The Combine Forum banner
1 - 7 of 7 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
439 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Saw this thread on the CIH and thought it would do well here as well. So what is the best Gleaner ever made for its time??

I think I have to vote L2 and I also think its one of the best of any brand all time.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
19 Posts
I ran an old MH for many years. Seed quality sample, easy on the fuel, and minimal overhaul required. Sometimes wish it was still around. Traded it for a JD 6602. The 02 did better on the hillsides, but the old gleaner was hard to beat.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
519 Posts
My vote goes to the L2's also. Back when they came out they were a pretty large combine for its time, and it seemed to completely dominate any other combines around so in its prime it seemed like everyone had an L. They were very well designed combines, with lots of capacity, low fuel use, and barely ever broke down. We got our L2 new in 1982 and just replaced it this year, it went strong for 27 years with very minimal breakdowns and is still going strong, we just needed more size.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
597 Posts
1982 L-2 Corn Special, Golden Harvest Edition... Solid, quiet, pleasing appearance, easy to maintain and still running strong after all these years! I've run other models of Gleaners and other makes of combines but this is my favourite....
 

· Registered
Joined
·
5,380 Posts
L Series by far, along with the sister mate M Series.

Sure the Model L had its growing pains, but thanks to certain dealers who weeded out those first L's and later the M's, the corp actually responded. I also know a certain CH who was instrumental in the shaping of this combine. By 1975, the L was doing good and even better, by 1976.

1977 put this combine back where it should be--a leader in harvest run business. At the time, only 3 of the 6 combine companies were really serious among CH's.

AGCO's big mistake, was not bringing the L4 back, under its own roof. By then, another, even larger conventional, like one with at least a 52 to 60 inch wide cylinder, should have been built. Still, as some have noted, the L's 48" cylinder was fully capable of keeping up with many 55" ones, due to the arrangement of the separator components and grain handling systems.
 
1 - 7 of 7 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