|
|
Post by tyffynon on Mar 20, 2005 14:59:14 GMT 1
Is the valmet or the Case the best tractor and why? Always wanted to try a Valmet but dont Know much about them.we have run smaller Case mx 135 tractors in the past ,is the 170 any better and can we tweak the pump up to 190HP without PTO pack trouble .All info on both tractors will be helpfull.  |
|
|
|
Post by Farmer from Finland on Mar 20, 2005 16:08:05 GMT 1
Hey,actually i haven't experience of 8950,but i have driven 8550 and 6800.
I quess 8950 is HiTech model and have powerboost,160/200 hp.
Valtra is more or less base tractor without special luxyry,but for rough work it's well.8550/8750/8950 have lot of power comparing own weight,so they are well for road transportation and 8750/8950 specially for PTO use.
I have in own use Valmet 6800 which have same cab and tranny as bigger models.Valtras cab is warm,two heaters.My opinion is that visibility is onough good.
hydraulic have only one pump,steering flow is taken out with flow splitter valve.Simple system,but sometimes with low revs 3-point hitch is slow if steering is activated same time.
Personally i don't like Valtras gearbox in road very much,it work well until is necessary change main gear,main gear need power and connection is slowly.
Valtras engine works and give lot of power,specially this big 6 banner.Some farmers have adjusted V8550 over 200 hp power...OK,this shorted trannys lifetime..
Hopefully here is something for you...
I have also driven little bit with Case MX150,driving is totally different as Valtra 8550..
FFF
|
|
|
|
Post by Robert in W Mi on Mar 23, 2005 16:23:20 GMT 1
I've NOT used either tractor, but i've heard the MX 170 doesn't have a lot of "low end" torque. I've talked to a couple owners that complained about this.
Sorry i can't offer more information,
Robert
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Bramhill on Mar 23, 2005 23:58:46 GMT 1
My MX170 has been uprated to 176hp at the pto, the low end torque is not very good ,also i've just had to replace the pto clutch pack at 4300 hours  Hope this helps |
|
Beltbreaker as guest
Guest
|
Post by Beltbreaker as guest on Mar 25, 2005 21:14:16 GMT 1
Mate bought a 99 T MX 170 last year with 2300hrs for £16000 it was traded for a Deere 7920. this tractor has had 2 new backends and was regarded as a friday afternoon job. In effect it looks as if it is an MX135 with a spacer in between. When he got it it had less power than his MX120 put it on a dino and it was pushing out 128 at the shaft (the dealer de tuned it after rear end No. 1). He now has 160 at the shaft but today rearend No. 3 looks like it is on the way out. Personally I reckon it is under engineered for the job buy an 8950 worked one in NZ on a set of mowers good outfit. I have a Valtra 6750 runs well pulls great and doesn't use a lot of fuel suits me just fine
Cheers BB
|
|
|
|
Post by Dariusz on Mar 26, 2005 11:22:49 GMT 1
From my use of two mx170 and one 150 i cant say much good about them. crown-flywheel changed at both 170s, one had fuelpump changed twice and still underpowered. the ifs on the 150 was worn after two years of use with a packer in front and a powerharrow/drill in the back. note...no one of these did more than 2200 hours before i sold them!
|
|
|
|
Post by Gerard on Mar 29, 2005 15:00:21 GMT 1
Do the McCormicks still have these parts?
|
|
|
|
Post by AdamL on Mar 30, 2005 18:53:12 GMT 1
how does one wear out IFS? Mine has 3500 hrs on it and is no different than it was 3500 hours ago. Did ever get greased? Don't grease mine that often. Don't want to drive a tractor without it either.
Why was the fuel pump changed? Bad fuel? If it was fuel Case arn't to blame. Those tractors don't have much low end torque, but it' only a matter of starting in a gear lower than you might in a different tractor and modern transmissions are hardly difficult to shift.
MX170's and 150 have different back ends to the 110, 120 and 135. What were these machines doing to have two transmissions fail? What oil were you using? What power were they showing on the dyno?
I'm sure if a reputable manufacturer had a major problem with a transmission to the extent of crown wheel failure they would be pretty help full getting it fixed, but if it was abuse, that's a different thing.
I know the MW135 is a slightly different machine, but mine is the very model of reliablity.
|
|
|
|
Post by JD Kid on Mar 30, 2005 22:02:17 GMT 1
Hi ya's
just some point's ya may have missed adam "dariusz" said the fuelpumps were changed due to underpowered , common prob in all MX170 with the older motor (170+ hp out of a 5.9 who was case kidding !!! the 7210 would piss all over a MX )they got it but there was trans probs as i think the 150 and 170 were a bit tougher than a 135 but not any where near the magnums .. the next thing this guy is saying he had 3 tractors that had probs before he sold them i don't know to many people with spair cash to wreck gear if he a owner driver if he had other drivers on them then it could be abuse but 3 tractor and the same staff there i think not ..
now to the question i had a 7210 at the time the MX 170 come out i would not touch one gutless heaps of junk too light for hard agri work ..8950 valtra most running pto are opened up to stay on 200 hp stops it changeing up and down in power while running choppers , batwing mowers ..kinda simple tractor lacks bar axle that i think the MX may have ..alot of the running gear in the new T is the same as the older ??50 models ..hydro flow is a bit low for a bigger tractor lighting could be a bit better for night work (like all tractors built for day jobs or lights in the wrong place ) i think it depends on ya work amount tyffynon looking at ya pick of tractors ya looking 2nd hand if ya wanting it for mainly agri work (plowing ,discs, tilling etc etc ) i think there are better picks than the MX 170 AND valtra 8950
catch ya
JD
|
|
|
|
Post by Samuel on Mar 31, 2005 9:44:20 GMT 1
Profi 10/98 Driving Impression: Case MX170
170 feels `nose-light´when it´s backend performance is pushed.
The tractor made impressive progress with the plough in work. It trundled along at 1800rpm/4mph in 2nd range/ 3rd powershift speed, and would comfortably pick up from 1400 rpm with no need for a downshift. The 170 even refused to be phased when the plough (5f Kuhn Varimaster) was opened up to it´s max. 20 in furrow width, handling the extra load with just a notch down on the powershift and a tweak on the throttle.
Ideally suited to pto and transport work, this relatively high power to weight tractor is only likely to become unstuck when hitched up to the heaviest of mounted implements.
For us, however, the after-cooled Cummins 5,9 l engine stands out as the MX170´s undisputed highlight. This motor lugs and lugs- and then lugs some more.
---------------------------------
It´s hard to believe that MX170 is underpowered.
And IFS should last "forever" if greased regularly with good grease.
|
|
|
|
Post by AdamL on Mar 31, 2005 21:39:55 GMT 1
horse power per litre? That 5.9 engine does 300 horse power in Dodge Ram pick ups does it not? At 170 horse it is only 28.8 hp/litre. Deeres 8520 is a little over 305 under load out of 8.1 litres. That makes 37.7 hp/litre.
A place I worked had several big bangs from engines and transmissions on 3 different colours of tractors. And the cause??? That's right, too much juice. It wasn't the boss sanctioning the juice either, more a case of "my tractor is more powerfull than yours" and faster on the road too.
|
|
|
|
Post by JD Kid on Apr 1, 2005 7:34:50 GMT 1
Hi ya's yea ya right adam the 5.9 is in the rams and some euro trucks and if i'm right in the bigger IH headers all doing way more than 170 Hp , kinda like little 4 pots turboed and intercooled in cars i looked at a mx 170 to replace a 5130 and 7210 did not need 2 tractors but needed a tractor big eneff for agri work but still not silly to wear a loader the 170 got the big thumbs down  after haveing the 7210 (can't for the life of me work out why case did not make it with the magnum motor ) the mx 170 was a joke under full load nice light PTO tractor but sucked big time with bigger gear on the hills even the DF 150 i went to dynoed out to 165 on the shaft could not match the 7210 guess the old saying "only thing that beats CI is more CI " holds true catch ya JD |
|
|
|
Post by Xavier on Apr 1, 2005 23:31:06 GMT 1
Today I see the hours of a MX135 of a local contractor and its 11600h...without problems, always seemed me that te 135 is the model that suffer more of the Maxxums...so a MX170 could be fine too...
|
|
|
|
Post by AdamL on Apr 2, 2005 15:27:43 GMT 1
the phrase " ain't no subsitoot for cubic inches" is an American one I believe. It has been said that the USA and England are two countries separated by a common language, or some something like that. I read once a translation of the old "ain't no subsitoot for cubes" phrase. It was "Amercan engine designers, try as they might, cannot extract power from a small engine".
|
|
|
|
Post by JD Kid on Apr 2, 2005 21:20:51 GMT 1
Hi ya's
ya kinda right but if ya take 2 motors both the same Hp and Nm but one 5.9 with bolted on Hp and the other a lazy motor 8.3 ya will find the CI's wins out ..and just before ya say the smaller motor uses less fuel there is a write up i read the other day between the mx 170 and mx 210 the mx 210 doing heavy work (PTO work and tilling) used 1/2 the fuel the 170 used ..i don't know why it is that the mid range tractors sold in europe all work on the small motor thing
catch ya
JD
|
|
after haveing the 7210 (can't for the life of me work out why case did not make it with the magnum motor ) the mx 170 was a joke under full load nice light PTO tractor but sucked big time with bigger gear on the hills even the DF 150 i went to dynoed out to 165 on the shaft could not match the 7210 guess the old saying "only thing that beats CI is more CI " holds true