Viewing a thread - Difference between Tigermate 200's

Forums | Classifieds (89) | Skins | Language

You are logged in as a guest. ( logon | register )

Difference between Tigermate 200's	View previous thread :: View next thread
Forums List -> Machinery Talk	Message format

steev246

Posted 3/6/2023 18:34 (#10126740)
Subject: Difference between Tigermate 200's

Looking at upgrading field cultivators and curious to know specific differences between the later Tigermate Ii's, early Tigermate 200's and late model Tigermate 200's?

Doing some research it seems between 2008/ 2009 the Tigermate II's got rebranded to a 200, seen a few stickers say 200 and serial number plates say TM II. Mid 2009 the data plates state TM 200 along with the stickers.

We are looking at 3 different years of cultivators 2009, 2013 and 2015.

When referecing the serial numbers of the 3 Tigermate 200's on the case website there seems to be distinct differences-

The 2009 model shows text of Tigermate Oct 2004 - March 2012

The 2013 model shows text of Tigermate II Nov 2012 - Oct 2014

The 2015 model shows text of Tigermate 200 Oct 2004 - Jan 2015

I have searched Agtalk and there are a few conversations on this topic with a little info but most of it is focused on the differences between a TM I to a TM II, which I found helpful but looking for differences in the later II's, early 200's and late 200's. From what I gather there are differences in the wing stabilizing wheel, what else? What is desirable and what is not? What are some high wear or breakage areas to look for and avoid?

Thanks for your time and responses in advance!

Edited by steev246 3/7/2023 12:40

chris dds

Posted 3/6/2023 19:07 (#10126789 - in reply to #10126740)
Subject: RE: Difference between Tigermate 200 vs Tigermate II

Minnesota

The front stabalizer wheels pivot on a 200 and the tandem pivots are different. My 200 came with truck tires on the center section....the TMII had implement tires

Red wrench

Posted 3/6/2023 21:20 (#10127069 - in reply to #10126789)
Subject: RE: Difference between Tigermate 200 vs Tigermate II

South central MN

Difference in walking tandems. Some had cast iron beams and some had tubing. Don’t remember the splits or what had what. Our 2010ish had cast that got updated to steel tube

chirpfarm

Posted 3/6/2023 21:48 (#10127115 - in reply to #10126789)
Subject: RE: Difference between Tigermate 200 vs Tigermate II

South Central MN

I don't think all 200s have pivoting stabilizers. Our New Holland version of the case 200 (same machine just blue) has fixed stabilizers. Pretty sure my FIL has fixed stabilizers on his case 200 as well. Both are 44.5ft double fold machines.

BobNESD

Posted 3/6/2023 23:00 (#10127194 - in reply to #10127115)
Subject: RE: Difference between Tigermate 200 vs Tigermate II

I think the pivoting wing gauge wheels were an option before the 200 model, my Tigermate II that I bought new in early 2008, has pivoting wing stabilizer wheels. I think the cultivator was actually built in 2007 though. The problem is, the design of those earlier stabilizer wheels wasn't very good, they have become very crooked and wiggly now as the years went by. The design of the newer models has been much improved, I'm now trying to decide how to fix ours, the parts to upgrade them to the newer design is too expensive. Might have to invent something ourselves to fix them.

Massey1155

Posted 3/7/2023 10:39 (#10127681 - in reply to #10126740)
Subject: RE: Difference between Tigermate 200 vs Tigermate II

NW Iowa

Biggest thing is the center frame section. The 200 is bolted together, the II's are solid and they break where the leveler attaches.
I believe they also up'd the spring pressure on shanks.

Edited by Massey1155 3/7/2023 10:41

Attachments
----------------

TG 200 specs.xls (35KB - 37 downloads)

steev246

Posted 3/7/2023 13:12 (#10127859 - in reply to #10126740)
Subject: RE: Difference between Tigermate 200's

Thanks for the feedback so far, in an effort to avoid confusion I have edited the title of the question as the focus is more so the improvements made to the 200s and differences between early and late models.

Based on the feedback the 2 differences are pivoting/ quarter swivel wing stabilizer wheels and from cast to welded steel walking tandum axle bar.

I'm guessing the went away from cast as it can break and there is no fix to it? Does this have anything to do with the bearing at the pivot point?

Of the 200s I've been eyeing the one wing stabilizer wheel was very loose/ wobbly. The other one, earlier model, was pretty tight but they appeared to be the same pivot point. Would it be better if it didn't swivel? What is the purpose of the swivel if it ultimately needs to be in a straight position? I don't see a scenario where it would be dragged sideways.

I did notice that on all 200's I've looked at there are cracks and welding on the frames in relation to the depth control bars at the front frame, another similarity is frame breakage and repair at the rear outer to inner wing hinge.

Is there any concern for the areas of repair or any other items if they have been repaired correctly? Other areas of wear to focus on?

chirpfarm

Posted 3/7/2023 13:28 (#10127882 - in reply to #10127859)
Subject: RE: Difference between Tigermate 200's

South Central MN

If you turn sharp with the tool in the ground, the stabilizer wheels can scrub sideways. They aren't really supposed to be taking any load other than to keep the wingtip from bouncing, so the fixed wheel hasn't really been an issue.

Can't speak to the frame welds as we don't have any yet. I want to say that ours is at least 15 years old. We had to weld up one of the outer wing joints last year, but other than occasional rolling basket bearings it's been an excellent machine.

ozzymydog

Posted 3/7/2023 15:22 (#10128008 - in reply to #10127859)
Subject: RE: Difference between Tigermate 200's

55912

I believe the wing hinge break is folding and unfolding to fast when basket and mulcher go over center in the process. I don't think it happens in operation but in the folding process. I broke this years ago and am careful during the process and hasn't happened again. Not sure about depth control break issue.

Mav

Posted 3/7/2023 16:46 (#10128097 - in reply to #10128008)
Subject: RE: Difference between Tigermate 200's

ozzymydog - 3/7/2023 14:22

I believe the wing hinge break is folding and unfolding to fast when basket and mulcher go over center in the process. I don't think it happens in operation but in the folding process. I broke this years ago and am careful during the process and hasn't happened again. Not sure about depth control break issue.

I too suggest feathering the wings into their final resting position when folding. I have seen several pictures on here of the wing hinge crack/breakage. The only way I can explain it, is that people must be locking the wing fold hydraulic valve with too high a flow rate into the detent position while never looking back to notice the carnage.

Mav

Edited by Mav 3/7/2023 16:48

jedeka

Posted 3/7/2023 22:25 (#10128622 - in reply to #10126740)
Subject: RE: Difference between Tigermate 200's

Boone, Iowa

I have a 46.5 ft TM II that has been a good machine. No cracking or welding has been done on the frame. Maybe
I have lucked out having the four bar harrow and not a rolling basket. A couple of years ago, I did have to address a spot on a main lift tube that had filled up with dirt. Ended up cutting out the bottom of both lift tubes on the main frame. This allows the dirt to fall thru the tube and not build up. I see the TM 200 are built this way. I have the non-swiveling gauge wheels and have learned not to turn with the field cultivator in the ground, which can cause the tires to roll off the gauge wheel. I looked into upgrading to a pivoting gauge wheel and parts added up to $10,000. I am upgrading field cultivators and had been looking at TM 200’s in the 50-55 ft range. That pivot point between the inner and outer wing is an issue. I am told that you need to keep an eye on that pivot pin, catch it before the hole gets egg shaped and fix it. Some of the swiveling gauge wheels can get expensive to fix, since they didn’t have any bushings where the pin goes thru. The TM 255 are out of my price range, so I haven’t looked to see if the pivoting gauge assembly or the pivot point between the inner and outer wings have been improved. The serial tag on mine says TM 12.

(BD8A3A56-F540-4FA0-B3E2-2C52DF985897 (full).jpeg)

Attachments
----------------

BD8A3A56-F540-4FA0-B3E2-2C52DF985897 (full).jpeg (151KB - 27 downloads)

steev246

Posted 3/8/2023 18:46 (#10129861 - in reply to #10126740)
Subject: RE: Difference between Tigermate 200's

I appreciate all the feedback! It's impressive to me that not much has been updated or improved on this design for the time it has been around. I am not too concerned about the welding in the areas I mentioned as the feedback sounds like user error is to blame. Thanks again!

Search this forum
Printer friendly version
E-mail a link to this thread

(Delete cookies)