ill say compare sales between the two and then tell me why they should release a true class 8 yet?
Why make a massive change, when your sales are bigger and bigger every year? people buy deere because of service a reliability...waiting over an hour for cat/lexion to showup with a service truck is unacceptable, i can call deere and they'll be in our field in 10minutes.
Everytime we get a demo our Deeres seem to be a decent class 8. We put a 8010 against our 9860 and they were even. 9860 vs 590R, Cat was definitely bigger living up to its class 9 label and the same thing when we our 9870 vs a 9120. But there is very little difference between a 9770 & 9870, but if you can't run a Deere beside other similar class machines you don't know how to set it.
...as well as any other crop that causes it to rumble and romp! Every time an STS romps, it takes a big gulp of fuel and plops out a wad of grain with whatever caused it to romp. That, and too short a cleaning system (overall grain loss), are the main reasons I gave up on the STS concept.
You guys are comparing a class 8 to a class 9, well no $#!% there is going to be difference. I think the true test for a combine is in small grains like wheat. All the combines are going to do about the same in corn and in beans. I don't get were you guys are get the test in corn when you combine corn there is nothing but cobs going through the machine in corn.
we run anywhere from 4.5mph in 250+bu corn to 6mph in 170bu corn and have very little loss...well within the industry acceptable 1%. An sts does chew wet corn a little more than our 9600 did, but thats when you just opent he concave a little more and bump the rotor speed.
I think deere reccomends 300-400rpm for corn wet/dry and we were running around 470 and it worked great, opened the concaves to 21 and let the natural centrigual force work its magic.
I'm still wondering about this class size. No one seems to able to tell me what "class" actually is. Is this a regulated standard? If so who's in charge? I don't disagree some machines are more productive than others but maybe we need to measure productivity. Why talk class size if the designation is unregulated and undefined, what weight does this classification hold? From what I can tell all manufacturers go up a class size when they release a machine that has more HP than the previous model (ie. CR9070 ("class 8") to CR9080 ("class 9")). So why does a 9860 ("class 8") not go up a class when they added HP to it (9870)? Was the 9860 only a class 7, is the 9870 now a class 8?
And if class size is only a reflection of HP shouldn't the weight of the machine, and how efficiently that machine uses the HP also be part of the equation (given that an inefficient, heavy machine would require more HP just to propel it in the field). HP doesn't neccesarily reflect productivity. Older conventional machine could have all the HP in the world but were still limited by walker loss in many situations.
I would love for someone to shed some light on this issue. Currently class size seems to be nothing more than a clever marketing spin that doesn't accuretly reflect true machine productivity between manufacturers. How can anyone possibly use this to measure a machines capability?
I really don't want to have the service guys here within 10 minutes of me calling. Makes me wonder if they are just waiting on their junk to break down. Takes longer than 10 minutes to pull parts to head out on a service call unless they keep their truck stocked. But if they keep their truck stocked with commonly broken parts then it really makes me believe that its a known problem and the only way they know how to fix it is to throw new parts at it instead of actually solving the problem.