The Combine Forum banner
1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,314 Posts
I have never seen one working. I liked the idea of the auger able to unload on either side.
LOL...you had to look fast. As noted most people tried to put too much HP to them, as did our neighbor. They'd go like stink for 20 minutes and spend the rest of the afternoon under those nice big work shades. Great idea, great capacity, just poorly executed. I've often thought if you could take the basic design of a 914, incorporate the innovations of the 2000, and build it with the biggest JD drives, there would still be a market for a machine that could be produced at a fraction of the cost of the new self propelled ones.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,283 Posts
LOL...you had to look fast. As noted most people tried to put too much HP to them, as did our neighbor. They'd go like stink for 20 minutes and spend the rest of the afternoon under those nice big work shades. Great idea, great capacity, just poorly executed. I've often thought if you could take the basic design of a 914, incorporate the innovations of the 2000, and build it with the biggest JD drives, there would still be a market for a machine that could be produced at a fraction of the cost of the new self propelled ones.
Curious what you are referring to on the 914 - I know nothing about them. Simple machine, mechanically?

Bruce
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
848 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
The IH 914 was a pull-type 915 with a conventional cleaning fan. They were more popular than the JD 6601, etc, around here, even though we had a local JD dealer and it was at least half an hour to the nearest IH dealers.

The IH 1482 was another pull-type that couldn't take too much power. A neighbour had a stack of wrapped concaves and burnt rotor belts in his shed. He had a Case 2670 on it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,314 Posts
In terms of design, the 914 was incredibly simple...which ultimately was it's strong point. Like the 2000, it was underdesigned from a logistical point of view in terms of shaft size, bearing size etc., but it had potential in terms of expansion from it's original status. I'm just saying not everyone is in the market to buy a $500,000 combine. With todays MFWD tractors going well over 200 HP, there is a niche for a really good PTO combine that is still competitive as long as it doesn't drag you down the hill.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
5,271 Posts
The only combine tested over two seasons at PAMI.

The Versatile 2000 has the distinction of being the only combine that received two PAMI reports:
http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/eng7918/$FILE/532.pdf

You can't tell from that but Interim report #499 came out the year before listing all the things needed done to it that had made the combine unacceptable.
It became the only combine ever tested over two seasons.
Losses were too high regardless of feed rate was the main reason.

Versatile had the bad stroke of luck to be tested beside (but not compared to) this combine:
http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/eng7932/$FILE/474.pdf
And it rolled up the lowest losses at the highest feed rates ever seen to that point by PAMI.

If only PAMI was testing today!:(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,314 Posts
LOL... I like the quote in the first report... a "few" mechanical problems occurred. Expensive machine to own too, if you bought new, even disregarding repairs. Our neighbor paid $90k for one of the later ones, and traded it for $2k with less than 8,000 acres on it. I think we paid $18k for our year old 914 and traded it for $7k over 10 years later. We didn't have that nice shady spot to work under though.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,233 Posts
Albertabuck and I for sure have seen these work, AB may still be using one.:confused:

Yes, the 270 degree unload auger was it's best feature.:)

Yes they lasted better if kept on a smaller tractor as they were under designed...everywhere.
Actually been a few years now, but there are two ready to roll if needed and if I had drivers.

As for some of the other's comments....I won't deny they have their quirks and some of the original build design left things to be desired, but once a few modifications were made and mountings and such rebuilt, they are a very productive machine. Like anything of course there are little issues that keep arising, show me a combine that don't. Undeniably, being a good welder and having the ability to redesign things makes owning and successfully running them a lot better:)

Once things like properly mounting the gear box so it didn't break in half, and other such items, they can easily handle 200 ponies and make those ponies earn their oats. As PAMI found out, losses really don't change from running empty to being fully loaded, so the harder you push it, the better it is.

In cereals, will run circles around my 1682. Had they come on the scene earlier and gotten the rest of the bugs out of them, they would have been a machine to have been reckoned with. As for if there is a market for a new pull type, not sure. I picked up a sweet shedded 1482 just for the tires recently at a sale, after it became mine on a single $500 bid, we realized the rotor belt laying on the feeder house was brand new CIH, and when I got it home and opened it up and peeked inside, concaves and bars like new. Got looking in toolbox and found the manual, inside the back cover showed everything done to it and the work it had done in the last twenty some years, under a thousand acres on all new guts, chains and adjustable air foil chaffer. Way too good to wreck, so guess keep it as another back up. So when you can buy a used on in that kind of shape for those few dollars, there is no market for a new one. Besides, I don't think most today would be caught dead running a pull type anyway;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,582 Posts
Actually been a few years now, but there are two ready to roll if needed and if I had drivers.

As for some of the other's comments....I won't deny they have their quirks and some of the original build design left things to be desired, but once a few modifications were made and mountings and such rebuilt, they are a very productive machine. Like anything of course there are little issues that keep arising, show me a combine that don't. Undeniably, being a good welder and having the ability to redesign things makes owning and successfully running them a lot better:)

Once things like properly mounting the gear box so it didn't break in half, and other such items, they can easily handle 200 ponies and make those ponies earn their oats. As PAMI found out, losses really don't change from running empty to being fully loaded, so the harder you push it, the better it is.

In cereals, will run circles around my 1682. Had they come on the scene earlier and gotten the rest of the bugs out of them, they would have been a machine to have been reckoned with. As for if there is a market for a new pull type, not sure. I picked up a sweet shedded 1482 just for the tires recently at a sale, after it became mine on a single $500 bid, we realized the rotor belt laying on the feeder house was brand new CIH, and when I got it home and opened it up and peeked inside, concaves and bars like new. Got looking in toolbox and found the manual, inside the back cover showed everything done to it and the work it had done in the last twenty some years, under a thousand acres on all new guts, chains and adjustable air foil chaffer. Way too good to wreck, so guess keep it as another back up. So when you can buy a used on in that kind of shape for those few dollars, there is no market for a new one. Besides, I don't think most today would be caught dead running a pull type anyway;)
X2 AB ! I bought a new one in 1985 and did all the update programs through the next 5? winters along with a lot of my own improvements. It was a very good combine compared to anything else in its time and as AB said it needed some mods and someone with the ability to fix little things and make it work. I had previously run a IH 914 for 9 years. The absolute best combine I have ever owned for capacity (in its day), reliability and almost no downtime. Dad bought it in 1973 for $13,200. Traded it for $20,000 in 1982? How is that for low cost per acre! Total repairs were 1 bearing and a few belts and chains. We can only dream of that kind of simplicity today. Traded the 914 on a Gleaner L2 windrow special with the hydro and big motor. Biggest disappointment and POS ever been on this farm. Was a happy day to get the Vers 2000. Paid $76,000 new. Ran a Vers 500 tractor on it. It was underpowered and especially since it had no power shift. I often think what a good combo it would have been to run a modern day 250 hp vario on it. Maybe have to try it sometime! It is still in the shed with low hours on a complete rework of feeder chain, rub bars, elevator chains, and a home made Rodono high performance chopper!!! Wow! what a beast for chop and spread. I used it until 2001 and it ran along with Case 1688 and a little behind NH TX66. Sure it cant match a current Lex 590 but $ for $ it earned it keep around here and is still more trouble free than any new high tech machine. Later ran Vers 875 and AC 8550 on it, with 350 Cummins:D I often wonder where that technology would have been today if A/ Trudeau's NEP hadn't killed the economy (esp. agriculture) in '82 B/ JD could have made the deal to buy the rights to the Versatile design. The CDN govt had put money into the development of the 2000 combine to try to boost the failing economy and help Canadian manufacturing, if they used the new metric system:mad:. So when Versatile was bought by Ford about 1987, which later became NH, there was talk of selling off the combine design to Deere. Deere wanted it but the CDN govt. would not let the production leave Canada so it died there. After only 3 years of production (84-86) in a pathetic failing economy there was a long way to go in improving this design. Look at a Lexion design. A simple, reliable conventional cylinder with rotary separation. The best of both worlds. IMHO! Versatile was just 20 years ahead of Claas.
 
1 - 16 of 16 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