What combine would you recommend

Timbo said:

The cummins 8.3 were certainly not the most reliable in stock ratings, never mind tweaked abit.

Click to expand...

I always thought the 8.3 was pretty reliable, then I started learning about the applications they found themselves in across the pond and my eyes were opened!!

ollie989898 said:

They were great machines, very simple and logical to work on. Yes they didn't like damp straw so not ideal in Scotland or something but fine for us in the south.

Some upgrades were probably a good idea (posh helical concave) whilst doctoring the engine to get more grunt out of it probably wasn't.

Place I worked had one that needed a replacement one-piece sieve after one lot became temporarily detached.

I don't know how the newer models are in terms of reliability, the prevalence of hydraulic or shaft drive instead of belts now you would assume they were even better.

Click to expand...

We was running 30 or 36ft on 2188 and 2388. I remember opening up the side panels to blow down and there was just nothing in there. Very simple. Compared to the 203mega in was used to

ollie989898 said:

They were great machines, very simple and logical to work on. Yes they didn't like damp straw so not ideal in Scotland or something but fine for us in the south.

Some upgrades were probably a good idea (posh helical concave) whilst doctoring the engine to get more grunt out of it probably wasn't.

Place I worked had one that needed a replacement one-piece sieve after one lot became temporarily detached.

I don't know how the newer models are in terms of reliability, the prevalence of hydraulic or shaft drive instead of belts now you would assume they were even better.

Click to expand...

We was running 30 or 36ft on 2188 and 2388. I remember opening up the side panels to blow down and there was just nothing in there. Very simple. Compared to the 203mega in was used to

Those Cummins motors are pretty reliable. With the amount of the kicking around your going to have a few failures. My sprayer dropped a valve last summer and needed complete rebuild. I did it myself and sourced the parts from the states. Easy motor to work on and parts are readily available. I’ve had 2 1680 cases a 2188 and a 2388 that I still use as a back up. All were great combines but all had the same weak points. The shaker shoe bushings needed changing every second season or the serve would spilt in the centre. More upgrades available for these combines than you can shake a stick at but even a stock unit were very capable machines. In higher moisture the rotor intake helical coil design works better than the elephant ears.

SilliamWhale said:

Think ive sold it. Youre a free man!

Click to expand...

I've a similar 34 to sell, what are you thinking of changing to a TX 60 or newer, not easy finding a clean one.

Big problem with those old Cummins is they consume fuel like it was 50p a gallon, the latest harvesters with the FPT engines use way less for the same out put.

Fish said:

Big problem with those old Cummins is they consume fuel like it was 50p a gallon, the latest harvesters with the FPT engines use way less for the same out put.

Click to expand...

I'll never forget working in the same field as the foreman one day, he had been out rolling (12m rolls) with his MX magnum, I forget if it was the 270 or a newer one now, I asked how much fuel he had used (I was in a Puma) by lunchtime and nearly fell out of my chair as he had said: 'ooohh about half a tank'...