New Holland combine Late TX60 or early CX

[bht]

Looking to upgrade from a TX34 to a newer combine current machine has done 3600 hours and is getting a bit tired.

Have seen some early cx720 etc at similar price to a nice tx62-66, not sure if they are very different under the newer panels, which would you recommend? Crop is almost all barley, normally unload on headlands and ground conditions can often be soft and steep, would also need to be able to cope with combining for crimping.

 

[Rob Holmes]

Get a CX if you can, we upgraded from a TX66 to a CX8070 last year and the output and cleanliness is in a different league!

 

[Steevo]

CX combines have fewer belts/pulleys too. Much simpler under the side panels.

Not to mention the better cab/controls. If you’ve used a CX you’d never want to go back to a TX.

 

[Two Tone]

There are 2 ranges on CX combine which might look similar, but are quite different:

CX 5/6000 now rebadged as 5./6. Which in reality share many components with the TX series but with internal speed/wrap angle changes that make them superior to the TX. These Combine are a result of CAD 2nd generation design. But are generally known as “Mid range” capacity.

CX 7/800 , which then became 7/8000 series, now rebadged as 7./8.
Originally these were the result of the 1st type of CAD design.
These are Mid range to Flagship capacity. The concept of these machines came out way before the 5/6000 machines.
They have wider diameter drums, true self levelling grain pans and sieves and bigger grain tanks.

What amazes me is that CAD (1) sugested changes to Leon Claey’s original design, hence the CX 7/800 series.
Then the second generation of CAD (2), suggested that if the went back to the TX design but changed a few things, you’d end up with something nearly, but not quite as good, but a hell of a lot cheaper (and probably more reliable).

 

[Steevo]

What exactly makes it cheaper to make please?

It also raises the question.....why not CAD2 the larger range?

 

[Two Tone]

What exactly makes it cheaper to make please?

It also raises the question.....why not CAD2 the larger range?

They are probably way past CAD 2 by now. And I’d hope using it for improvements on both types of CX and the CR Combines.

Almost certainly it has done with the “Triple Cascade” grain/sieve pan (which gets MOG “Air mobile” before it even hits the sieves) and the system that alters Straw walker seed depending on terrain slope angle. Before this came out, all straw walkers were deliberately set to run at 20% faster than they need to be on flat ground, so that they wouldn’t block when you drive down a hill.

The reason why the CX 5/6 series are cheaper is that they aren’t as big aCombine as the 7/8’s. The internal components are smaller and the grain tanks are smaller, only requiring 1 cross auger, instead of 2. There is no doubt that the 7/8’s are superior. They are bigger and have greater capacities.

The 5/6 use older technology, but with modifications that get greater capacities than the TX.
Probably the biggest capacity improvements to both types came with the invention and use of the Vari-feed header, allowing for a more constant and all “ear first” feed to the drum. That was an immediate 20% increase in capacity on both types, without making any changes to the rest of the Combine.

Just imagine what that would have done to a TF78?

 

[bht]

Where does the csx fit in?

I think the cx5/6 is too modern, looking at something 2005 ish

Thanks

 

[Lincsman]

Get the CX 7... I replaced a TX66 with one and its far better to drive and maintain... its like there is so little to do when checking it over compared to a TX, like belts for rotor thrashers instead of chains. The large drum diameter etc over a TX or cx6000/5000 makes it a different beast.

 

[fieldfarmer]

I swopped out a tx 34 with over 4000 hrs on it to a cx 720 with a about a 1000 hrs about 7 yrs ago, now with more acres I find the engine power a restriction and when chopping its slow, but has been far more reliable , changed the wheels to 800s and with the diff lock in the thing will clime and very stable on the banks, I will try to load a picture of it.

 

[fieldfarmer]

Hopefully, atacthed.

 

[bht]

Thanks for that, we bale everything here does the 720 still struggle for power when not chopping?

 

[Fergieman]

Go for a CX over TX as said above more capacity and a nicer place to spend the day.

 

[fieldfarmer]

Up hill yeah, will run out of steam at 3.5k up hill in good wheat , will be 1st gear and pulling the stick back to 2.5k to keep the revs where they need to be, its only 235 ish hp and if my memory serves me well was about 3 ton heavier then my tx with a 17ft header, grain tank is far bigger too, cx has a 20ft.

 

[Two Tone]

Where does the csx fit in?

I think the cx5/6 is too modern, looking at something 2005 ish

Thanks

The CSX was the forerunners to the CX 5/6.

Apart from the looks on the outside, the only real difference is that it doesn't have a turret unloading auger.
CSX's were good combines and very reliable.

It was only customers complaining that they looked a bit dated compared to the CX, that got the Chief designer of the CSX project to change it to the CX 5/6. There were very few modifications to it other than the way it looks. Both share many internal parts with the TX series. The main difference being that "Smart sieve" has replaced the gimble type tilting grain pan and sieves used on the TX's (and still used on the CX 7/8's and CR's), allowing the returns to be sent back to the drum. Just like Claas have always done.

In your position, a CSX is definitely worth a look. A perfect example of a "half-way house" between the TX series and the bigger CX 7/8 series at a very reasonable price!
They were last produced at Zedelgem in 2011.

 

[Lincsman]

The CSX was the forerunners to the CX 5/6.

Apart from the looks on the outside, the only real difference is that it doesn't have a turret unloading auger.
CSX's were good combines and very reliable.

It was only customers complaining that they looked a bit dated compared to the CX, that got the Chief designer of the CSX project to change it to the CX 5/6. There were very few modifications to it other than the way it looks. Both share many internal parts with the TX series. The main difference being that "Smart sieve" has replaced the gimble type tilting grain pan and sieves used on the TX's (and still used on the CX 7/8's and CR's), allowing the returns to be sent back to the drum. Just like Claas have always done.

In your position, a CSX is definitely worth a look. A perfect example of a "half-way house" between the TX series and the bigger CX 7/8 series at a very reasonable price!
They were last produced at Zedelgem in 2011.

Why would you want returns back to the drum? the idea was once separated from the straw dont mix them up again?.... I am pretty sure a TX 34 with self leveling had rotor thrashers and returned to sieve.

 

[Two Tone]

Why would you want returns back to the drum? the idea was once separated from the straw dont mix them up again?.... I am pretty sure a TX 34 with self leveling had rotor thrashers and returned to sieve.

The idea that sending returns back through a reshresher and the back onto the sieves as being better is a bit of a myth.

You have to go back to the early 1980’s when NH invented the TF range to see why they did it. Not only did they invent the TF rotor, which they thought would revolutionise their Combines doing away with straw walkers for good, but they also invented the Self-levelling grain pan and sieves. On a TF, they needed a spit returns bottom auger and 2 rotor re-threshers, one on each side of the Combine to cope with that vastly increased capacity. On top of which, sending the returns back to the drum via an elevator was not going to be easy. Especially as under each side of the TF rotor, an auger was needed to a catch the last of the grain separated from the straw and send it back to the grain pan/ sieves, with the rethreshed material from the returns off the top sieve.

The idea of sending returns back through an elevator then a rotor re-thresher had already be used on the 80 series Combines. The problem is that you cannot guarantee that those returns are reshreshed properly in a peck-type drum (which needed to be replaced with a black plate for Rape, peas and beans), nor can you guarantee that the rethreshed material is evenly spread over the entire width of the grain pan. Especially if on the 80 series or the smaller TX range, which only use one rethresher on only one side of the Combine.

There is nothing wrong with sending the returns back to the drum, which is not only a more effective way of rethreshing returns, because it puts those returns in a place where the rasp bars of the drum are at their most effective.

So the idea that not sending them back to the drum as being better is a sales gimmick myth put about by NH to get round what was really an engineering problem.

Claas have always sent their returns to the drum. Their answer to the TF was their CS Combine. It didn’t have a complicated system that was going to make it difficult to send their returns back to the drum via an elevator.

NH developed their TX range from the TF in the mid 1980’s, because some customers were unhappy with the more mangled straw that a TF produced for baling. In effect, the kept the self-levelling grain pan and sieves (as an option), but exchanged the twin-flow rotor for straw walkers. It was a really simple adaptation, so the continued with the idea of the returns not going back to the drum.

For those who are worried about the returns grain at the drum having to get through the straw, their are two devices that help it do so. Being the Rotary separator and the straw flow beater.

There is also the huge advantage of not having to worrying about setting and changing rethresher plates for different crops, or the worry about what part of the sieves those returns end up on, causing an overload on one part of it that will cause sieves losses.

 

[Lincsman]

The idea that sending returns back through a reshresher and the back onto the sieves as being better is a bit of a myth.

You have to go back to the early 1980’s when NH invented the TF range to see why they did it. Not only did they invent the TF rotor, which they thought would revolutionise their Combines doing away with straw walkers for good, but they also invented the Self-levelling grain pan and sieves. On a TF, they needed a spit returns bottom auger and 2 rotor re-threshers, one on each side of the Combine to cope with that vastly increased capacity. On top of which, sending the returns back to the drum via an elevator was not going to be easy. Especially as under each side of the TF rotor, an auger was needed to a catch the last of the grain separated from the straw and send it back to the grain pan/ sieves, with the rethreshed material from the returns off the top sieve.

The idea of sending returns back through an elevator then a rotor re-thresher had already be used on the 80 series Combines. The problem is that you cannot guarantee that those returns are reshreshed properly in a peck-type drum (which needed to be replaced with a black plate for Rape, peas and beans), nor can you guarantee that the rethreshed material is evenly spread over the entire width of the grain pan. Especially if on the 80 series or the smaller TX range, which only use one rethresher on only one side of the Combine.

There is nothing wrong with sending the returns back to the drum, which is not only a more effective way of rethreshing returns, because it puts those returns in a place where the rasp bars of the drum are at their most effective.

So the idea that not sending them back to the drum as being better is a sales gimmick myth put about by NH to get round what was really an engineering problem.

Claas have always sent their returns to the drum. Their answer to the TF was their CS Combine. It didn’t have a complicated system that was going to make it difficult to send their returns back to the drum via an elevator.

NH developed their TX range from the TF in the mid 1980’s, because some customers were unhappy with the more mangled straw that a TF produced for baling. In effect, the kept the self-levelling grain pan and sieves (as an option), but exchanged the twin-flow rotor for straw walkers. It was a really simple adaptation, so the continued with the idea of the returns not going back to the drum.

For those who are worried about the returns grain at the drum having to get through the straw, their are two devices that help it do so. Being the Rotary separator and the straw flow beater.

There is also the huge advantage of not having to worrying about setting and changing rethresher plates for different crops, or the worry about what part of the sieves those returns end up on, causing an overload on one part of it that will cause sieves losses.

Well they still do it today with or without self leveling so cant be such a bad thing, BTW my last 8080 didnt have rotor thrashers, I think it was TF then TX onwards all had them, self leveling or not., and only cheaper more basic ranges retained them

 

[Two Tone]

Well they still do it today with or without self leveling so cant be such a bad thing, BTW my last 8080 didnt have rotor thrashers, I think it was TF then TX onwards all had them, self leveling or not., and only cheaper more basic ranges retained them

Oh, it’s not a bad thing to use a rotor re-thresher, then back onto the the grain pan instead of sending returns back to the drum. But neither is it any better.

My 8080 hydro and a manual one I hired both used a short elevator to the re-thresher, then blew it back onto the sieve pan.

I always found having to change and check the threshing gap between the pegs, every time you switched from barley, to rape to wheat, to beans an absolute pain.
I’d bet that most operators don’t do it properly and is probably responsible for 90% of the broken grains in a sample, compared with the drum.

Although NH still use the rotor re-thresher system on their bigger combines, they no longer do so on the mid range versions. It can’t be that it is any cheaper to do one over the other.

Originally it was done for engineering problems of other bits being in the way to get them back to the drum.

I don’t know if the Triple cascade system has been put on the CX 7/8 series yet. It has on the CX 5/6. If NH are still wanting to send the returns onto the grain pan this might compromise exactly where those returns are put, so as not to interfere with the Triple cascade air blast, which gets almost all the chaff and awns mobile by air before it gets onto any of the sieves, substantially increasing their efficiency.

 

[Will Blackburn]

On beans I left the rethresher open following advice on here. It didn’t lose crop and the sample was clean enough to go straight into a drill. Saves a job.

 

[Two Tone]

On beans I left the rethresher open following advice on here. It didn’t lose crop and the sample was clean enough to go straight into a drill. Saves a job.

Do you mean right open so that any returns fall on the ground? Or open the gap to maximum capacity?

My cousin didn’t have the blind plates, so he opened the pegged ones up to maximum, for his beans. It rained and he went back to get them done before they were dry. Of course the beans had swollen up and many wouldn’t go through the bottom sieve. The re-thresher turned then into something like butter!

One thing I find that is absolutely brilliant on beans and peas is the slotted hole plates that go on the bottom of the elevators. That will give a fantastic sample.