New CR9090 vs S690 Deere

[mockingbird]

I'm headed for Belgium bright and early Sat. morning and will ask the engineers if they have improved the front beater so that it works better in canola. Might also see if the Belgium beer is any good.

[8850jd]

Bring me some back... Super jealous. They might have to take a look at the design of the chopping knivea of there forage harvestor. Knife design could be a blue print for how to arrange the pattern for low horse power consumption. Make sure the drum is small and blades are long... More room for pull

[jimbobobaroo]

Originally Posted by buzzhillside

So out off the 9090 built in Belgium an the 9090 built in grand island which was a better combine an which had more capacity

I don't know if I could say better or worse, but I would prefer my Belgium built unit with the stone trap if that's what I could get. My Belg built unit has had very few problems in quality of build, where the 9080 I had previous had many little things go wrong.

Capacity was very very close, driving them it feels like the NA one has more power because of the way the torque curve is set on the engine but my cart driver thought the Belg one was doing a little better. Capacity wasn't much different between the two, and neither was fuel consumption. When you ad the def and the fuel they were about the same.

[jimbobobaroo]

In case I confused everyone with that statement, I would like to add the stone trap to my Belgium built combine...

[rod]

jimbobobaroo - Did you notice any (claimed) fuel usage reduction or power increase in the machine with DEF compared to the NA built machine? My suspicion is that the cost will work out to be the same.
Yes, you may conclude that as a cynical statement but it's just years of experience that draws me to that conclusion.

[jimbobobaroo]

Originally Posted by rod

jimbobobaroo - Did you notice any (claimed) fuel usage reduction or power increase in the machine with DEF compared to the NA built machine? My suspicion is that the cost will work out to be the same.
Yes, you may conclude that as a cynical statement but it's just years of experience that draws me to that conclusion.

I do have all the numbers with percent power and computer claimed fuel usage, etc. All in all the UREA unit uses less fuel but it seems to be offset by the use of DEF. The way the power is placed in the engines is different though, the UREA eng would pull harder at higher percentage load hanging in longer before dropping off. My unit would pull down sooner at the higher loads but the speeds didn't seem to differ a whole lot between combines. The UREA engine gave the impression it pulled harder at higher load rates, but it didn't reflect in the speed or throughput of the machine.

As the NA combine has a smaller fuel tank (150 l ) I'm sure they will get the same running time out of both when you add the UREA into the equation.

[dara]

Originally Posted by jimbobobaroo

I do have all the numbers with percent power and computer claimed fuel usage, etc. All in all the UREA unit uses less fuel but it seems to be offset by the use of DEF. The way the power is placed in the engines is different though, the UREA eng would pull harder at higher percentage load hanging in longer before dropping off. My unit would pull down sooner at the higher loads but the speeds didn't seem to differ a whole lot between combines. The UREA engine gave the impression it pulled harder at higher load rates, but it didn't reflect in the speed or throughput of the machine.

As the NA combine has a smaller fuel tank (150 l ) I'm sure they will get the same running time out of both when you add the UREA into the equation.

How much DEF did the CR use? What was the diesel tank to DEF ratio - 2:1, 3:1?