Early 960s (lower hp) were pretty similar to the TRs. They had more power than a TR, but also about 12000 extra lbs to move. Same size rotors and feedhouse. If cleaning area was limiting and not power/threshing, then the CR would be better.
When its good and dry the 98 is staying with the 9060 but at 6 pm it starts to pull away. The 98 are a very under rated combine they have alot of capacity for their hp and size. It kinda feels like a punishment if you have to run the 98 after running the CR. We have noticed after 2 years running both in the same field that on a average quarter the CR will do 85 to 90 ac and the TR does 70 to 75ac. We still average 300 to 400ac a day best day being 400. We always end up moving during the day and costing us time and acres. Anyd what is the hp on the 960 our 9060 has 360 with a power bulge to 400 I think. Looking to replace our 98 with a 960 maybe next year.
we had the same experience we were looking to switch breeds because we were so unimpressed and the retarded price difference but the 9060 was alot better. Sales man told me they took a 940 out against two 97 that were jacked up and they made the 940 look real bad he figured they would give a 960 a run for its money.
They were smaller, didn't have the self leveling shoe, have a much lighter engine (7.5L vs the new Iveco 9L). They had some durability issues in regard to the bubble up gearbox, but nothing really built light. I think that they put about 10000 of those pounds into the cab insulation! TRs were really that bad, and CRs that good.
We have a centre delivery 36 ft Honeybee with a single UII reel and a pea auger (the newest version). Last year we had a 39ft with dual bat reels, but it did not work well in peas. They would come in and bunch up on the arm that holds the reels up in the centre. Also, the offset meant that more were coming in from one side and they would overpower the short side.
The 36 is a very nice header, and we have more productivity than with the 39. I have a 30 ft HB on my TR.
We notice it on the 36. I would rather cut peas with the TR. Seems they have a better reaction as well. Quicker up. Weight must be a difference as well. But the 36 (and the Cr) are sure nice for cereals. I usually cut the washouts and hills for peas with the TR and let the wife run the flat parts with the CR.
I think I am going to buy a flex header for the CR and and 36 hb and eventually our 98 will be a Cr and do the same thing for it. Priced out hb flex draper and could buy two headers for same price. Flex headers are the other way they work good in pulse but not cereals.
We currently run a TR 97 and a 98 and thinking up updating our 97 (hours getting high) and have an opportunity to purchase a 2003 CR940. Looking at horsepower and cleaning size it is exactly the same combine as the TR series with the same 7.5 L engine. What I am reading here though is that do to the weight it is underpowered? Anyone that has ran a CR940 I would appreciate feedback on the 940 compared to a TR.
I have 4 years on my 940. In beans with a 30' head, you can run out of power in tall stringy beans. In corn, I never had trouble till this year when I added a 12 row Gerringhoff. Still gets by fine, but you can power it out uphill with 400bu. in the tank. For me, the extra time it takes to harvest because of power shortage is minimal. If you're the type that gets upset if you have to slow down .5mph, get a 960.
The cr940 actually is the same cleaning area as the cr960, which is about 1900 sq. in. more than the TR. It really lacks in power though. Not much more capacity, if any. We traded the cr940 on a 960, and it is much better, but still not a powerhouse by any means. The cab is better, but the seat is a piece of crap. Go with the cr960, if you can.
The 9xx got other engines some yrs. They dint change the description, so ist har to know which one you had. The first ones really lacked power, later they gave them some more hp, then when the 90xx series appeared the increased it again. Now it should be fine...