what are the new, newholands like? (T6.175)

kill

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
South West
You would need to work a T6.175 very hard for 14hrs to empty the fuel tank I would think.New tractor sales are going to fall off a cliff in next couple years I think,i don't see how you can make money contracting with a £100k tractor.We all need to run them longer and have them rebuilt at 8-10k hours if needed,a good independent guy could refurb the engine,transmission,brakes pto etc to as new for maybe £15-20k,how far does that go towards buying a new one?
Totally agree that contracting with new kit has become a waste of time unless it's a totally specialist piece of kit absolutely no one else runs and charges can be kept high enough to give a decent return. Also getting worth while and capable staff is getting very difficult
 
Last edited:

Drillman

Member
Mixed Farmer
You would need to work a T6.175 very hard for 14hrs to empty the fuel tank I would think.New tractor sales are going to fall off a cliff in next couple years I think,i don't see how you can make money contracting with a £100k tractor.We all need to run them longer and have them rebuilt at 8-10k hours if needed,a good independent guy could refurb the engine,transmission,brakes pto etc to as new for maybe £15-20k,how far does that go towards buying a new one?
Puma 155 which is basically a T6080 can empty it’s fuel thimble in 8 hours if worked hard. Same with TM135 and 155 which are similar or slightly more power to a T6.175. They also had 270 litre tanks.


So unless fuel economy on new tractors is vastly better I would consider anything over 8 hrs to a fill on proper hard work a bonus.
 

balerman

Member
Location
N Devon
Puma 155 which is basically a T6080 can empty it’s fuel thimble in 8 hours if worked hard. Same with TM135 and 155 which are similar or slightly more power to a T6.175. They also had 270 litre tanks.


So unless fuel economy on new tractors is vastly better I would consider anything over 8 hrs to a fill on proper hard work a bonus.
Fuel economy is definitely better on the new ones,though you have ad blu to contend with as well,but 30l/hr is going some even with a (probably) screwed open TM155.
 

Drillman

Member
Mixed Farmer
Fuel economy is definitely better on the new ones,though you have ad blu to contend with as well,but 30l/hr is going some even with a (probably) screwed open TM155.
Thing is on Combi drill it was rare to get from one end of field to the other without revs dropping below 1000pto. So at full power all the time. This year an adblue spec T7 will be on drill which has a bigger tank so I’m expecting a lot longer to a tankful.

Interestingly the non adblue case puma Was no better on fuel than the TM on the ploughing or baler.
 

Chae1

Member
Location
Aberdeenshire
Thing is on Combi drill it was rare to get from one end of field to the other without revs dropping below 1000pto. So at full power all the time. This year an adblue spec T7 will be on drill which has a bigger tank so I’m expecting a lot longer to a tankful.

Interestingly the non adblue case puma Was no better on fuel than the TM on the ploughing or baler.

You always used to say how great it was running old machinery!?

Whats happened? Won the lottery
 

Richard98

Member
We’ve got a t6.175 dynamic command, very good on fuel. Will do 2 good days ploughing or combi drilling and still have some left. Haven’t found how far it would go on day 3, always filled it up to save coming back to the yard during the day. It is only a 4 furrow plough and 3m drill though so it is not working very hard, 16-1700 rpm, runs the drill in eco pto without breaking a sweat. Not sure how much it would go up by if it’s worked harder with bigger implements. Looking to get a 5 furrow plough for it so we’ll find out I guess! Adblue to put in too, our first blue barrel did 300 hours.
Can’t comment on the auto command but the cab is a big upgrade for us, we have gone from an mf 6270 as the main tractor though so nearly a 20 year jump.
Reliability wise it has been good, one oil leak at about 70 hours and a few niggles like a dodgy flashing light plug and the hand brake gaitor needed adjusting as it pushed the lever up just enough to bring the light on. Main problem is dealer staff greasing up the cab trim when they service it ?
 

Richard98

Member
Dynamic command is very good but again we’ve upgraded from dynashift mf so a big jump. We did buy a t6 electro command in 2014 but sent it back, none of us could sit in it with the screaming
 

Drillman

Member
Mixed Farmer
You always used to say how great it was running old machinery!?

Whats happened? Won the lottery
No complete change of thinking coupled with some jobs been taken in house a couple of tractors been sold for various reasons means we had to have an upgrade.

I still think a NH TM series tractor takes some beating though and knocks anything else comparable of its generation into next week.
 
Last edited:

Thomas5060

Member
Livestock Farmer
On road work, pulling around 12 ton, a lot of it up good steep long pulls, I'm getting around 22-25 hours out of 3/4 of the 230l tank on my T6.145 electro command. 7740 DP on same job was getting 18 hours at the most out of its 200l tank. It was opened up to around 120 or there abouts so around same power as the 145 although it was around 2 tons lighter. So yes I would say the newer ones are easier on fuel. Ive been doing more hours per month with this T6 and diesel man is in less than when i ran the 7740.
 

DrDunc

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
Dunsyre
I demo'd a t6 dynamic command

Super smooth shifts and mechanically very efficient

However bottom gear ratio is quite high, and there wasn't an option of a creeper (case version has though???)

For loader work you still need to press the brakes to make it stop, not just lift your foot off the throttle like a Vario (though not Deere ivt, they still creep ?) Brake to clutch doesn't actually dump all the clutch pressure though, it's effectively like riding the clutch pedal. The generated heat and slip will surely lead to premature clutch wear, especially on a loader tractor.

Front axle suspension ride comfort was simply awful. Very harsh, and lower payload than I would have expected when you're fitting a 2.5 tonne lift loader! Cab suspension is good, which did help to improve comfort on rough surfaces.

Forward vision is poor over the bulbous bonnet, and not helped by the tiny front window wiper arc that leaves dirt covering what little view you have down the side. CNH have built the four cylinder with a wheelbase extended to mimic a six. While this improves ride comfort and stability with rear mounted implements, it does nothing to improve forward vision to links or a loader! If you're used to the ludicrous size of Deere bonnets, this probably won't be a problem mind.

Armrest layout is littered with identical buttons that need looked at to press the correct one. Joystick buttons are all thumb presses and I kept changing direction instead of gear ratio. Poor control layout meant it was too easy to knock the PTO when reaching for the hitch buttons and slide. The force required to operate the electric spool switches was uncomfortably high, though I suppose one would become accustomed to them with time.

You could select auto shifting, but not cruise speeds. There were software updates coming, but there were an awful lot needed! The new Holland "product specialist" the dealer brought out knew nothing of what or when updates were coming, inspired no confidence, nor was even polite!

Servicing it looked like a right barsteward. Filters were in places that you would need speciality tools to remove, taking unnecessary time, or costing more hours for a fitter. Pipes and hoses are routed untidily, meaning they're more likely to be damaged than I would have liked.

If you are used to John Deere's simplicity of ergonomics and operator cosseting, the advantage of new Holland is that it's, err, cheaper.



In my own search for a comfortable, robust, affordable, new to me, loader tractor, I eventually bought a valtra N series with their "direct" Vario gearbox. It is simply a joy to operate.

20200123_154934.jpg
 

kiwi pom

Member
Location
canterbury NZ
Our Maxxum 115 (t6.145) will do 2 long days on the round baler on a tankfull(200l)

That would mean it was using less than 10 litres an hour?

On road work, pulling around 12 ton, a lot of it up good steep long pulls, I'm getting around 22-25 hours out of 3/4 of the 230l tank on my T6.145 electro command. 7740 DP on same job was getting 18 hours at the most out of its 200l tank. It was opened up to around 120 or there abouts so around same power as the 145 although it was around 2 tons lighter. So yes I would say the newer ones are easier on fuel. Ive been doing more hours per month with this T6 and diesel man is in less than when i ran the 7740.

That's less than 8 litres an hour?
Is my calculator broken?:scratchhead: Or are you spending a lot of time stopped with the engine idling/off?
 

SFI - What % were you taking out of production?

  • 0 %

    Votes: 80 42.1%
  • Up to 25%

    Votes: 67 35.3%
  • 25-50%

    Votes: 30 15.8%
  • 50-75%

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • 75-100%

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • 100% I’ve had enough of farming!

    Votes: 7 3.7%

Red Tractor drops launch of green farming scheme amid anger from farmers

  • 1,294
  • 1
As reported in Independent


quote: “Red Tractor has confirmed it is dropping plans to launch its green farming assurance standard in April“

read the TFF thread here: https://thefarmingforum.co.uk/index.php?threads/gfc-was-to-go-ahead-now-not-going-ahead.405234/
Top