I have had an 860 for 15 years now, and I am done with the first harvest with the 8820.
I have read many bad comments about older Massey and many good things about the Deere. Some of the comments made me ask "Why so many people bought MF"?
I am a big fan of older American equipement, and nothing looks better in my eyes than an MF760 unloding into a cart pulled by a Deere 4630!
I only did 60 acres with the combine (custom work for small farms) about 150Bu/ac Triticale and 200Bu/ac Durum wheat. That is in west of France.
Combine comparison:
Header:
I have an 18 feet Deere 218E (with Pickup reels) on the 8820 and a 16 feets MF 2381 header.
MF is built heavier. Stronger reels, stronger frame, but the 2381 is almost too heavy.
Deere has a longer stroke cutterbar, bigger auger. Crop divider not as good on the Deere but former owner probably modifiy it. Deere hookup is not as good to lineup compare to MF, but the lower hooks on the Deere are easier to set. Also Deere hydraulic couplers are releasing and hooking better under pressure.
Ease of attachment is umportant because I may attach the header 3 or 4 times in day, to go down the road. The reversible feederhouse on the Deere is nice for unplugging the header auger.
Deere slightly win the header comparison.
Treshing and harvesting capacity:
The 860 is the winner. We had a very bad year with lots of rain and lots of weeds. More than I have ever seen. The 8820 does not have the high inertia cylinder and the speed can be uneven while going trough a big wad. The 8820 has more power and can lug trough big wads of crops if required. The 860 may not have has much power, but the paddle elevator is making the feeding more even. The 860 has more bars up front of the concave and this really helps to reduce untreshed heads. I am going to add two more bars on the 8820 so she should fly. I am not doing corn and I hate filler plates.
The 860 has more shoe capacity, in our conditions. The grain pan on the 860 give stratification to the mat of crop, also, the 860 has 3 sieves and the chaffer and sieves can be adjusted seperately front and rear, which makes a lot of sense and can really make the combine fly without having grain going trough the tailings. The 8820 is very hard to keep from having nice clean grain going in the tailings. The left and right adjustment on the 8820 is quite dumb. If set right, the 860 will not loose grain.
I think also the 8820 is more prone to external losses on the shoe trough the many frames and the arms driving it.
The 8820 augers bed is very difficult to clean.
So treshing, MF wins well.
Drives complexity and ease of service.
The 8820 is well designed, but is quite more complex with more belts and chains than the 860. 8820 is more difficult to service in many areas. For instance, the engine front outer panel (by theradiator), does not open like the one on an 860, and that means that replacing an AC belt is very difficult on the 8820.
replacing the cylinder or separator drive is also a challenge on the 8820. However, deere operator manual is better at illustrating the maintenance of belts and such.
8820 LH tailings elevator makes for limited acces on LH side. If 8820 had a retresher, access would be very good. Top access to the cylinder is very bad on the 8820, with very heavy parts to move and very difficult access to the cylinder while laying on the elevator.
8820 radiator is easier to clean.
Engine compartment on the 8820 is worse to clean, but seems to stay as clean as the massey. Both have grease banks, but the MF system with rigid pipes seems to be more thrusthworthy.
8820 air cleaner is very difficult to access for cleaning.
Engine access trough the cab is very practical and much better than climbing over the radiator on the massey.
The 8820 rotary screen is very efficient at keeping clean, but screen area seems small for the engine size. The massey has more room, but only late aspirated ones really compared with the Deere
Cab:
Cab definitively quieter on the Deere ! The cab is a separate shell mounted on 4 rubber mounts, vs, a shell mounted over an open station combine on the massey.
The Deere cab has very big front posts and this reduce quite a bit header visibility. The Deere controls are very archaic compared to the massey ones. Hydraulics are more responsive on the Deere.
Cab is much bigger on the Deere. I could have easily 2 kids inside the Deere, but would be challenged to bring 1 in the Massey. I like the concave adjustment on the MF better, much faster, and you always know where you are, compared to turning that crank so many turns with having to dismount combine to see the concave arrow indicator. AC is more powerful on MF
Cab, Deere wins because of quiet. Massey wins the controls
Grain bin and unloader:
Deere has more clearance with trucks Speed of unloading on the Deere is faster at the beginning, but slow down as you really attempt to empty the grain bin. Massey is unloading at a more consistent.
The Massey combine is quite easier and much faster to cleanout. Particularly the grain bin, that retains very little grain on each side. The 8820 retains much more grain, due to shallower grain bin floors. 8820 grain bin unloader drives are also uncredibly complex!
Grain bin: MF wins. Deere wins tank capacity. Massey were much more difficult to add to because of the lack of bubble up auger. Lack of bubble up is not necessarly bad because it may damage grain, particularly when running full bin with very little troughput (same grain is steered all the time by the auger)
So to summarize, I like them both. I can see why people would have bought the Deere and why others would have bought the Masseys.
My Massey was never broke all the time, but I am not running the combine on many acres. I think that MF reputation is over done, because I have seen personnaly many people happy with their old 700-800 MF combines.
I have read many bad comments about older Massey and many good things about the Deere. Some of the comments made me ask "Why so many people bought MF"?
I am a big fan of older American equipement, and nothing looks better in my eyes than an MF760 unloding into a cart pulled by a Deere 4630!
I only did 60 acres with the combine (custom work for small farms) about 150Bu/ac Triticale and 200Bu/ac Durum wheat. That is in west of France.
Combine comparison:
Header:
I have an 18 feet Deere 218E (with Pickup reels) on the 8820 and a 16 feets MF 2381 header.
MF is built heavier. Stronger reels, stronger frame, but the 2381 is almost too heavy.
Deere has a longer stroke cutterbar, bigger auger. Crop divider not as good on the Deere but former owner probably modifiy it. Deere hookup is not as good to lineup compare to MF, but the lower hooks on the Deere are easier to set. Also Deere hydraulic couplers are releasing and hooking better under pressure.
Ease of attachment is umportant because I may attach the header 3 or 4 times in day, to go down the road. The reversible feederhouse on the Deere is nice for unplugging the header auger.
Deere slightly win the header comparison.
Treshing and harvesting capacity:
The 860 is the winner. We had a very bad year with lots of rain and lots of weeds. More than I have ever seen. The 8820 does not have the high inertia cylinder and the speed can be uneven while going trough a big wad. The 8820 has more power and can lug trough big wads of crops if required. The 860 may not have has much power, but the paddle elevator is making the feeding more even. The 860 has more bars up front of the concave and this really helps to reduce untreshed heads. I am going to add two more bars on the 8820 so she should fly. I am not doing corn and I hate filler plates.
The 860 has more shoe capacity, in our conditions. The grain pan on the 860 give stratification to the mat of crop, also, the 860 has 3 sieves and the chaffer and sieves can be adjusted seperately front and rear, which makes a lot of sense and can really make the combine fly without having grain going trough the tailings. The 8820 is very hard to keep from having nice clean grain going in the tailings. The left and right adjustment on the 8820 is quite dumb. If set right, the 860 will not loose grain.
I think also the 8820 is more prone to external losses on the shoe trough the many frames and the arms driving it.
The 8820 augers bed is very difficult to clean.
So treshing, MF wins well.
Drives complexity and ease of service.
The 8820 is well designed, but is quite more complex with more belts and chains than the 860. 8820 is more difficult to service in many areas. For instance, the engine front outer panel (by theradiator), does not open like the one on an 860, and that means that replacing an AC belt is very difficult on the 8820.
replacing the cylinder or separator drive is also a challenge on the 8820. However, deere operator manual is better at illustrating the maintenance of belts and such.
8820 LH tailings elevator makes for limited acces on LH side. If 8820 had a retresher, access would be very good. Top access to the cylinder is very bad on the 8820, with very heavy parts to move and very difficult access to the cylinder while laying on the elevator.
8820 radiator is easier to clean.
Engine compartment on the 8820 is worse to clean, but seems to stay as clean as the massey. Both have grease banks, but the MF system with rigid pipes seems to be more thrusthworthy.
8820 air cleaner is very difficult to access for cleaning.
Engine access trough the cab is very practical and much better than climbing over the radiator on the massey.
The 8820 rotary screen is very efficient at keeping clean, but screen area seems small for the engine size. The massey has more room, but only late aspirated ones really compared with the Deere
Cab:
Cab definitively quieter on the Deere ! The cab is a separate shell mounted on 4 rubber mounts, vs, a shell mounted over an open station combine on the massey.
The Deere cab has very big front posts and this reduce quite a bit header visibility. The Deere controls are very archaic compared to the massey ones. Hydraulics are more responsive on the Deere.
Cab is much bigger on the Deere. I could have easily 2 kids inside the Deere, but would be challenged to bring 1 in the Massey. I like the concave adjustment on the MF better, much faster, and you always know where you are, compared to turning that crank so many turns with having to dismount combine to see the concave arrow indicator. AC is more powerful on MF
Cab, Deere wins because of quiet. Massey wins the controls
Grain bin and unloader:
Deere has more clearance with trucks Speed of unloading on the Deere is faster at the beginning, but slow down as you really attempt to empty the grain bin. Massey is unloading at a more consistent.
The Massey combine is quite easier and much faster to cleanout. Particularly the grain bin, that retains very little grain on each side. The 8820 retains much more grain, due to shallower grain bin floors. 8820 grain bin unloader drives are also uncredibly complex!
Grain bin: MF wins. Deere wins tank capacity. Massey were much more difficult to add to because of the lack of bubble up auger. Lack of bubble up is not necessarly bad because it may damage grain, particularly when running full bin with very little troughput (same grain is steered all the time by the auger)
So to summarize, I like them both. I can see why people would have bought the Deere and why others would have bought the Masseys.
My Massey was never broke all the time, but I am not running the combine on many acres. I think that MF reputation is over done, because I have seen personnaly many people happy with their old 700-800 MF combines.
