Welcome! Please use the navigational links to explore our website.
PartsASAP LogoCompany Logo (800) 853-2651

Shop Now

   Allis Chalmers Case Farmall IH Ford 8N,9N,2N Ford
   Ferguson John Deere Massey Ferguson Minn. Moline Oliver

Attention Forum Users: On the 28th of December 2023 at 9:00am Central Time, we will be taking the forums down for maintenance while we prepare the new forums for your use. Please click here for more information.

Discussion Forum

Steve from New Holland..........

Welcome Guest, Log in or Register
Author 
TP from Central

12-03-2002 15:15:59




Report to Moderator

I was at a sale last sat. and a NH 278 was there. It had a thrower on it and it was in pretty nice shape AND it had a NEW Hydraulic cylinder on the thrower control, along with new hoses and ISO couplings.... It brought only $350! I am kinda kicking myself for not buying it, we bought a NH Super 269 with a chute a year ago for $550 so this really gets me. After reading your post below....How good is a 278? It looked huge compared to our 269 and our neighbors 311!!! Just wondering!.....

[Log in to Reply]   [No Email]
chief 83

12-07-2002 08:39:59




Report to Moderator
 Re: Steve from New Holland.......... in reply to TP from Central PA, 12-03-2002 15:15:59  
OK, I've got a 315 I bought last year. It worked great! Much better than the Case 200 I've used for the past 7 years. Used might be a little too strong of word. Worked on for the past 7 years is probably more accurate. What's the bad news or operating advice for the 315?



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Rick

12-03-2002 17:23:22




Report to Moderator
 Re: Steve from New Holland.......... in reply to TP from Central PA, 12-03-2002 15:15:59  
I sold a 278 New Holland baler this spring for $2500.00 One owner they were the largest capacity baler at the time. Didn't like the feedng system.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
TP from Central PA

12-03-2002 17:54:40




Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: Steve from New Holland.......... in reply to Rick, 12-03-2002 17:23:22  
Rick, I also noticed that the feeding system was alittle different from our 269.....I wondered if it worked any better?



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Steve from New Holland

12-03-2002 18:07:49




Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: Re: Steve from New Holland.......... in reply to TP from Central PA, 12-03-2002 17:54:40  
Hi TP and Rick. Yes, there is a HUGE difference between a 278 and a 269 or 311. Consider the 269 a very reliable "CAT D2" and the 278 a "CAT D8" that always needs service. (To all CAT fans, I'm not saying that CAT'S need to be worked on) However, for $350, I believe you should have bought it. I don't have my book in front of me, but I believe the 278 came out around 1972. The 320 came out in 1976. I really like your 269, but they are slow as molasses in January. The problem with the 278 and 320's, is that super high maintance feeder mechanism. The tine bar rolls back and forth in that movable cage assembly, and if you ever have a castatrophe with it,(And they all do at some point) just hand over your pocketbook to your friendly New Holland dealer. (smile) Hope this helps, Steve

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
paul

12-03-2002 19:20:25




Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: Re: Re: Steve from New Holland.......... in reply to Steve from New Holland, 12-03-2002 18:07:49  
I'm kinda partial to my 270 baler, I think it is a slower type, but since I spent 25+ years looking at the bale chute, it's _plenty_ fast enough for me & my 4-5,000 bales a year. :)

--->Paul



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Hal

12-03-2002 19:06:15




Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: Re: Re: Steve from New Holland.......... in reply to Steve from New Holland, 12-03-2002 18:07:49  
Steve, you mentioned that high maintenance feeder mechanism. What kind of big bucks are you talking about when something catastrophic happens. You mean hundreds of dollars or more than that. I just bought a 320 several months ago and ya kinda gettin me worried about it with some of these recent posts. Hal.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Hal

12-03-2002 19:06:02




Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: Re: Re: Steve from New Holland.......... in reply to Steve from New Holland, 12-03-2002 18:07:49  
Steve, you mentioned that high maintenance feeder mechanism. What kind of big bucks are you talking about when something catastrophic happens. You mean hundreds of dollars or more than that. I just bought a 320 several months ago and ya kinda gettin me worried about it with some of these recent posts. Hal.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Steve from New Holland

12-04-2002 04:46:36




Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Steve from New Holland.......... in reply to Hal, 12-03-2002 19:06:02  
Ok Hal, I'm sorry, I did not intend to worry anyone who already has a 320 baler. Hal, most of the trouble as I mentioned in another post somewhere is a result of running the baler at full pto speed. We have discovered that running the baler at 85 to 90 strokes a minutes helps tremendously. Most cost of rebuilding the feeder carriage range anywhere from $300 to $600, but some even go higher. Remember, most all of my complaints concerning a 320 baler have to do with the high speed (105 strokes) the baler was supposed to run. If run continually at that speed, you will have trouble someday. However, if you are willing to slow it down, they do give pretty good service. Of course it does not have quite the capacity, but even at 85 strokes per minute, it will outbale most other balers. Hope this takes away your concerns Hal. I do not want anyone filled with concern as we head into this Christmas season!!! Steve

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Frank

12-04-2002 11:54:20




Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Steve from New Holland.......... in reply to Steve from New Holland, 12-04-2002 04:46:36  
I think Steve is right about the speed. I bought a 310 last spring despite his caution about the design speed being too high. I bought it from a farmer (who'd gotten a good deal on an almost new NH 570). He said the original owner was his father-in-law, who always insisted they run the baler slower than at standard PTO speed.

It worked well for them, and me this past year.
As Steve notes, they will still handle a lot of hay, even at slower speed.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Frank

12-04-2002 11:53:18




Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Steve from New Holland.......... in reply to Steve from New Holland, 12-04-2002 04:46:36  
I think Steve is right about the speed. I bought a 310 last spring despite his caution about the design speed being too high. I bought it from a farmer (who'd gotten a good deal on an almost new NH 570). He said the original owner was his father-in-law, who always insisted they run the baler slower than at standard PTO speed.

It worked well for them, and me this past year.
As Steve notes, they will still handle a lot of hay, even at slower speed.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Steve from New Holland

12-03-2002 18:06:57




Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: Re: Steve from New Holland.......... in reply to TP from Central PA, 12-03-2002 17:54:40  
Hi TP and Rick. Yes, there is a HUGE difference between a 278 and a 269 or 311. Consider the 269 a very reliable "CAT D2" and the 278 a "CAT D8" that always needs service. (To all CAT fans, I'm not saying that CAT'S need to be worked on) However, for $350, I believe you should have bought it. I don't have my book in front of me, but I believe the 278 came out around 1972. The 320 came out in 1976. I really like your 269, but they are slow as molasses in January. The problem with the 278 and 320's, is that super high maintance feeder mechanism. The tine bar rolls back and forth in that movable cage assembly, and if you ever have a castatrophe with it,(And they all do at some point) just hand over your pocketbook to your friendly New Holland dealer. (smile) Hope this helps, Steve

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
[Options]  [Printer Friendly]  [Posting Help]  [Return to Forum]   [Log in to Reply]

Hop to:


TRACTOR PARTS TRACTOR MANUALS
We sell tractor parts!  We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today. [ About Us ]

Home  |  Forums


Copyright © 1997-2023 Yesterday's Tractor Co.

All Rights Reserved. Reproduction of any part of this website, including design and content, without written permission is strictly prohibited. Trade Marks and Trade Names contained and used in this Website are those of others, and are used in this Website in a descriptive sense to refer to the products of others. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy

TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER: Tradenames and Trademarks referred to within Yesterday's Tractor Co. products and within the Yesterday's Tractor Co. websites are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Yesterday's Tractor Co., our products, or our website nor are we sponsored by them. John Deere and its logos are the registered trademarks of the John Deere Corporation. Agco, Agco Allis, White, Massey Ferguson and their logos are the registered trademarks of AGCO Corporation. Case, Case-IH, Farmall, International Harvester, New Holland and their logos are registered trademarks of CNH Global N.V.

Yesterday's Tractors - Antique Tractor Headquarters

Website Accessibility Policy