The Combine Forum banner
1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
205 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I was talking to my neighbor a few days ago, and he has had a 9870 for
a few years, and he complained about his fuel usage. He said he was
burning around 2 gpa. no matter whether wheat, soybeans or corn.
Loaded or not, same gpa.

He now said he got a chip this year and it has helped.

We are new to our 9770 this year, and with a nice heavy crop of tough
wheat, 60-70 bus. we were at 1.3 gpa. Now in 40-60 bus. soybeans, things are
going through nicely, .7 gpa. 35 ft. flexdraper.

What kinds of numbers are you getting, and how is the S series on fuel
usage ?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
543 Posts
Dry wheat generally about 1gpa. Not dry have seen up to 1.5gpa with a 9760. Canola around 0.8gpa i believe, soys would be close to canola normally, but this year the stems won't dry down.:( i did a test load yesterday and the grain was dry while I could have wrung water out of the straw. Do not have experience with corn
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
5,148 Posts
Our DEF usage was 1.78% of our fuel over that three months.
Thanks fj, first time I've seen an apparently accurate, field experience number put on DEF use on the new Deere setup.:)

And...I have good news for you, you made me think, wonder if NTTL has tested any tractors with this setup yet?
Viola!:
http://tractortestlab.unl.edu/docum...+new.pdf/3959b6f9-4f26-47bd-9a05-80c805068d53

Ballpark backs up your number, I would swag that because the NTTL can load heavier and evener than any operator possibly could they're DEF use may be marginally higher as well.

How are the tanks ratio sized, how often do you fill with DEF relative to fuel?

You like #'s fj, here's the same tractor with an e23 tranny:
http://tractortestlab.unl.edu/docum....e23.pdf/75f027e3-0579-4048-9404-c68c62cbfc81

I see you to a dual fj, three things stick out for me between those two tests, will you be able to pick them out as well?:)
Or will you get some different things?;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
FASS fuel system

I just installed a FASS fuel system on my 2006 Dodge with 5.9 Cummins to help prolong the life of the pump and injectors. My runs over the weekend would typically net me about 19.7. I am now running on AVERAGE ABOUT 22.3 and have dropped operating temperature about 10'. The system will pay for itself in about 40k.


I was talking to my neighbor a few days ago, and he has had a 9870 for
a few years, and he complained about his fuel usage. He said he was
burning around 2 gpa. no matter whether wheat, soybeans or corn.
Loaded or not, same gpa.

He now said he got a chip this year and it has helped.

We are new to our 9770 this year, and with a nice heavy crop of tough
wheat, 60-70 bus. we were at 1.3 gpa. Now in 40-60 bus. soybeans, things are
going through nicely, .7 gpa. 35 ft. flexdraper.

What kinds of numbers are you getting, and how is the S series on fuel
usage ?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,806 Posts
Recently rode on the new versatile combine and fuel usage came up with operator. He was very impressed saying in 10 hour day of actual cutting, 12hr in the field, he use 130 gallons to fill it back up. Wow!! No matter how thin the crop was, I don't know, wow! Then went to say how a friend bought a S690 that is now on its second season. In a good crop it used well over 300 gallons in a 10hr day. Wow again... Keep that up and the Vers will pay for itself in fuel economy over the deere. Vers is 490 horse. Say $500 per DAY less in fuel. $25K per year payment, takes 50 days of cutting in savings over the deere to make the payment. That can't be right. I need to see these cutting together.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
5,148 Posts
Right track!

The e23 uses 3 to 5% less fuel. Still wouldn't have one as a gift over a IVT.;)

The IVT is noisier in the cab. Slightly, although overall would likely end up the same or quieter due to lower rpm used by IVT.

Neither tractor met claimed hydraulic flows!:eek:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,228 Posts
Hydro power versus mechanical power....that's why I think Case combines have such a huge power loss with all the hydraulic motors.
Tell me what is hydraulically driven besides the fan? They take power because there isn't as much room in the cage as an STS, but they still burn less fuel than a JD. It takes fuel to move all that extra weight around the field, especially on a wet year.;)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,228 Posts
Let me rephrase that....between the hydro pumps, bazillion gear boxes and CVT drives, it's a power-sapping design. Surly you must agree no? Heck, our 8230 doesn't seem to have much more gumption than our S670, and in 6 years of a flagship Case it has never had lower fuel consumption than the Deere....ever. The two S680s we ran with had lower fuel consumption than our 8230 after 6,000 acres of harvest....I ran the numbers and checked myself. Case wants to tough how efficient they are over their tier 3 motors, thank god, tier 3 couldn't have sucked much more fuel if ya tried. Those CVT drives and ultra-complex gear boxes that hang off the left side of the machine evidently must bleed off a lot of power....that's been a much-discussed theory of why they always have the "highest" horsepower in their class yet never really perform better.

And before you make any cracks about weight you better check the weight of of a new 140 series Case...they seem to have packed on the weight of a Deere!
I have never said that it is an efficient design, mostly because of the limited space inside the rotor cage for the crop material to go. However CVT drives and gearboxes aren't huge power wasters are they? Weight of a machine is very important. I can tell where the S680 drove this fall on my demo simply from the depth of the tracks, you can see it in the tractor headlights at night. Where did you get weights on the 240 series CaseIH, I can't see it on the website. I can understand the 16 liter engine being heavier in the 9240, maybe they made the chopper mounts heavier too.:rolleyes:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,393 Posts
Doesn't Rocky mtn sell every 8120 with the "Steinbauer package"? Jk! I heard from many owners that case machines need hp and after we renting one last year I can agree. I don't know if there is a more heavy feeling combine than a s680, it just feels overweight, powering out and changing ranges on hills & when it gets stuck it goes down fast! Even with 650 duals.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,393 Posts
Yah we have DEF. I think your impressed with the 670 cause they got a hp bump where the 680 is the same as a 9870 I believe. The added weight of frame/bigger hopper/emissions really shows on the 680. The 680 on 650 duals makes bigger ruts than a 9870 with 20.8r38 duals.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
205 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
It's clear the torque delivery is different for 2014 on the 9.0L, thought the 13.5 would be the same probably. I only got a 25 hp bump and to offset 5000 lbs of weight gain, so didn't think I would really notice the HP different from the 9770. It's clearly just a better pulling setup. I was hoping the FT4 would see better performance for all motors.
FJ:

The weight differences are more than you have posted.

From the Deere operators manuals.
Note, Deere does not publish machine weights in the combine sales literature, online or the glossy brochure, for the new combines, they used to for all of them.

Base machine weights :

9770 - 32,771 lbs.
S670 - 44,431

9870 - 37,243
S680 - 46,195
S690
 
1 - 18 of 18 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