Jump to content

SDman

Members
  • Posts

    3,529
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

SDman last won the day on October 8 2022

SDman had the most liked content!

6 Followers

About SDman

  • Birthday 05/03/1971

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Highmore, South Dakota

Recent Profile Visitors

7,954 profile views

SDman's Achievements

Advanced Member

Advanced Member (3/3)

1.9k

Reputation

  1. The top picture is an F25....it has cylinders for the bucket tilt on the top of the front part of the frame. The F10 used a cylinder in the rear main frame that operated the bucket tilt with a series of cables/pulleys.
  2. I'll have to try to get a picture of the one that's about a 10 minute walk away from me....neighbor has had it for as long as I have lived here. Think it's mounted on either a 3010 or 3020. Uses it every so often. I'll share another rare Deere item that popped up on a few social media sites a couple weeks ago...a John Deere silo. Supposedly, Deere made 5 of these back in the mid-1960s, with this one being the only surviving one known to exist. Supposedly somewhere in Wisconsin.
  3. OK, the C50 uses a 22-tooth gear. Looks like it's the only model that uses it.
  4. Is this the IPTO shaft for those tractors that has an odd tooth count for the gear on the transmission end? We had a C50 CaseIH in here last year like that the no one had anything available for. We ended up calling Hy-Cap or Ag Parts and ended up sending them our old shaft that they welded a new set of splines for the pressure plate end onto the old shaft/splines. This tractor just pulls a drag in a horse arena...no heavy PTO work. Worked fine. IIRC, the smaller Doncaster tractors ran at a different engine speed/PTO speed ratio than most of the bigger tractors did. Good luck!
  5. Sounds like you have verified your axle scavenger pump system seems to be working properly. I guess I'm still of the opinion that your extra oil is coming from another source in the axle. I would recommend you check the condition of the jumper tube & o-rings on the park brake jumper tube. There are 4 tubes that deliver oil from the front cover of the axle to the inner parts of the differential housing assembly, 1 delivers oil for the park brake release, 1 for applying the foot/service brake, 1 for application of the differential lock, the last one for supplying lube oil to the pinion/ring gear mesh. If you look at the front of the front cover, you should see a couple hydraulic lines above the pinion shaft....the park brake release should be the line closer to the center of the cover. Remove the hose, remove the hydraulic adapter fitting, and you should see the front of the jumper tube in the bore. I can't remember if the jumper tube has tapped threads to screw a bolt in it to allow you to grab it that way or not(newer Quadtracs do have that setup) to remove it. Inspect that o-rings on the jumper tube, they might be damaged, or just flat anymore from age. Might just be that they are allowing just enough extra oil in the axle that the scavenger pump system can't keep up. I wouldn't think the foot brake/service brake jumper tube would be leaking much as its only pressurized when the brake is applied. Same with the differential lock jumper tube o-rings. Lube oil jumper tube wouldn't run on very much pressure, so I doubt that it is giving you any problems.
  6. Your engine data tag probably says 5-6 in. lbs. for injector setting. That was when they originally wanted them set by IBC(inner base circle....cam roller was on the bottom part of the cam lobe). Later they revised it so that you set the injector on OBC(outer base circle.....cam roller on the high part of the cam lobe, injector in firing position) to a value of 125 in. lbs. That's how I've been setting them for 25 years anymore. Easier that way....set the valves and injector on the same cylinder at each turn of the crankshaft.
  7. Trash whipper wheels off of a corn planter. 30 years ago, most of the county that I live in was pasture/ranching because it was considered too rocky to farm. With no- till, farm program $$$, and other reasons, most of the cattle have left here in the last 10-15 years to be replaced by grain farming. Still haven't figured out a way to get rid of all of the rocks, though.
  8. Well, if you followed New Holland combines since 2002 when the CRs came out, you would have seen that for New Holland to come out with a mechanical beater like that would amount to eating a crow the size of a turkey. From 2002 to 2017 or so, they used a system called ASP, which stands for "Advanced Stone Protection". It was fully electronic. It used a piece of diamond plate and a bottom cover under the front drum of the feeder house that had some resonance sensors on it that was hooked to a control box. When a rock struck the diamond plate, that impact was sensed by the controller, which opened up a latch under the feeder house, allowing the bottom plate/trap door to open, ejecting the rock. Did it work? Probably as good as a mechanical beater IMHO. It wasn't perfect, but neither are beater-style rock traps. Easy way to test it was to have someone run the entire machine, walk up to the plate, and smack it good with a hammer...the door should trip open immediately. The mechanical beater/DFR system was designed not only to work better in rocks, but to better even out the crop mat to even out the load between the rotors. As far as overloading the RH side of the cleaning system on a single-rotor machine, you can fix that with a couple different ways on a Flagship. First, you can move the pinch point(spot where the rotor contacts the concaves) side-to-side to try and even out the load across the sieve....or if you are really lazy, you can put an offset into the self-leveling sieve instrumentation to "cheat" the sieve to tip the opposite way(usually towards the LH side of the combine) in normal operation to even out the sieve load across the sieve. Warning......New Holland has this feature, too, so when their rotors aren't sharing the load evenly you can tweak their cleaning system as well.
  9. I'm sure the CTS sold well in a few markets, they did keep it for several years. However, I don't think anyone would say it sold in overall numbers anywhere close to 1666/2166/2366/1688/2188/2388 production numbers in the 1990s. The only place I would guess they were comparable to Axial-Flow production numbers would maybe be in comparison to the 44 series Axial-Flows. By the mid/late 1990s, the 21/2344 combine sales were really starting to lag in comparison to their bigger brothers due to a rapidly dwindling market for that size of combine. Deere was probably similar in production number %s for their 9400/10 combines as compared to the 95/9600 and 95/9610s. Speaking of the Deere CTS, when Deere came out with the STS rotary in 2000, Deere bragged how they were going to be able to use one basic chassis of machine to build all 3 versions of their combine offerings at the time....rotary(STS), walker machines, and the CTS design. Did they offer a CTS design on that chassis? Or did the CTS more or less die with the introduction of the STS series. I know there were a handful of 9650 walker machines around here, and I know where there is a 9660 walker machine, but the CTS just seemed to disappear about then.....but there were never any of them around here anyway.
  10. Yup, with twin rotor machines, simplicity goes out the window. I'll show you the difference on the grease charts from a red Flagship combine to its yellow cousin, the CR NHs....that's just the start of things. I'll also include a shot of the "simplified" belt drive system is on a Deere X-9 series....I'd hate to see what it looked like before it was "simplified".
  11. I guess I'm going to say the JD guys would be extremely optimistic to say that the CTS was that popular....maybe at a very small time during their production. I think most guys would put the Deere CTS/CTS II machines in the "unicorn" status. They might have been popular is small segments in North America....but to say there were a lot of them built would be a stretch. If you look on all the online "farm equipment for sale" sites online......you have to look hard to find anyone even listing a Deere CTS for sale. You can find plenty of Gleaner R62/72s from that vintage, TR 97/98/99s from that vintage, heck even more Masseys from the late 1990s than Deere CTS machines. Where are all these CTS machines? Either in the junkyard....or are they all still working for satisfied owners that won't give them up? For as long as I can remember, they have always said that more than half of combine production in NA is sold within 500 miles of the Quad Cities. I would be willing to make a friendly wager on a steak supper to anybody on this......I would bet there are MORE Axial-Flows of that vintage in one COUNTY in any of the "I" states than there are CTS/CTS II combines in the ENTIRE "I" STATE of your choice. If Deere thought the future of combine development was the CTS.....why would they have invested so much time, $$$, and effort to develop an Axial-Flow clone? Even Ray Charles could see that one. As far as twin rotor combines feeding evenly.....a simple question here.....why do BOTH companies that make twin rotors have a beater right in front of their twin rotors that they BOTH say is to "smooth out the crop flow" in front of the twin rotors? NH tried fighting it for 40 years before they finally admitted to needing it in 2018-2019. They had to completely redesign their feederhouse so they could install their DFR system....and then they had to redesign it again couple years later so it could be reversed with the feeder reverser. That beater is several extra parts that are not necessary for any other machine but a twin rotor design....not to mention one more component that can adversely affect grain quality....like Deere's feeder accelerator system on their STS machines.
  12. Does the park brake work properly on this machine? Those used a hydraulic brake pack in each axle....used an electric solenoid to send hydraulic oil to the brake packs to release the brakes. If the rear axle park brake has excessive internal leakage, it could pump more oil into the axle than what the scavenger pump can take out of the axle. Like has been mentioned, have you checked the suction screen where it pulls oil back out of the axle? Also...what pinion seal are you using, the flat, rubber seal that they have used for years....or the newer one that is 2-piece that needs a special puller to pull the entire seal assembly onto the pinion shaft? Later axles (and into the STX Steigers) actually had 3 tapped holes around both the pinion shaft bore and the axle shaft bores to allow the use of 3 M8 bolts with large flat washers that helped hold the seals into place.
  13. According to this guy, there were lots of little things with the Ideals. I remember one time a turbocharger went out on one....it took over a week to get one from Europe. Lots of electrical/electronic problems mainly. Seems like they had an unloader failure that was catastrophic on one, too. This guy has a million $$$ shop that has a big Fendt decal on the large garage door facing the highway.....word on the street has it that the Cat dealer pays him $1500/month to have the decal on the door. Talking about Mike Mitchell, his Deere dealer had to bring out an S780/790 to him last fall when his eX-9s kept plugging up the back end of the machine.
  14. I remember when New Holland was bragging they had built their 50,000th twin rotor in 2007/08 time frame....they even had a decal on the side of the grain tank commemorating the event for awhile. Meanwhile, CaseIH had built the 100,000th Axial-Flow back in 1998 during the first year of 2300 series production. 10 years previous. When New Holland came out with the CR in 2002, they more or less said that if the CR didn't boost their market share in NA combine production, they were going to retire the twin rotor machine design.
  15. I think the eX-9 Deere claims 7200bph capacity in corn, the new CNH machine is supposed to be more yet. You hit the nail on the head with the biggest problem with twin rotor machines...even feeding between the rotors. My first experience with TRs back in the 1980s brought that out. Dad's cousin had a TR-70 New Holland and a 7720 Deere. He used the Deere in small grain, the TR in corn/fall crops. Back then all of our small grain was swathed and then picked up. He hated the TR in small grain because one rotor would tend to grab everything, and the other rotor got more or less nothing....so now you have one rotor overloaded, and the other rotor going along for the ride. This even shows up on the CRs as well. New Holland will even tell you that a 60/40 split between the rotors is rather common....so one rotor is doing 50% more work than the other....not real good balance for overall combine performance. We really saw this when the first MacDon draper heads were off-centered to the right....the RH rotor bars would show much more wear than the LH rotor. Now, New Holland tried to fix this a few years back....they put another beater between the back of the feeder house, in front of the rotors, to divide the crop mat more evenly as it went into the rotors. They called it DFR for "dynamic feed roller"....Deere uses something similar on the eX-9s. First off, a twin rotor combine needs more moving parts like an Athiest needs a Bible. Secondly, the first versions of these did NOT reverse when the feeder was reversed. You had to manually deslug it with a 6-foot tall deslug wrench. Later versions fixed it so that it does reverse with the feeder reverser.
×
×
  • Create New...