The Combine Forum banner

1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Ok let's beat another dead horse around
I would like to try a gleaner Combine and the N series seems very very cheap I have looked and read all the story's about them that are out there some good and some bad!! I get it that a person wants a series three N just I am a little scared cuz they are so cheap!! Remember I have a IH and a deere in the shed good combine but I am looking for something better(IH 1688 deere 8820) I like the looks and capacity of the N7 would like to Goto 12 row but don't do a lot of acres 200 of corn. Will a N7 handle a 12 row in 200 bushel corn?? How will it hold up being pushed??
Right now I am at 8 row would it be better at 8 row?? Thanks for the input!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,740 Posts
It's coming a time where when you look for an N series (preferably a 7 because of the engine while a fair bit of 6's have been updated) you want to scrap the idea of hours and look for a machine that's still running out there. Many of these combines at least in my area have 2-2500hrs, are in need of a rebuild, have never been updated and have been in the back of the shed for 15 years

I use to run one of these machines that's exactly what I described and they have capacity, they have power but there are updates over the years to make them better, a few modds that have likely been done if you find one still in use

I say go for it, they are cheap enough to buy a couple spares and parts machines
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
597 Posts
Agree.. look for Series Three or later. The N-7 is supposed to have a more reliable engine than the six but I have had no problems with my N-6 engine. I have had two broken rear spindles on the N-6 (they are known for that) so I swapped the rear axle out with one of the newer styles from a R-50. The N-7 may have a heavier rear spindle setup but it's something you may want to check. I have no experience with corn heads but if a L-2 will handle a 8 row I see no reason why a N- 6 or 7 couldn't handle a 12 row
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,275 Posts
Remember we could be talking between 31 to 39 model years ago for the N series. We only had 1 year of warrenty then. Gleaner offered a kit called PAC 3 in 1982 for earlier machine for almost unbelievable price to upgrade any older machine. The first couple years did alot of harm to reputation and some still only have that memory. Things were refined greatly by 1982. Prior to 1982 the N6 engine was basically a hot rodded diesel engine. The engine lived well if treated like race car/diesel engine. You know warm up before reving and cool don prior to shutting down. In 1982 the fuel injction as refined very well and engine RPM reduced. Still need to treat engine like a diesel should be treated. It would be anyone guess how on of these 30 year old engines have been treated. Otherwise the machine is nuts and bolts and would need to be looked over just the same as any older machine. Cosmetic can mean nothing. After getting these machines equiped with shimmed or channel helicals the whole thing worked just great even in our tough conditions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
117 Posts
I find the N series combines are good machines. I run two N6 Gleaners. If you can get a good N7 I would jump all over it. I've ran a N7 in corn it's a beast compared to a N6 in my opinion. More than enough power to run 12 rows if your wanting too
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,045 Posts
we run a 81 N6 occasionally, and its a good old girl. IMO once they all got the update package they were plenty good, without updates, they probably had alot of suckage.

IIRC it was the letter S stamped on the SN plate to signify the update.

Like said above, the N7 is superior due to the 516 engine (official model 685I, 6 cyl, 8.5L, Intercooled) and huge 315 bu. bin.

The 6 and 7 are both 12 row capable, and I mean truly 12 row capable, lifts a 12 row at idle, no increase in pump, same rams, no rear weight, unlike other brands.

If cared for, they are reliable and have great capacity, if neglected, they will be a nightmare. Find a cared for one and you should get along great.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,072 Posts
I prefer the N series to the R62 myself. Many disagree with me but better workmanship and thought went into the N. Drive an N in extreme mud like this year and the difference is noticeable instantly. After a couple laps in the R you will likely find mud built up around the hydro belts and also the feeder house clutch pulley. Soon the mud falling in that area tears the wires off the seperator clutch and later on you will develop a noise from mud building in the pulley grooves in the wheel area. Then when you decide to quit for the day and it rains you will find yourself climbing into the R 62's inferior hard to clean, nook and cranny, hard to get into grain tank. N's were the ultimate for cleaning in this area. Simple design in the grain tank and way easier to service as well. Everything can be done from the ground greasing the machine not hanging like a monkey trying to grease the cylinder or popping the stone door for its daily clean. The N required one wrench from the ground where the R62 requires 2 and some knuckle sacrificing if not careful. The cab is bigger on the R but the placement of A/C knobs etc and Hydro handle made by Tonka toy company is a joke. Give me a N cab anyday. Nice and low and right where the action is up front. A N will travel up and down the field making circles around our R62 in crops that wrap bad. We just park the R when stuff starts wrapping. The N only suffers from a weaker auger hinge point and lower unloading auger height IMO. My N's have treated me well over the years. One I purchased had a new 8.3 mechanical installed. Bullet proof engine and R62 has the caps electronic garbage 8.3 which is forever throwing beeping codes and needed a new injection pump 3 years ago at under 2000 hrs. Air filter can't even be changed without opening the meatlocker door on the 62. Our 62 is a 2000 and has a vertical returns auger. Agco thought that this would be an improvement so you could return your canola returns back to the accelerator rolls instead of running it through the cylinder again. Concept was good where the design was not. Try and use this once and you will plug the return auger everytime as they didn't make it flow the returns easy and starts to build up with product and jams. The engagement of the main drive clutch on a 62 is a wham its engaged electric clutch. Replaced the solenoid 3 times on this in 6 years. The N has a hydraulically engaged clutch run electronically, activated with an accumulator built in the system for nice engagements everytime. R does have a nicer cage setup and no sweep but I have removed the sweep on my N's and never had a issue ever yet. No combine is perfect and improvements have been done by owners personally or updated by the manufacturer. Many of the N's out there have been updated to be great machines. Many are 30+ yrs old and still in service. If I could buy a brand new 84 N7 I would. They were a huge combine in their day and were a benchmark to beat in the day. When you consider an 860 Massey and 7720 and TR 70-75 were its competition it was king. I still remember seeing a N7 picking up a huge bly swath by Nipawin one time. We were rained out at home and went for some parts and watched this 7 pour out black smoke being pushed hard. There were 3 small grain trucks hauling from this beast of the day and could see the yard where they were hauling. The 8" auger was the bottleneck lol and the N would have to stop to let the trucks catch up. He would wait til 2 trucks were back in the field and the process would happen all over again. We had a 750 Massey which was a joke by comparison lol. I never owned an early R series but the early ones retained a lot of the N's good traits and likely many good ones were designed. Just don't see many of them anymore. You can still find more old N's than early R's
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
597 Posts
I own a '83 N-6 and a '94 R-62 and have to agree with most of the points brought up by dookiller. I still prefer to drive the N and let someone else drive the R. Never could figure out why they built the 62 so high.... Greasing that u-joint in the grain tank is a real chore on the 62. Both my machines are in the 2600 hour range. When I bought the N at auction four other owners came over to talk, two had machines with over 8000 hours on them. We'll see if a 62 lasts that long.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,740 Posts
I ran a couple N6's but that was a long time ago, I have a fellow combine forumer that has been bringing up his 62 from Nebraska and I got to say other than some wrapping of flax on the rear feed chain drive it's been flawless, I love it and keep trying to take it off his hands!

There was something about them N gleaners, I can't remember enough about them anymore but the entire rear feed chain system was at a lower angle, they seemed to feed rather well even with the old 400? Heads, I think a 700 or newer head would really wake one up plus an enclosed cylinder (PFP would be my pick) and some cage mods an N would give about any combine a run for its money.

There are some other obvious issues such as straw and chaff management that would need attention, few creature features like Sirius XM radio and LED lights but it's a pretty darn good chassis to work with with the only real but fixable exception would be the rear axle
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
597 Posts
Ah yes.. the rear axle... broke two spindles so swapped out the whole rear for a R-50 assembly. Not hard to do, just shorten the tube and drill a new hole for the retaining ring. We'll see how it works next season. Salvage yard gave me a very good deal as they now have two saleable spindles for the N-6. I would like comments from anyone who has tried this or something similar.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
117 Posts
I didn't use an R50 rear axle on my N6 but I've got one with a R60 rear axle under it. My N6 combines are an 80 and a 84 model. My 80 blew the engine a few months back but with the help of some very nice people from this forum I came across a completely rebuilt 670I engine from Canada.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,342 Posts
I bought an N7 this fall. I'm not really sure why, partly because it was something that I wanted when they were new I guess, and I am somewhat intrigued by the smoothness of the material feeding into and through the thrashing and separating process. Which is something not every combine does with perfection. I don't intend to use it much until it dries up enough to refurbish and improve some pasture land that needs it.

I did get a chance to use it for a couple of hours picking up some 40 foot canola swaths that were tough as well as weedy from a missed chemical application because of a rainstorm. It was rather impressive that a swath that was that big and wide even made it through the narrow feeder house, but since the swath was even, it was no issue at all. I kept the concave choked up fairly close because I didn't want to wad up the rotor or impeller with a bunch of long intact plant stems.

From what I can see, this one has excellent flat bar spirals in the original configuration and a very good cage and rub bars. I think I'm going to leave it this way, at least for a while. My local salvage operator told me that most of the cages he sees that are worn badly, are bad on the discharge end not on the thrashing end. Since he has only had 5's and 6's, I think they may have spent there lives with the concave clearance on the wider side, or modified with a more aggressive helical set up because they are maybe a little under powered compared to the N7.

I haven't formed too much of an opinion about it yet other than it definitely will feed a tough canola swath smoothly into the transverse rotor. Also, its 84 inch wide trans-axial fan that does not draw it's air in from the ends, but rather draws it in from across its full width (practically) defies logic as to how it even works. The only other example of that fan design I have been able to discover, is a little used and rare fireplace blower. I can't find any scientific data on this type of fan or more precisely blower design at all. It is very unusual that's for sure, but has the capacity to provide a 3rd stage of separation with only its 11 inches of diameter.
.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,121 Posts
We still have our N7's. Don't know why we didn't drag them off to the auction just been parked. I'd call Ritche Bro's and put the whole farm up for auction before I ever went out to the field with one of those again! Since we owned and operated them we get a vote and they ARE THAT BAD.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3 Posts
Looking at buying an n6 just for fun, I am a Deere man but they look cool, there is one for sale with 1800 hrs on it has not been used since 2001 shedded every night, 1983 series 3, it would stick out amongst 3 Deere but I like 80s tech
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
536 Posts
The newer Gleaners are great. The first three years of the N series were a nightmare, they got a little better but not until the 2 series did they have a much more reliable machine. Today's Gleaners are as good if not better than anything made. Plus they are old... old, think you would be better with a good used M3 or L3. Simple and a much better machine. Good Luck if you go down the N road. My best advice is if you go look at one, before you get out of your truck, put it in reverse and haul arse.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
39 Posts
Also, its 84 inch wide trans-axial fan that does not draw it's air in from the ends, but rather draws it in from across its full width (practically) defies logic as to how it even works. The only other example of that fan design I have been able to discover, is a little used and rare fireplace blower. I can't find any scientific data on this type of fan or more precisely blower design at all. It is very unusual that's for sure, but has the capacity to provide a 3rd stage of separation with only its 11 inches of diameter.
.
The cross-flow or tangential fan gets a lot of flow and pressure out of a small package which I suppose is an advantage for the Gleaner cleaning system. One thing I read about them recently is that the design of the case and the clearances are critical for proper performance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_fan#Cross-flow_fan

The only other machine I have seen them on was a locally (Aussie) made Massey combine (MF542). My dad bought one in the 1970s and it was our first self-propelled machine. It never worked well because it never had enough air flowing over the sieves. We had the head engineers of MF looking over it at various times. They agreed it wasn't performing properly but were never able to figure out the problem.

Recently I was reading a bit of history about MF Australia on the web and discovered what the problem was...30-something years later. Apparently there was one particular spray painter in the Massey factory who was short of stature. When he was painting the insides of the machines he used to climb up on the fan casing to reach the high spots. Of course this slightly bent the casing which threw out the fine tolerances needed for the cross flow fan to work properly.

At the time it caused us no end of problems but it was nice to find out the problem after all these years. :)
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top