Jump to content

BLACK COMBINE


junkandcattle
 Share

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Mark (EC,IN) said:

A good grain sample and fuel efficiency (the diesels) were all they had going for them.

For sure it wasn't the transmissions. Every time it got muddy around here I would lose one or a final drive. Performance wise they did ok but with that many bearings and belts there was always something that needed attention and never easy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, hardtail said:

Maybe you guys can confirm that Massey received hp core Chevy parts for some of their models, I'm talking angle plug heads and 4 bolt main block 327's, the camshafts weren't but rumor has Chevy unloaded some of these parts through them, my buddies 510 did not have these on his 350.

I don't recall angle plug heads out until the 350 like 1970

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was meaning I think angle plug heads were introduced in 1970 on the LT1. I don't recall them in a 327..someone will chime in 

Performance camshafts would make a low rpm engine like a combine a dog. Gleaners used lots of SBCs in G.M and L models . I always thought the 350 was a poor match for a Gleaner L but really cool in a G. they used a 4 bolt main block

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think angle plug heads were used in the L79 350hp 327 this would have been 66/67 and possibly some small block corvettes earlier, one was rated at 375hp might have been a fuelie so the LT1 technically wasn't the highest rated, if they were used in ag applications camshafts would have been changed and piston compression reduced 

I was wrong Chevy never released angle plug heads on a production car, they were only available over the performance counter and apparently now are not that spectacular at that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, junkandcattle said:

For sure it wasn't the transmissions. Every time it got muddy around here I would lose one or a final drive. Performance wise they did ok but with that many bearings and belts there was always something that needed attention and never easy

I blamed the stigma that conventional combines are maintenance hungry machines on Massey combines because we sure as **** didn’t have the same experience with JD.  Going back to the 510s, it didn’t seem to matter if we cut 10 acres with them or 1,000.  Still spent a week getting them ready each year.  Small wonder why most AF owners at least around here are ex Massey owners.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I was 20 years old I worked for a custom cutter in Dodge city Kansas. He had 1688 and 2188 but always talked alot of the Masseys he used to run. Said he quit buying them because they weren’t made in North America anymore. I was unfamiliar At the time with anything beyond 715-1440-1660 that my dad had. He talked quite fondly of the 510s as well as 750-860s? I didn’t care much for him as a boss but respected his career. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/29/2021 at 7:39 AM, Diesel Doctor said:

The Massey's had a third sieve that made them clean the grain really well.

 

It was called a triple cascade shoe.  I worked for a neighbor who bought a new 510 in 1968 and we took it to Oklahoma and followed the harvest North back to South Dakota.  My understanding was 68 was the first year for the triple sieve setup and it worked great in ideal conditions, but when the selves were overloaded, too much air would escape out the gaps between the seives and you would get a lot of junk in the tank.

the 510 was a good reliable machine…..far more so than the 550 I owned later.  Eventually that got replaced with a 1640.  Thought I died and went to heaven!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, axial_al said:

It was called a triple cascade shoe.  I worked for a neighbor who bought a new 510 in 1968 and we took it to Oklahoma and followed the harvest North back to South Dakota.  My understanding was 68 was the first year for the triple sieve setup and it worked great in ideal conditions, but when the selves were overloaded, too much air would escape out the gaps between the seives and you would get a lot of junk in the tank.

the 510 was a good reliable machine…..far more so than the 550 I owned later.  Eventually that got replaced with a 1640.  Thought I died and went to heaven!

We had two 510s.  First one was a first year production model 1964.  Second one was a "western special" we bought in 1976 to run along side the 1st one.  Lot of differences between two to the point they almost weren't the same combine.  I have my neighbor's 510, a 1978 model last year the made them.  There was only one 550 in the neighborhood that I was aware of.  Don't know if it was a good machine or not.  Have heard the 540s were even worse.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Big Bud guy said:
24 minutes ago, Big Bud guy said:

Have heard the 540s were even worse.  

 

Somewhat of a crossbreed between a 300 and a 410.  Not a good mix we sold a couple and they both wished they would have bought 550 instead

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, junkandcattle said:

Somewhat of a crossbreed between a 300 and a 410.  Not a good mix we sold a couple and they both wished they would have bought 550 instead

I always thought the 540 was just the 410 restyled to look like the 550 and bigger combines.  So what exactly were they?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The main thing I remember they borrowed from the 300 was the  machine drive belt setup. I suppose it was cheaper than an pressure plate and clutch. Too much power and load for a system designed for less demand, it was the equivalent of holding a belt tight with a pry bar.

The claim to fame for the 540 was price

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...