|
|
C KS | What is the difference between a 9770, 9860, and a 9870 STS (besides a larger, higher HP engine). I see the 98's might have more cleaning area- but how? Heard of 9770's performing close to 9860's. Just curious.
I'd like to know real world answers, the specs in the online manuals don't tell much.
Edited by Farmin' Fireman 9/25/2010 13:55
|
|
| |
|
Upstate New York | The 9870 probally gives the biggest punch with HP with the bigger block engine and 5 speed header drive vs. the variable speed feeder drive. All have same size grain tanks, I think the 60's had the HUR auger as do the 70's. The latest 98's have bigger cc hydraulic pumps for RWD and Pro drive with diff lock. And the 98's have that extra chaffer extension that can be debated if it really does anything or not. |
|
| |
|
| "And the 98's have that extra chaffer extension that can be debated if it really does anything or not."
The most important thing it does is to make it appear that JD is actually increasing their cleaning area and might cause (insert "mislead") some prospective buyers to believe that a 9870 will perform comparably to a CaseIH 8010/8120 or a Lexion 580R (far more capable class 8 combines). It's a game of spinning the numbers and you have to admit, it works very very well for Deere. |
|
| |
|
Mb | The 98's seem to use a lot more fuel for the few extra acres they do in our area. |
|
| |
|
Upstate New York | I know when I'm doing beans, I'm working the combine more than when in corn, I use about a gallon per acre. Just curious how that compares to anyone using a 96 or 9770? |
|
| |
|
South Louisiana | Cutting rice my 9770 burns about 140 gals. in a 9 hour day, that amounts to 70 acres or so. Again that is rice which is hard to thrash. As a comparison my CTS which is a 9500 without walkers burns about 65 gallons a day, about 50 acres or so. From a fuel economy standpoint the CTS is more efficient. |
|
| |
|
Malinta Ohio | new 9770 with 5 speed feederhouse, pro drive and auto feed and love it. The only way I would go 9870 if i had hills. I do run 1-1.5 mph faster than our 9760 in 60 bushel beans. |
|
| |
|
MN | Had a 9770 last year with the 5spd feeder house 12 row chopping corn head and 35'platform, corn and soybeans only. The machine handled it but was all it wanted in our situation. This year we went to the 9870 and wonder why we didn't do it sooner. The 9870 uses about 0.1 to 0.2 gallons per acre more fuel but you don't have to pull the hydro back when you turn on the unload auger. The 9870 can separate the crop better than the 9770 did. The 9870 seems to be a very smooth running machine compared to the 9770.
Just my $.02 |
|
| |
|
Mb | Obviously from your comments the 9870 we had in the field had a very bad fuel and or power issue, sorry for my fuel comment. How does a 9860 compare to a 9870 in the fuel, power, threshing categories? |
|
| |
9770 vs 9860 vs 9870 Deere Combine
