Chinese NH

[adamL]

Sept 9, 2008 20:27:49 GMT 1 eppie said:

Sept 4, 2008 5:55:35 GMT 1 dom said:

For whomever asked about reliable Ford/NH transmissions, IMO you can't go wrong with the Dual Power.

Certain series had problems with bronze bushings wearing out in the transmission. Years ago i drove a 8210 II which had this problem. Tractor did 9800 hrs but was written off because the rebuild would be more expensive than what the tractor was worth.

The dual power units would let go too. I seemed to remember a problem with the series 10 Force II and Gen III selectors on the H pattern floor shifting models. Those crash boxes in the TWs were the transmissions from hell.

Our 40 series have been much more reliable than the 10 series I used to drive even with miles more hours on them and everyone and his dog driving them.

Just waiting for all the problems associated with modern electrics to start with the MX 135, the first 8 years and 6100 hours went without incident.

[dom]

They must've gone backwards with the TW series trannies, then. The 9700's last major repair was engine and trans OH/DP replacement at just under 13000 hours. It will roll over the hourmeter for the second time running the chopper this fall. The 8600 had engine and trans OH at 11000 hours (bought it with 500 on OH at 5500 hrs) and is sitting at 14000 now. The 8000 was bought with 3100 actual hours in '99 and still doesn't have 6000. Original engine, trans, clutch, DP. The 8210 hasnt had any trans issues yet and it has 5200 on it.

[adamL]

Dom, when I saw the TW's were the transmissions from hell , I make reference to them being awfull to shift. Harvesting spuds is very sesitive to forward speed I will change speed 100's of times a day with the semi powershift I have now. It wouldn't happen if I had a TW. Haulage work would be a nightmare. There will be a Dyna VT for next year, so no more messing around with gears for me

[eppie]

Sept 17, 2008 18:39:01 GMT 1 @adamL said:

Dom, when I saw the TW's were the transmissions from hell , I make reference to them being awfull to shift.

I noticed also a big difference between 8210 and 6610, but that might also have to do with it being signs it gave, before the tranny failed... i drove that rig 2 summers, with a dumptrailer durign school holidays.

[adamL]

which cabs did you have on the 8210 and the 6610 renze?

The SQ 8210 had the H pattern Syncro box on the right of the seat and you could grease the linkage on those.

The 6610 could have the same 'box with the SQ cab, but on the older ones could have the guess-a-gear on the steering collum which, oh lord, would go REALLY sloopy when it got worn, or you could have an H pattern syncro box on the steering collum, which actually was quite good.

I can't imagine having to go back to a syncro or worse still a constant mesh after using semi powershifts for 15 years.

[eppie]

Adam, you might not be able to imagine, but its just the getting used to... shifting everytime the revs change, or letting it hang in there and let the torque come in before shifting early....

The 6610 i was driving was also an H pattern shift alike the 8210, with electric dual power on the gear stick. it had a real switch, where the 8210 had one of these electro board industrial pin switches, like BA Baracus used to detonate bombs with during the 80's

I know 3 different 6610's, the mid mounted gearlevers on my friends farm, the so called Spaghetti box, which i also drove during the school holiday jobs (hated it for its awkward gearbox and whining power steering) and the last version (before it got replaced by the 6410) which had the same cab and gear pattern as the 8210 and 7710, it just didnt have the crawl range.

With the 5245 using a coarser all copper 5718 radiator, and turning the fuel pump open, it has enough power and torque so i dont really feel the need to shift under load anymore... Last spring i put the heavy 9 tine cultivator 30 cm into the ground in 2nd gear, (7 km/h) which resulted in a red hot exhaust manifold, neighbour could see the pipe from a distance

[adamL]

Sept 19, 2008 20:35:23 GMT 1 eppie said:

Adam, you might not be able to imagine, but its just the getting used to... shifting everytime the revs change, or letting it hang in there and let the torque come in before shifting early....

engine loading isn't the problem or the reason I need to shift, I've got loads of power and the new one will have even more , I'm shifting to match the subtle differences in the conditions, the easier it is to shift the more I will shift.

[eppie]

Adam,

its about what i meant: the easier it is to shift, the more you'ĺl do it.
For many jobs, you dont really need to. For PTO work like potato digging, engine torque doesnt save the day, its ease of shifting that brings the productivity.

The late 1950's DAF variomatic had a torque less 600cc engine but outperformed most other cars because the variomatic kept the engine at its optimal rpm while weighing next to nothing.
My 850 2.5 TDI (1430 kg, 140 hp) will quite keep up with my friends 1100 kg, 130 hp Honda CRX 1.5 VTEC even though the CRX has a more favourable power to weight ratio, because of the TDI's much more usable power band, a very flat power curve from 2000 to 3500 rpm, where the CRX only peaks.

With the TDI you could shift like nuts, but i just let it roll through corners in 3rd or 4th, the 2.5 picks up smoothly with little effort, and unnecessary shifting just causes wear and fuel.

[adamL]

Renze, as IVT's become more the norm, will manufacturers built engines that are less flexible but more effecient now that the transmission and its softwear can do the work that big pile of torque had to go before shifting became so easy?

[eppie]

Adam, the powershift Fendt 800 series were known as quite gutless under 1600 rpm, but having a lot of mid range torque. Though the same engine in MAN trucks was tuned to do have low end torque. This was because low end torque is pointless because of the converter, it would stall at 1600 rpm and make no use of the low end torque.
When my new employer, werklust loader factory, started using John Deere engines over Cummins, the Deere importer had to change the engine software of the first models because tractor engines didnt perform well in a loader... The low end torque was useless, converter transmissions need mid end torque.

There are two things about tuning tractor engines in IVTś for 1 optimum:
What if you do PTO work ? if you need to vary PTO rpm, you'd allmost need a PTO IVT as well....
And another trend is eco mode, lowering rpm to save fuel... I dont know if you can get this ideal situation of max fuel efficiency at any given power output, at just 1 rpm......

[dom]

That 7930 Deere IVT was awesome this weekend. After the chopper was out of commission, we put it on the 10 shank chisel plow that we normally have to run the 9700 wide open to pull all the way down. That IVT has a PTO setting, so you can maintain your shaft speed, then a second setting that maintains enough RPMs for hydraulic work like powering a vacuum planter, and then the eco setting. Pulled that chisel at 1230-1280RPM, all the way down, at 4.5mph. I was amazed at it's low RPM range, and then on the road, 26 mph at 1550 RPM. If $140k was in my price range, I'd be all over buying one of those.

The only negative aspects on it, to me, were the one-door cab, and the horrendous turning radius. It was set up narrow, for 30 inch rows, and the 16.9R30 front tires had no room to move much. I'd need that set a lot wider, or if it were possible, a 2wd with IVT. Since we dont farm marsh ground anymore, there isn't really a good use for 4wd on our farm.