New Holland tf series harvesters

[tomipav]

Hi.
Anyone Here familiar with nh tf series of harvesters?
I have na offer for some very tidy tf 42,but to ne honest never came accros with that model. We are Deutz fahr nation when it comes to harvesters.
Tf-s,any good? Bad sides,good sides?
Quality od them? Spare parts prices? Etc,etc.

Thanks

 

[Lincs Lass]

My old boss ran a TF 42, 18ft header which was as much as it needed in heavy wheat .
It's biggest downside was the manual gearbox ,I think the 44 came with the hydrostatic drive.
The 42 if I remember has the 6 cylinder Ford engine ,well his did and running the choppers in a heavy crop made it cough abit.
What parts are like for them now could be questionable.

 

[Lincsman]

Hi.
Anyone Here familiar with nh tf series of harvesters?
I have na offer for some very tidy tf 42,but to ne honest never came accros with that model. We are Deutz fahr nation when it comes to harvesters.
Tf-s,any good? Bad sides,good sides?
Quality od them? Spare parts prices? Etc,etc.

Thanks

They were OK in their day, not sure they would be a good idea now. Where are you in the world?

 

[tomipav]

Croatia.
It's Fiat engine in it,and it does have hydrostatic drive,i'm sure on that.
But they are very rare Here,like i said,90% od harvesters here are Deutz,and when i would tell you averege age od that deutz's,you probably wouldnt belive me.
About tf,i'm kinda skeptic about it,but it look's really tidy,and works pretty fine.

 

[Exfarmer]

They were a very advanced machine for the day and probably the highest capacity machine available. However the technology was abandoned and I believe parts are virtually non existent

 

[Lincs Lass]

Smashed up straw was a big problem and they had a habit of easily bunging the drum in OSR

 

[Exfarmer]

Smashed up straw was a big problem and they had a habit of easily bunging the drum in OSR

Hate to disagree but I never had a problem with blocking the drum in OSR getting it in the header was another matter but that was because the New Holland table was not the best

 

[Lincs Lass]

Hate to disagree but I never had a problem with blocking the drum in OSR getting it in the header was another matter but that was because the New Holland table was not the best

We swathed ours ,still didnt feed very well

 

[bravheart]

Fairly sure they are a tx34 till you get to the straw walker then it was the twin flow rotor instead and powered by a fiat engine instead of a ford

 

[Iben]

@Two Tone

 

[Two Tone]

@Two Tone

Good Combine with about 25 tonnes/hour capacity in Wheat. Didn’t smash up straw anything like as much as the Claas CS or IH Axial Flow.
Very simple, fast and reliable.
A TF 42H (Hydro) is a bit rare, but nothing to worry about. Most were Manual gearbox.
The Fiat engine was very good and was 180 horse power. I actually think this was a more reliable engine than the Mercedes V6 fitted to the TF44.
The TF 42 headers were either 17’ or 20’ wide (never 18!).

Compared to the TX 34, it was very much faster. You had to drive it fast or it would lose grain off the back!

Try to avoid the ones with the twin retraction tines on the header auger, or remove and blank off 1 of each pair.
If the Self levelling sieves play up, replace the 4 relays in the box at the front of the fan. Actually these were much more reliable than the TF 70 series SL sieves
Parts are still available for just about everything on a TF 40 series, but less so for a TF 70 series, especially the “Electra” electrics.
Ideally, go for the later type High capacity header with the black painted reel.

Make sure that mice or rats haven’t eaten the wiring in the connector plate under the dash board or under the seat. Though they are fixable if they do. But use something like a cloth soaked in Renadine to keep them away.

NEVER ever put the TF Rotor in low speed, no matter what crop you are harvesting or what the instruction book tells you!

Most TF 42’s didn’t have a “throw-out” beater after the TF rotor (the TF 44 did). This is no bad thing as it actually caused less chance of any blockages! But sometimes not all the straw ended up in the windrow if swathing for baling. Just occasionally the old little lump would drop before the 2 diverted doors (from the chopper) steered the straw into the single swath.


IMO, if only they had invented the Vari-feed header for it, it would have been capable of nearer 30 tonnes/hour as all the straw would have hit the drum head (ear) first.

If they made a TF 42 H series today, but with the Vari-feed header, I’d have one!

 

[tomipav]

Wow @Two Tone ! That's really detailed ,thank you.
If i decide to buy it,be sure i will contact you for some more help.

 

[alomy75]

Good Combine with about 25 tonnes/hour capacity in Wheat. Didn’t smash up straw anything like as much as the Claas CS or IH Axial Flow.
Very simple, fast and reliable.
A TF 42H (Hydro) is a bit rare, but nothing to worry about. Most were Manual gearbox.
The Fiat engine was very good and was 180 horse power. I actually think this was a more reliable engine than the Mercedes V6 fitted to the TF44.
The TF 42 headers were either 17’ or 20’ wide (never 18!).

Compared to the TX 34, it was very much faster. You had to drive it fast or it would lose grain off the back!

Try to avoid the ones with the twin retraction tines on the header auger, or remove and blank off 1 of each pair.
If the Self levelling sieves play up, replace the 4 relays in the box at the front of the fan. Actually these were much more reliable than the TF 70 series SL sieves
Parts are still available for just about everything on a TF 40 series, but less so for a TF 70 series, especially the “Electra” electrics.
Ideally, go for the later type High capacity header with the black painted reel.

Make sure that mice or rats haven’t eaten the wiring in the connector plate under the dash board or under the seat. Though they are fixable if they do. But use something like a cloth soaked in Renadine to keep them away.

NEVER ever put the TF Rotor in low speed, no matter what crop you are harvesting or what the instruction book tells you!

Most TF 42’s didn’t have a “throw-out” beater after the TF rotor (the TF 44 did). This is no bad thing as it actually caused less chance of any blockages! But sometimes not all the straw ended up in the windrow if swathing for baling. Just occasionally the old little lump would drop before the 2 diverted doors (from the chopper) steered the straw into the single swath.


IMO, if only they had invented the Vari-feed header for it, it would have been capable of nearer 30 tonnes/hour as all the straw would have hit the drum head (ear) first.

If they made a TF 42 H series today, but with the Vari-feed header, I’d have one!

Couldn’t agree more. We’ve had a tf 42, 46 and 78. Parts were fine but we are talking a year or two back now. Business changed and went to a tx34 and back up to a tx66 last year. Pecks and APH never had an issue supplying anything but I do recall the 78 had an issue with forward speed-you could only go above 10k if you had the drum in gear (it was an elektra). But the 42, 46 and 34 were rock solid.

 

[snarling bee]

Avoid TF78, but all others in the series were/are good.
We ran 44s, 46 and 78 back in the day.
Mate had a 76, which was narrow body like a 44 but had 2 rethreshers like a wide body IIRC. Spot on.

 

[Exfarmer]

I only drive a 78 but the basics were all the same I think, huge output up to the power of the engine and as Two Tone says they want to pushed as corn will be lost.
The only point I have is the one I drove had a compressor mounted on the engine driven directly and used the engine oil for lubrication. If yours has the same replace it! Ours ( I say ours, but it was only one I drove ) exploded and was pumping engine oil out the back as fast as it could. Luckily the trailerman saw it and shouted for me to stop before pressure was lost. It was a very poor design

 

[Two Tone]

I only drive a 78 but the basics were all the same I think, huge output up to the power of the engine and as Two Tone says they want to pushed as corn will be lost.
The only point I have is the one I drove had a compressor mounted on the engine driven directly and used the engine oil for lubrication. If yours has the same replace it! Ours ( I say ours, but it was only one I drove ) exploded and was pumping engine oil out the back as fast as it could. Luckily the trailerman saw it and shouted for me to stop before pressure was lost. It was a very poor design

The TF 42, doesn’t have the compressor ( and engine blow off kit).

 

[Andrew K]

Had both Fiat and Merc engined versions in the day. Go for a Merc TF44, much better powered at 220/250hp. Never saw a non hydro model at all.
Good combines, but move batteries away from below the exhaust to ensure you dont set it alight!

 

[Two Tone]

Had both Fiat and Merc engined versions in the day. Go for a Merc TF44, much better powered at 220/250hp. Never saw a non hydro model at all.
Good combines, but move batteries away from below the exhaust to ensure you dont set it alight!

Nearly all TF 42’s were manual and all had the Fiat Aifo Engine. Hydro was an option as a TF 42H.
All TF44’s were Hydro and had the Merc V6 engine.
Apart from these, the Combines were actually almost identical.

I’d say my 42 was more reliable than my 44, probably because the extra power allowed me to drive the 44 harder.
Both of them are still working locally to me. Some testament considering the TF 42 is a 1985 machine and TF 44 was a 1992. I bought them both 2nd hand. The 42 I bought at auction twice! Once on the last farm i was on and the 2nd time for this farm.

Fortunately we have a TF expert close to me called Will Slatter. His company is called Cotswold Combines. He still looks after both my old TF’s. He also has a TF graveyard for parts, when necessary and he had an early TF42H that he hired out each year. It eventually was exported.
When needed, he looks after my CX6080 now too.

Both Will and I have helped several TFF members find their next combines.

 

[Lincsman]

Bit of useless info, the manual trans 8080 had the Fiat engine at 180hp

 

[Two Tone]

Yes the manual 8080 did have the Fiat Aifo engine
But the Hydro version of the 8080 used the Merc V6. It also had a bigger grain tank that was angled up each side to the same height as the cab.
I can’t remember if the TF 44’s Merc was turbo’d, but I’m pretty sure the 8080H Hydro Merc’s engine was naturally aspirated.

I always thought that those Merc engines, even the V8 in the TF46, created too much Vibration compared to the Fiat straight 6 engines. The straight 6 Fiat engines were really smooth and less noisy in comparison.
Everybody was stunned when they NH used a Fiat engine in the TF 78, which was a much lower cc capacity that the Merc V8 on the TF 46 (7.5l v 10l IIRC). But hat Fiat engine was Turbo Intercooled and was a beautifully smooth and powerful 310 (?) hp engine.

The only annoying thing about the TF 78 Fiat engine was that it had a 24 volt starter motor which needed a complicated switch over system to put the batteries in series to start it, then in parallel to run the rest of the electrics. There was a large exposed fuse that would blow if the switch over became faulty.

Early TF 78 Elekra’ s had a problem with the top square of the intercooler which would crack, causing a massive loss of power. They solved this with the Electra Plus, by putting a rounded top to the intercooler and at the same time putting a lever and some hinges on it, so that the intercooler and Air con rad could be swung out and both they and the main rad blown off, using a flexible hose and lance attached to the compressed air tank. A bloody good idea!

On my TF78, I also permanently attached another line and lance running along the side of the tank to occasionally blow the dust off the windscreen. Which was a constant problem with all TF Combines.