|
Thumb of Michigan | I've had the "harvests more bu's so you can't compare" conversation with a Deere mechanic as well. I think they've been learning that line in service school as a general answer to wear problems they can't explain. I believe most farmers are sharp enough to do the calculations that pertain to their particular farm, doesn't need to be a standard feel good answer.
I don't know that our current combine (a 9500) can be easily compared to the 7720 that it replaced. The 7720 did a few less acres per year vs the 9500, but then some of those acres were wind rowed dry beans. Only folks on here that really understand combine wear more than a dry bean grower is a rice grower. The 7720 ran 6 row ch and a 20' flex, the 9500 a 6 row head and on most of the acres a 30' flex. 9500 never saw a dry bean, and it shows tin wise.
Anyway, I'd guess that the cost per acre has been real similar between machines, but the particular wear parts have been different. We got 1800 engine hrs on the 7720 before we had to change the shoe auger bearings. The 9500 needed new ones at 400 engine hrs (not separator hrs, just to keep the example close) and needed at least part of them replaced every season. No matter how we calculate (bu's, acres, etc) none of the 9500 augers have lasted nearly as long as the 7720's did, which is quite odd given the dry bean thing. The rasp bars and concave were probably close as far as wear goes, both had a Stuekleized type set up.
Everyone is different on maintainance schedules too, so that can scew some numbers. We didn't harvest an awful lot of acres compared to many of you, but our normal procedure was to gut the inside every other year and do the same on the out side in the off years. Didn't turn every nut and bolt off, but touched most of them. I know people who do the inside and the outside every winter, so I guess we did it half a$$ed. But we did it anyway.
I don't care how anyone calculates it, they can be a miserable expensive SOB when they want to be. | |
|
- I am confused, combines that don't need repairs. - Tim Cooke : 7/27/2009 17:33
- Re: I am confused, combines that don't need repairs. - frmrzdotr : 7/27/2009 17:38
- Re: I am confused, combines that don't need repairs. - christianh : 7/27/2009 17:58
- RE: I am confused, combines that don't need repairs. - sri : 7/27/2009 18:06
- RE: I am confused, combines that don't need repairs. - fendt716 : 7/27/2009 18:08
- RE: I am confused, combines that don't need repairs. - Dan NW IA : 7/27/2009 18:30
- Re: I am confused, combines that don't need repairs. - myfarm : 7/27/2009 19:37
- Re: I am confused, combines that don't need repairs. - KDD : 7/27/2009 19:44
- RE: I am confused, combines that don't need repairs. - RICK NCMD : 7/27/2009 21:14
- RE: I am confused, combines that don't need repairs. - Steiger Man : 7/27/2009 21:31
- Re: I am confused, combines that don't need repairs. - JonND : 7/27/2009 21:41
- Re: I am confused, combines that don't need repairs. - loran : 7/27/2009 21:41
- RE: I am confused, combines that don't need repairs. - 9700 : 7/28/2009 08:00
- RE: I am confused, combines that don't need repairs. If it were not for the bean counters... - afx_guy : 7/28/2009 09:35
|
I am confused, combines that don't need repairs.
