The Combine Forum banner
1 - 20 of 25 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
390 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
What's with these tier 4 engines? Currently running a 2014 S670 and can't keep up to a 9770 in the same field. Also when I turn on the unload I have to pull back on the stick or it will nearly kill. Not our first experience with a tier 4 dog but was hoping the addition of def would open it up more.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,393 Posts
We run S680s so I don't have experience withe S670 but if a 9770 & 670 have the same HP and one has alot more mass to lug around which one will have more performance? There is absolutely no way you can compare a S670 to a Case combine for engine performance. They have a totally power delivery system, one has belts & pulleys, the other has hyd drive. Whichever one has a more efficient system will "feel" like it has more hp.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,228 Posts
There is absolutely no way you can compare a S670 to a Case combine for engine performance. They have a totally power delivery system, one has belts & pulleys, the other has hyd drive. Whichever one has a more efficient system will "feel" like it has more hp.
I am not going to sit here and claim that the CaseIH rotor is the most efficient system out there but let's be clear: It's not a hydraulic drive on anything but the fan and straw spreaders. The rotor is driven by a CVT which is primarily gears, at some speeds entirely gear-driven. If anyone believes otherwise they are listening to their salesman too much.;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
109 Posts
This is why all the Deere dealers that traded 9770s in wanted customers to go with the 680. Before anybody blasts this post this is from 3 multi store dealerships, that sell appox. 100 new machines a year.
Exactly I know of several owners who went from 9770,s to s670,s and were very disappointed, one owner commented that his s670 couldn't pull the skin off a rice custard.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
155 Posts
I am not going to sit here and claim that the CaseIH rotor is the most efficient system out there but let's be clear: It's not a hydraulic drive on anything but the fan and straw spreaders. The rotor is driven by a CVT which is primarily gears, at some speeds entirely gear-driven. If anyone believes otherwise they are listening to their salesman too much.;)
New to case combines but notice with new to us 20 series when set so rotor motor is running efficient barely lugs. Have demoed a 9770 and 7120. When set right case easily out lugs Deere. Could of been Deere demo setup. Wasn't happy with lugging capacity. Dragged down rotor to warning lights w 35' header. Trying to outpace our 9500 w 25' in 55 bushel an acre wheat. Tough conditions but come on. No reverser. Doesn't make much sense either
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,550 Posts
Shameless self-serving plug: Buy a Steinbauer box from me and fall in love all over again with your Green Machine. I'm sorry, I couldn't help myself.
....and void your warranty since JDLink forwards on the engine data that shows it runs out of factory speck......just saying.....
Definitely a warning to anyone thinking of putting steinbauer chips on any newer engine, say newer than 2013 in the US. EPA regs require the engine computer to detect chips now, and throw permanent error codes. Can't speak for John Deere specifically, but I do know if you try to chip an FPT engine, it will throw a code that can't be cleared unless you replace the ECU ($$$), though it will run fine. BUT if you have any engine problems, and take the engine into the dealer for service, they are required by law to report this engine modification to the men in black and you'll get a $60,000 fine. Case won't reveal the serial number split when this new detection was added to shipping ECUs, but I understand that 2014s for sure have it. And I'm sure John Deere has it now too, since it is law.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
413 Posts
Definitely a warning to anyone thinking of putting steinbauer chips on any newer engine, say newer than 2013 in the US. EPA regs require the engine computer to detect chips now, and throw permanent error codes. Can't speak for John Deere specifically, but I do know if you try to chip an FPT engine, it will throw a code that can't be cleared unless you replace the ECU ($$$), though it will run fine. BUT if you have any engine problems, and take the engine into the dealer for service, they are required by law to report this engine modification to the men in black and you'll get a $60,000 fine. Case won't reveal the serial number split when this new detection was added to shipping ECUs, but I understand that 2014s for sure have it. And I'm sure John Deere has it now too, since it is law.
Oh my, fear mongering and misinformation
abounds. I don't want to hijack this thread, so I'll gladly discuss the issue in a new one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
390 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
No one is denying the 2012-2013 machines were not so hot on power. The poster is commending on a FT4 DEF, an engine that has completely different power characteristics. Commenting on the iT4 engine is not really what is being discussed here. You realize the FT4 S670 can generate under load the basically the same rated horsepower as a 9870...and uses less fuel doing so, too.
It's possible that the ft4 engines have completely different tuning but I can't detect any infield difference from last year's model to this. As far as fuel use is concerned I'm blowing a whopping 6 litres (1.6 us gal) an acre in wheat not unlike last year's it4 engine. There is definitely a set back with the ramping up of this emission garbage. We use to run 9610s with half the purchase price and half the fuel and only marginally less capacity especially in soggy years like this. Where's the progress?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,232 Posts
It's possible that the ft4 engines have completely different tuning but I can't detect any infield difference from last year's model to this. As far as fuel use is concerned I'm blowing a whopping 6 litres (1.6 us gal) an acre in wheat not unlike last year's it4 engine. There is definitely a set back with the ramping up of this emission garbage. We use to run 9610s with half the purchase price and half the fuel and only marginally less capacity especially in soggy years like this. Where's the progress?
There isn't any, we are running a 9610, and a T670. There isn't much difference in capacity other than the extra fuel the T drinks. I won't even go there with my 9660sts, small seeds leak out of it like water, great pea and bean combine though. Seriously looking at a lexion for next year, I'm sick of Deere regressing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,550 Posts
Oh my, fear mongering and misinformation
abounds. I don't want to hijack this thread, so I'll gladly discuss the issue in a new one.
If you have information to the contrary, I'll be happy to hear of it on a new thread. Let me know what section you start it in. In the meantime I don't consider it fear-mongering or misinformation. As near as I know it is the truth. I'm sure you stand behind your products... will you replace a customers' ECU when it throws this unclearable code? If so I'm sure you could find some 2014 Case combines to try it on.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
413 Posts
There is a new thread, look up a little to where I posted a link, (now who's ignorance is showing?) in the technology section. I'll stop posting in this thread out of respect to the general populace.
 
1 - 20 of 25 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