The Combine Forum banner

1 - 20 of 32 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
212 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Has anyone considered that the '7' in super 7 may refer to the fact that it may be powered by the 7 cylinder sisu engine. It seems plausible that if in fact this new machine has a larger capacity processor and the fact that the basic 6 cylinder sisu engine has already been maxed out on power in the R76 with its processor, any larger processor that has more thru-put capacity will indeed need more hp. If they are still trying to use the basic 6 cylinder engine, then a larger processor would not add any performance. If they are still trying to ramp up the current 6 cylinder engine (513 cubic inches), they will have blundered.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
101 Posts
I'm skeptical it would have the 7 cylinder. Consider that a large rotor doesn't necessarily require more horsepower. A larger rotor will be more efficient at higher capacities than a smaller rotor. I imagine a class 8 transverse will come along eventually, but I can't imagine the name refers to the engine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
87 Posts
The 7 cylinder engine will probably be in future Gleaner combines. I believe the development boys are still working on it. As I understand the Super7 has the 6 cylinder Sisu.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
48 Posts
I'm not sure that I'm on board with the thought that a larger rotor doesn't require more horsepower. A larger rotor will hold more crop because there is more surface area which will create more resistance to turning the rotor and the increased radius of the rotor will require more torque for the same amount of resistance. A longer lever makes it easier to pry on something, but this is the reverse affect when you are trying to "pry" or rotate from the center out. When you are trying to handle more crop at a faster rate, more horsepower is needed. There's no way around it, when you try to do more work it takes more power. Plus if this combine threshes more crop, it is going to need more air from the fan which takes horsepower too. The engineers are going to have to have something up their sleeve in the engine department. Maybe they have developed a new horsepower program which takes the 6 cylinder to its absolute limit, but that would be problematic. The 7 cylinder solution would seem to be the logical choice. Anything less would be a disappointment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
212 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Couldn't have said it better spongebob. There is no cheating in the world of physics unlike finance and marketing. All 'work' is a function of force and time. Unless the old P3 processor was very mechanically inefficient and their new unit is more efficient, the same horsepower is simply not going to make any great difference. From what I've been told the R76 has no extra hp. The super 7 needs more power to do more work and if it doesn't have it, then they have improved on perpetual motion. If it doesn't have the 9.8 litre 7 cylinder, they will have a tough time convincing customers to switch over. With all the company generated hype, they can't afford to make a underpowered unit. Remember when the first magnum tractors were introduced in the 80's, they had no lack of power and that performance impressed buyers and put CaseIH back in the tractor business. If Agco can't deliver on this super 7 it will be a great opportunity squandered. As far as perfected goes, this 7 cylinder engine is simply made up using most components already proven with the exception of the block, crank and camshaft. It has already been introduced to the public some time back and surely has proven reliable. It shouldn't add that much cost to the engine to have the extra cylinder and make it affordable for combine use. Look how long the M11 was used in the R72-75's at almost 11 litres. Sure it didn't have common rail and charge air intercooling but it was still adequate because of its cubic inches. There is no excuse for a combine with the claimed capacity of the super 7 to be short on engine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
581 Posts
Having run a 75 with a M11 and one with a Sisu, they have some work to do. Maybe the rated hp is the same, but the torque on the M11 in tough beans is very apparent. The simple fact is there is no replacement for displacement. Kind of like saying a 300hp M11 will work right with a N14 with 300hp.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
101 Posts
I should have reconsidered what I said before posting. Yes, it will take more horsepower, I agree. However, if the old rotor was, for example, 80% efficient at a high harvest rate and the new rotor is 90% efficient due to the larger threshing area, it would technically require less horsepower. If this is the case, it would be possible to use the same horsepower and still gain harvesting rate.

Remember, we don't know exactly what has been improved here. Hopefully they managed to make other functions of the combine require less horsepower, freeing up more power for the rotor.

Just imagine this: If it does as well as they tout with a 6 cylinder engine, imagine what it'll do if they release a 7 cylinder later on.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
401 Posts
I think lookinglass is kicking himself in the a$$ right now, and just having a hard time saying a Gleaner R is the only combine worth while having
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
175 Posts
I have been wondering if they could have freed up some power by using versions of their CVT in place of hydrostat, variable speed rotors, and variable speed feeder house. A CVT would make a dandy reverser as well on feeder. It seems some efficiency could be gained in those places. I am anxious to see what the R&D folks have come up with. I would love to see Gleaner become a REAL player in the harvester market again.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
337 Posts
Would seem to me that rotor and cage size has been increased, that would make tip speed faster. To move 40 ' of cut it has to be going through the combine faster, that in turn means the chopper and discharge must be larger, along with a spreader change.Maybe the feeder house changes speed by ground speed of the machine. Just thinking out loud.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
581 Posts
Yeah. I want a machine that I have to wait to get parts for, can't get reliable service and get my teeth kicked in on resale at trade in time. AGCO needs more than some warmed over machine to be competetive in the corn belt. Maybe they can compete in the wheat market.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
337 Posts
Parts? My dealer carries inventory, if needed to order overnight direct shipped, service is excellent, haved shopped and traded enough to know how deceiving resale can be. You can warm a Gleaner over and have a high capacity machine, the competition has to go back to the board and change.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,232 Posts
folks can't assume makes a a's out ya, chill out, lets see results, bottom line, agco has did dumb things, lets see what they bring to us, scott.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
379 Posts
I really hope there is improvements to residue management. We were able to run an 09 R76 last fall and not much different than our R72. it was a mechanical drive not hydraulic though. We like the machines but are finding the straw and chaff management marginal especially after a large canola crop where 90% or more comes off the shoe, it has the larger fins and can put some chaff 30' but still seems to leave to thick a mat about 15-20' wide. I would like to see a system similar to the 8120 CIH unit with the straw being directed into 2 counter rotating spinners with the chaff. I wish Agco and Gleaner good luck with this unit, our 2 series machines have been very reliable and our dealer excellent with parts, only 2 times since 1995 have they not had the part in stock.
 
G

·
The one problem I see in using the CVT for driving the rotor is space. The last time I looked there wasn't a lot of space on the side of the machine. There use to be only enough room for the variable speed drive and clean grain auger. It would take some engineering to pull that off.

As for the engine, who's to say they haven't stuck a C13 cat in it. They use that engine in the big Massey.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
101 Posts
The transverse has been using a CVT to drive the rotor since... as long as I can remember. The variable speed belt drive that drives the rotor gearbox is a type of CVT.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
379 Posts
Boy that really looks like a nice spreading job. I hope to see it in soybeans to see what kind of a job it does in green stems as far as sizing the stalks. What has the wheat yields been that you are in. The earlier pictures looked like it was kind of heavy and lodged, did it gobble it right up?
 
1 - 20 of 32 Posts
Top