The Combine Forum banner
1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,774 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Demo'd a 7010 today in dry conditions harvesting durum with a 36 foot honey bee head. What a beautiful cab, and a very nice monitor (it was the AFS 200). I really enjoyed how you could move it around wherever you wanted it. The header height resume is a beauty as well.

On the outside, seeing how everything is built and relatively simple (except all those hydraulic lines) is nice to see. The shaft drive to the feedhouse is so clean, and I know from working at a Case dealership the feedhouse is easy to take off (and the rotor is easier to pull than a 2388 by a long shot). It ran very well and had a clean sample. Can't beat electric sieve adjustments or being able to save settings for the entire combine.

Now for the bad. 18 to 19 US Gallons per Hour is a little bit scary. Ok, at what diesel costs its a lot scary. And it didn't matter if we were running at 90% or 110% on the machine, it barely ever dropped below 17. While it was using all this fuel, we also thought it would be doing a bunch of work, but our 1998 TR98 with a 30 foot Macdon would drive 6 to 7 mph while the 7010 would sometimes brush 5. For a machine with 350 hp and more with the power boost, running with a 270 hp 9 year old combine isn't all that impressive, and we will only burn 11 gallons per hour tops.

So, the 7010 is a nice machine, but likes the fuel, and doesn't have the capacity that we hoped. But we'd trade for a Honeybee in a heartbeat to get away from the Macdon!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,199 Posts
Repeat after me: "Tier III is my friend."

Thanks for the review. Would it be possible for you to calculate gallons per acre, or gallons per bushel harvested? Seems that would be a more fair comparison between the two machines.

-Lance
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,774 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Well, they were doing the same acres per hour, the tr going faster but having a smaller header, so they were doing the same work, just the TR was doing it a lot cheaper. All we had to go on was what the 7010's monitor was saying, and how the TR has used fuel for the past 8 years. I don't have some hard numbers for gallons per acre, sorry, but since the machines were evenly matched in capacity, that should give a good ballpark idea.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,774 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
well, i realize that its a brand new honeybee vs our 2000 962, so it isn't fair in the aspect of buying a new one, its just that in comparison to what we run it was amazing.

The wide center draper seemed to really pull the crop, and then the mechanically driven fingered drum really pulled everything into the feedhouse. Our Macdon only has a beater with stationary fingers that is hydraulically driven, so it bypasses as soon as a high volume of crop is there and plugs up.

Also, the Honeybee's center draper ends before the beater, while the macdon's continues under it. This makes the Macdon's draper higher than the feedhouse floor and it seems to ram the crop into the feeder drum rather than under it. This can be bad in our durum with awned heads. Some of the adjustments seem easier on the honeybee (the gauge wheel height).

We have a macdon pickup reel, and its a piece of garbage. Bolts are always coming loose, the teeth aren't very good and when they break they slop out the holes in the bats since they just clip in. As well, the stamped steel bats bend and kink and aren't easy to fix because they are so thin.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
135 Posts
Yes that is surprisingly poor capacity, as I know of a guy that is running a Massey 9790 with a TR-99, and the Massey is just waxing the TR, with the Massey having 50%+ more capacity.

On one occaision that I saw the TR was running approximately 3MPH, while the Massey was doing 5-6MPH+

I would of thought the 7010 would of had comparable capacity to the Massey.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,334 Posts
Well yeah some thing have changed since your macdon either way the draper is the way to go.

We love our 2 36fters and the 2388's push them really good

yeah i would have thought the 7010 would do better...

hard telling might have needed some tweaking..

its always nice when guys give reports of a combine so thanks..but its always good to remember there probably some stuff to learn to make it work better in field.

I can't wait to get my color monitor...the 2588 should be here tommorow.

 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,774 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Definitely true. We've had years to fine tune our TR and can't expect the same of the 7010. The sales guy said that a horsepower update was coming for the combine still, and he had hoped to have gotten it on before our demo, so that is something to consider.

One other really nice thing are the threshing and separating modules and how easy they are to change. We were also told about 2 ribbed plates that mount in the bottom of the tailings auger that will thresh the last of the whitecaps out of the sample. Good thinking all around on something that simple that can make a huge difference in hard to thresh crops.

Should have a Cat 580R report by Wednesday or so as well. But its coming with a pickup head only.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19 Posts
Sure the conditions differ depending on location. Are 7010 with 36ft 2062 could run 5.5mph in 12%, 90 bushel wheat. Running about 1ft to 2ft of straw, no chopper. Engine load was around 90%, fuel was running from 14 to 16 gph (boost mode). It might have peaked up to 18gph, not sure. It will normally run about 17.5gph at 110%. Will find out how it runs in soybeans in about month.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,249 Posts
I think your fuel numbers are wrong my 8010 has never burnt that much in the 4 seasons I've ran it check it again it's always been a tier 3 engine just got a new dodge with the 6.7L with the fancy emission system seems to run better and get better milage than my 03. so much power it's scarey test drove a new powerjoke not even close
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,774 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
I just went by what the computer told me, so thats all I had to go on. I had no other way of checking how much it burned. Hopefully Case has built it accurately. I know the one on our MX is pretty close
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
336 Posts
you probably cant go by what the computer says as it dont take into consideration how much goes in the return line un less its set up different than the old massey tractors are. a test guy told me this the farmers union has a independent test for tractors overhere to check out leeks hp etc.

Bo
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,774 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
well, I do know that we have a 100 imperial gallon tank and in 7 hours of work it took more than a tank to fill. Probably 115 or so. And our TR would have burned about 60 or 65.
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top