I would want at least a 9500. A 9400 still has one less walker than a 7700 or 7720 right? A 20 series might fit my budget better but the only big advantage I can see betwen the two would be the unloader system. And a 00 series does have a better cab and also is compatible with alot more yeild monitor/field mapping sytems.

Boog, its funny you mention deere denying the fact that they built a rotor. I remember in 89 the dealer I worked for at the time sent us all to Geneseo, Ill to a john deere new product introduction seminar. The main "brass" that was there that day plain flat and simple told us that Deere will never build a rotor machine. :D I would be willing to bet alot of money that R&D was testing one right under his nose at that time. So he either lied then or R&D did a good job of keeping secrets. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So he either lied then or R&D did a good job of keeping secrets. :D

Probably both, I hear ol' mother Deere is pretty good at keeping secrets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, just go buy a Gleaner!!!! :) :) ;) ;)

Eric

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites