The Combine Forum banner

1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,007 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Seems everyone is very quiet in regards to the pro's & con's of the CX? I'm just interested in their performance as I'm getting a little disillusioned with the never ending expense of running rotory machines & the "white-knuckle" ride when operating a rotory in tough conditions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,799 Posts
Ran them for years. Stick with the small one. We ran 880's wich were the biggest at the time and they couldn't save grain for the life of them. Other than that they were reliable, did well in tough conditions, probably better than dry. Run lexions now, seem to be the best of both worlds. Good in tough conditions and excellent at saving grain.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22 Posts
Ran a CX 840 for 6 years. Harvested wheat, canola, barley and oats. We were satisfied with the performance of the CX. It was limited in barley crops. If the ground speed was up it would blow barley over the sieves worse than the other crops. Wide feeder-house is excellent in CPS wheat, oats and canola. Stone protection is also very good. Has a simple stone trap which catches all rocks. Fuel consumption was also excellent. If not set properly it could severely damage the grain. Cracks were definitely higher with the CX compared to the CR 9070 we are currently running. Never had any major breakdowns but yearly had to change the couplers on the chaff blowers and chopper knives. Blowing chaff into the chopper we believe causes the knives to wear prematurely. In canola crops if the chopper knives were dull it would have the tendency to plug the walkers. Not a fun job to clear but we think the rounded knives wouldn't grab the straw as it fell over the walkers causing it to bridge and eventually plug. Sounds weird but as soon as that happened we would turn the knives or change them all together and the problem never happened again. We had 1000 hours on the machine when we traded it in and at that time the original feeder chain and rasp bars were changed at the local dealer. At the time we ran a 21 foot swather no direct cut. Crop yields vary with rain but in good years we harvested 100 bu CPS wheat, 120 bu barley, 150 bu oats and 67 bu canola. Combine ground speed was always around 5.0 mph. Engine load at 90%. Losses were acceptable. We liked the combine but like the sample quality better in a twin rotor which is why we went back to a CR after running TR's in the late 80's and 90's. I hope this helps in your decision
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,007 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Thanks for your comments. I've since spoken to others who have run CX & have a wide variety of responses. Everyone said they were very reliable. Why do you think they have trouble in barley - is it walker or sieve loss?
From what you are quoting, you are getting approximately 35t/hr out of them?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts
always find the newholland worse for losses on sieves as the returns go back into grain pan too big a header and large crops seem to be big factor, never have much prob with losses on walkers, but friends lexions have losses on walkers and not on sieves due to returns going into drum . if we could have mixture of both combines it would be some combine.find the cx throat not long enough as u tend to sit hunch back peering over front but very good cab.i find this combine very poor at climbing even with diff lock think they must be very tail heavy and recomed 4 wd as guys with them say they will climb anywhere with in reason.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22 Posts
Yes I would agree with 66 in that the CX would throw over the sieves before the walkers. In barley there is so much material that I think the barley gets caught and goes out the back. Also another comment is that the CX needs to use a lot of air to elevate the chaff off of the sieves which always helps the separation of the seeds from the chaff. Our fan speed settings are always on the higher end of the spectrum on cereal crops in order to do so.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
93 Posts
Does anyone know what a cx840 should be worth? There were a couple that sold at a sale near here last week.
The 2005 with 1000 hours sold for 92000 and the 2004 with 1800 hours went for 87000. Both were loaded, came with p/u, and were always maintained at the dealer. Seemed cheap to me but I wasn't in the market for a conventional combine.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,007 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
Does anyone know if there are Loewen concaves available for the CX? If so, has anyone fitted one & what are the results?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts
no sure about different sieves i,m sure they will be good quite few german manufactors do them i think.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,007 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
I recently had a look at a CX860 that has/is being used to harvest a wide variety of crops & in all sorts of conditions. Impressed with what they can handle. With a couple of mods in the concave, to reduce/stop "whiteheads" in wheat, I can see no reason why there should be any troubles. Will probably reduce/stop the sieve overloading in barley as well. What you can definitely say about them is that they are strongly built.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
You can get de-awning slats to put in the concave of a CX. I think the price would be around $400.

Sieve loss in barley is usually only a concern in good harvesting conditions. When the straw breaks up easier and overloads the sieves.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
Hello guys, I hope you will forgive my bad English.
I live in Italy and work in a company of contractors. We've ten combine:
- 2 N.H. CX 8090 (2007 - 2009)
- 1 N.H. CX 8050 (2008)
- 1 N.H. CR 960 (2006)
- 1 J.D. 9780 CTS (2003)
- 1 N.H. CX 880 (2001)
- 2 N.H. TX 67 (1999)
- 1 N.H. TX 64 (1997)
- 1 N.H. TX 62 (1996)






It's clear we prefer conventional combine. In the past we had some rotary combines like 2 N.H. TR 85 and after we had an IH 1460 and a CaseIH 1660.
Them they have never fully complied with on the ground that were difficult to set up the changing situations of crop moisture.
With a high moisture harvesting combines these suffered much compared to conventional combine harvester.
The rotary combine harvesters we had, including CR 960, show low performance compared to conventional combine on wheat with long or damp straw. in that condition JD CTS is better than CR 960. In our condition the only benefit of rotary combines than conventional combine is grain safeguard and grain integrity.

I think rotary combine is better than conventional combine only on soybean and corn crop.

What do you think about ?

Thank You

Look us on www.terratech.it
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
There is slowly starting to be a shift from conventional combines to rotory combines in Europe. Five years ago they didn't build any rotory combines at Zegeldum. Now they are building more CR's (only for the European market) than Grande Island. The biggest factor is the big horse power in the CR combines like the CR9070 and up. The CR9090 was designed and manufactured for the European market.

People I have talked to that have gone from CX860's to CR970's say that the rotory performs better in good conditions. And that it performs as well as the CX in tough conditions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
549 Posts
We have been running a 2003 model CX 860 here in Sth Queensland for the last 3 seasons. I have been very pleased with the reliability of it, with very little down time in the 700 hours we have put on it.

Our machine has self levelling sieves and last season the bracket at the back of the shoe frame that the whole thing rolls on snapped clean off. We had to improvise to complete the harvest by basically chaining up the rear of the shoe frame to keep it level. Very crude but worked for 3000 acres left we had to do. We are on flat ground and if i had a choice i wouldn't have self levelling sieves as it is one more thing that can go wrong. We have recently had trouble with the levelling actuator too, so i'm really not a fan of the self levelling when not required.

We have done a fairly major overhaul on our machine at about 1600 hours, replacing many of the wear items, ie. feeder house chain, drum bars, concave, bubble up auger, chopper blades, etc, etc. We have put a Loewen concave in now Rod but only done about 30 hours in sorghum but so far have been happy with it. We have much trouble cracking sorghum with the CX and it seems much improved this season after the overhaul. I would agree with the comment on the chaff motors, they are a one a season change those little couplers.

All in all though been quite pleased with the CX. A little faster road speed would be nice with the max about 29 kph on ours.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,007 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
Thanks for your comments Pete. When my CX8080 turns up & I eventually get it into some crop, I'll know for certain what the "good & not-so good" aspects of the machine will be.
As far as road speed goes - you may like to think of an alternative. http://www.headertransport.com.au/page7.html
It is becoming more apparent that road traffic authorities in all states are taking a very large detailed look at people moving ag machinery on road. The machinery is 21st century but the road rules are 19th century.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
Question....Got a CX 840 and for some reason I cant keep the chaff off the rad....Not sure how it keeps coming in ? within 1 to 2 hrs of combining tit starts to over heat...

Any ideas?
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Top