TX6* equivalent

[Alwaysinit]

What would be a slightly newer equivalent to a tx63 ish. Thinking about upgrading for next year and a tx63-65 would suit but if i could stretch a bit more and go newer again would be great.

 

[nelson]

cx 740 -760

 

[fergie35]

CSX series and then CX5080/90 or CX6080/90

 

[Alwaysinit]

cx 740 -760

Thanks.
I will have to have a look around and see what kind of money they are making.

 

[Alwaysinit]

CSX series and then CX5080/90 or CX6080/90

I'm guessing these are newer again and probably out of my price range but thank you.

 

[MrNoo]

CX6080 wont be that expensive, a good TX65+ will set you back a fair bit. I have a 6080 and it's very simple to maintain and goes well, 6 walker mind so quite wide, we had it doing 1000ac /yr but only doing half that now.

 

[davidroberts30]

 

[MrNoo]

CSX an CX are quite different beasts

 

[davidroberts30]

CSX an CX are quite different beasts

just seen it

 

[MrNoo]

just seen it

Only going from what my NH bod told me, he didnt regard the CSX that highly but then the CX6080 is not the same as the other CX's which I am led to believe are a bit more sturdy.
Saying that the CSX I gather is one of NH's best selling combines (abroad sales are high) and based loosely on the TX

 

[fergie35]

CSX an CX are quite different beasts

CSX and CX 6000 and CX5000 are the same. Your thinking of a CX7000/8000 which are quite different. they are the flagship walker machines.

 

[JJT]

Only going from what my NH bod told me, he didnt regard the CSX that highly but then the CX6080 is not the same as the other CX's which I am led to believe are a bit more sturdy.
Saying that the CSX I gather is one of NH's best selling combines (abroad sales are high) and based loosely on the TX

I though the cs/csx/cx5* and cx6* were based more on the old 8000 series and the cx7* and cx8* were more like the TX.

 

[MrNoo]

I though the cs/csx/cx5* and cx6* were based more on the old 8000 series and the cx7* and cx8* were more like the TX.

Yes, am sure mine is

 

[Lincsman]

I though the cs/csx/cx5* and cx6* were based more on the old 8000 series and the cx7* and cx8* were more like the TX.

Correct

 

[Two Tone]

I though the cs/csx/cx5* and cx6* were based more on the old 8000 series and the cx7* and cx8* were more like the TX.

Yes, am sure mine is

The CSX and the CX5/6 are more like the TX. They share many of the same parts such as the drum
The CX 7/8 are a completely different animal. Completely different drum. However the self levelling sieve system is the same as a TX.
Whereas the CSX and CX 5/6 have Smart-sieve.

Apart from a turret auger and the external tin work, the CSX and the CX5/6 are virtually the same combine, except that the CX5/6 has Opti-fan.

 

[Two Tone]

What would be a slightly newer equivalent to a tx63 ish. Thinking about upgrading for next year and a tx63-65 would suit but if i could stretch a bit more and go newer again would be great.

The answer is simple. If you like your TX63, go for a CSX.
Highly reliable, newer - but not too new, affordable.
Make sure it has a variety-feed header.

 

[Salopian_Will]

The CSX and the CX5/6 are more like the TX. They share many of the same parts such as the drum
The CX 7/8 are a completely different animal. Completely different drum. However the self levelling sieve system is the same as a TX.
Whereas the CSX and CX 5/6 have Smart-sieve.

Apart from a turret auger and the external tin work, the CSX and the CX5/6 are virtually the same combine, except that the CX5/6 has Opti-fan.

I think the returns go to the drum on a CSX/CX5/6 and the seives on a proper CX?

 

[Two Tone]

I think the returns go to the drum on a CSX/CX5/6 and the seives on a proper CX?

Correct.
Separate re-threshers were the easiest way to do it on the Self-leveling sieves, rather than sending the returns back to the drum when they are not fitted and Smart sieves are used instead.

The TX was a development from the TF, where those returns also caught the last grains from the extreme sides of the TF rotor in a funnel above each side returns auger. So it was far easier to compromise putting these garins and the returns through the re-thresher/re-threshers.

Claas have always sent the returns back to the drum, because they think it is better to do so.
No adjustment or changing of the plates necessary if you send all the returns back to the drum - those returns hitting the drum rasp-bars and concave ahead of all the crop coming in from the feeder housing. Also, less risk of excessive broken grains..

On top of which you cannot evenly spread the returns over the full width of the grain-pan when using re-threshers. Especially if only one is fitted rather than one on each side.
Putting the returns somewhere near the middle of the drum, as far forward on the grain-pan as you can, gives them a far more even chance of not over/underloading one side or the other of the grain-pan before they hit the sieves.

Thinking that re-threshers are better than than sending the returns back to the drum is a complete myth.
The only problem they cause if an increase in dust from the front of the feeder housing onto your cab glass.
Which Claas have now solved with a fan on top of the feeder housing, to draw that dust away to the rhs of the feeder housing. Clever!

 

[Lincsman]

Correct.
Separate re-threshers were the easiest way to do it on the Self-leveling sieves, rather than sending the returns back to the drum when they are not fitted and Smart sieves are used instead.

The TX was a development from the TF, where those returns also caught the last grains from the extreme sides of the TF rotor in a funnel above each side returns auger. So it was far easier to compromise putting these garins and the returns through the re-thresher/re-threshers.

Claas have always sent the returns back to the drum, because they think it is better to do so.
No adjustment or changing of the plates necessary if you send all the returns back to the drum - those returns hitting the drum rasp-bars and concave ahead of all the crop coming in from the feeder housing. Also, less risk of excessive broken grains..

On top of which you cannot evenly spread the returns over the full width of the grain-pan when using re-threshers. Especially if only one is fitted rather than one on each side.
Putting the returns somewhere near the middle of the drum, as far forward on the grain-pan as you can, gives them a far more even chance of not over/underloading one side or the other of the grain-pan before they hit the sieves.

Thinking that re-threshers are better than than sending the returns back to the drum is a complete myth.
The only problem they cause if an increase in dust from the front of the feeder housing onto your cab glass.
Which Claas have now solved with a fan on top of the feeder housing, to draw that dust away to the rhs of the feeder housing. Clever!

Some CSX didnt have a rotary separator along with a return to drum, and no turret auger... its an 8080 in new panels to me.

 

[SilliamWhale]

What would be a slightly newer equivalent to a tx63 ish. Thinking about upgrading for next year and a tx63-65 would suit but if i could stretch a bit more and go newer again would be great.

Are you absolutely certain you can't get a bigger machine around the place? I've been surprised how easy getting a 12ft 2 wide combine around has been this year.

May be better value machines about then