I think a 2388 would easily run with two 1460's. We have a 2366 with a 25' Harvestmore flex head and can cut almost as much as we could with a 1440 and a 1460. One day this fall we cut 7,500 bushel of beans and had field averages of over 700 bph and these weren't easy cutting beans. For us running one bigger combine with a grain cart is just as productive as running two smaller combines without the cart and it's easier too.
As others have said, a 2388 with a 30' flex or a 30' or 36' flexdraper would handle 1700 acres of soybeans without a problem. I've seen many more acres of this crop shoved through one of them without a problem. Which header is best depends on the majority of the terrain, mostly flat draper works well, if you have lots of hills, terraces, or the like stick with the flex auger head. The flexdraper will follow the ground, but not quite as well as a true flex auger header.
Shoot for one equipped with the AFX rotor since the primary crop is soybeans, it'll be the best suited rotor for this. I would suggest going with a 2002 model year or newer to gain the belt engage seperator as well as having the good hydraulic reverser as opposed to the electric.
If you shop around you should be able to find a good deal that can be swung.
Quote:sounds like a good deal regarding them oddball numbers up there, ive heard of 21s having a bit of wireing problems and a few annoyances that didnt get worked out right by the time they were in the feild, plus they were short lived.
but you have run them and all im squakin is hearsay..so...
i know ive been lookin at them for a year or so.
There is some truth to that, the early 1995 models did experience some issues with the new electrical system when the 2100s came out, but by now those issues would have been sorted out in those model years. The 1996 and 97 models had these issues sorted out from the factory.
I wouldn't shy away from the 2100s for being short lived. The guts of them are identical to the 1644/66/88s, the 2100s just gave you the new hydraulic system, cab, and a few other odds and ends, all of which carried on through to the 2300s that came out in 98.
I agree with Cropcutter. The electrical issues were solved within the first year or so of the 2100 Series. After al, it was an improvement over the 1600's in electronics and ergonomics, not a complete new design. Yes, that does go for the separator innards, too.
It's my opinion, more people stay away from the 2100's for the same reason they avoid the 1600's. They are simply an older edition, and many want to stay more current, especially to tailor their finances, loans or whatever. It does not mean the 2100's are flawed by any means.
Overall, after just shy of 30 full years, I look at our Axial-Flows as not only an outstanding design, but an industry standard. Say what you will about an "aging" design or style, but as I keep saying, "Don't fix what's not broke."
Really, instead of the new design , I'd have rather just seen a bigger Axial-Flow, putting the same old, reliable design to the field, with as much more capacity as the 2388 has over the 2366.
Quote:not to good with computer stuff hope this does what I want.
Age of a machine is not all that important to me Although the condition is.
with that said what do you think of a good 1680- 2188
instead of a 2388? grabon
Personally, with the 88 size machines, if I couldn't have a fairly late model 2388 (2002 or newer), I would have to say the best bang for the buck is the 1688. You have the guts of the 2X88s in a somewhat simplier package. Granted you are giving up some creature comforts, but those cabs aren't all that bad. Hydraulic system isn't quite as updated so you have a few disadvantages there, but overall you have the power and all that to have a pretty productive machine at a good price. Electrical system is still the same as the 1680s, so no new learning curve there, though as much as some people complain the 2300s is very easy to trace and understand.
There are quite a few people out there that call the 1688 their favorite Axial Flow of them all, even while operating a 2388. It'll handle a 30' flexhead with ease.
plowmaster and casefarmer, differences in the hydraulic system mainly come from the addition of a PFC pump. It runs the header functions, unload auger swing, steering cylinders, and header lift. The gear pump handles the brakes (BIG difference there over 1600s as anyone operating both can attest to, multi-disk oil bath), unload/feeder engagement, and reel drive circuits. The PFC pump addition makes all the circuits off of it much more responsive from my experiences with it.
As for hoses and that, there are some different componants, but I wouldn't say its anymore complicated to work with if you have any hydraulics knowledge at all. There are a few more solenoids to control the circuits, but no biggies there.