Printed May, 1987

Tested at: Humboldt

ISSN 0383-3445
Group 4c

Evaluation Report 531

Case IH Self-Propelled Combine

A Co-operative Program Between

ALBERTA
FARM
MACHINERY
RESEARCH
CENTRE
PAMI
PRAIRIE AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY INSTITUTE
CASE IH 1660 SELF-PROPELLED COMBINE
MANUFACTURER: DISTRIBUTOR:
J. I. Case Company J.I. Case Co.
700 State Street P.O. Box 5051
Racine, Wisconsin 53404 240 Henderson Drive
U.S.A. Regina, Saskatchewan
S4P 3M3
Retail Price: PHONE: (306) 924-1600
$135,126.00 (May, 1987, f.o.b. Humboldt, with a 13 ft (4.0 m)
headers, 13 ft (4.0 m) pickup, feeder reverser, rock trap, grain
scan monitor, grain pan sidehill dividers and rasp bar tolerance
attachment.

FIGURE 1. Case IH 1660 (1) Rotor, (2) Threshing Concaves, (3) Separating Concaves, (4)
Back Beater, (5) Shoe, (6) Tailings Return.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Cleaning shoe performance was good. Shoe loss was low
Capacity: In the capacity tests, the MOG feedrate* at 3% in wheat crops but limited capacity in some barley and oilseed
total grain loss in Harrington barley was 585 lb/min (16.0 t/h). crops. The grain tank sample was clean in all crops.
In wheat crops, combine capacity ranged from 800 lb/min Grain handling was very good. The 175 Imperial bu (6.4 m³)
(21.8 t/h) at power limit in Columbus wheat to 825 lb/min (22.5t/h) grain tank filled evenly in all crops, although the corners did not fill
in Katepwa wheat at 3% total grain loss. completely. The auger was convenient to position. Unloading was
In barley, the Case IH 1660 had approximately 1.40 times the fast, taking about 110 seconds to unload a full tank.
capacity of the PAMI Reference II combine at 3% total grain loss. Straw spreading was poor. The straw spread was even but
In wheat, at 3% total grain loss, the capacity of the Case IH 1660 only up to 15 ft (4.6 m) wide.
was 1.20 to 1.30 times the capacity of the Reference II combine. Ease of Operation and Adjustment: Operator comfort in
Quality of Work: Pickup performance was good. In most the Case IH 1660 was very good. The cab was very quiet and
crops it picked cleanly and fed the crop smoothly under the table relatively dust free. The heater and air conditioner provided
auger. In some conditions, the crop was not stripped from the comfortable cab temperatures. The seat and steering column
pickup teeth. Feeding was good in most crops and conditions. could be adjusted to suit most operators. Visibility forward and
The powered stone beater provided good protection. Most roots to the sides was very good. Rear view mirrors provided good
and stones were trapped in the pocket below the beater. Some visibility to the rear. View of the incoming swath was partially
small stones, which entered the rotor housing, caused minor blocked by the steering column.
concave damage. Instrumentation was good. The instruments monitored
Threshing was very good. The Case IH 1660 threshed all important functions and had built-in warning systems. The
smoothly and aggressively in all crops. Unthreshed losses instruments to the right of the operator were easy to observe day
and grain damage were low. Straw break-up was severe in dry or night. However, those in the upper right corner of the cab were
conditions. In tough conditions, combine throughput was reduced inconvenient to observe while harvesting. Controls were good.
slightly. Most of the controls were conveniently located, responsive and
Separation of grain from straw was very good. Rotor loss easy to use.
was low over the entire operating range and did not limit combine Loss monitor performance was very good. Both shoe loss
capacity. and rotor loss could be monitored. The reading was meaningful
only if compared to actual losses.
*MOG feedrate (Material-Other-than-Grain Feedrate) is the mass of straw and chaff
passing through the combine per unit of time Lighting for night time harvesting was very good.
.
Page 2
 Handling was very good. Steering was smooth and responsive. cleaning fan is a single paddle fan. The chaffer sieve and cleaning
The combine was easy to maneuver and stable in the field and
while transporting.
Ease of adjusting combine components was good. Most
components except the cleaning sieve were convenient to adjust.
Ease of setting the components to suit crop conditions was very
good.
Ease of unplugging was good. The feeder reverser worked
well and was easy to use for unplugging the table auger and
feeder. A plugged rotor could usually be cleared by lowering the
concave and powering the slug through. Ease of cleaning the
combine exterior was good, however, cleaning the inside was
time consuming and laborious.
Ease of lubrication was very good. Daily lubrication was quick
and easy. Gaining access to perform general maintenance and sieve are adjustable lip design and move in opposed motion.
repair was very good.
Engine and Fuel Consumption: The engine started easily
and ran well. In most conditions the engine was run at or near
power limit. Average fuel consumption for the year was 5.9 gal/h
(27L/h). Oil consumption was insignificant.
Operator Safety: The operator’s manual emphasized
operator safety. All moving parts were well shielded. The Case IH
1660 was safe to operate if normal safety precautions were taken
and warnings heeded.
Operator’s Manual: The operator’s manual was well written
and contained much useful information on safety, servicing,
lubrication, trouble-shooting, setting and specifications.
Mechanical History: A few mechanical problems occurred
during the test.

RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that the manufacturer consider: FIGURE 2. Rotor: (1) Intake Section, (2) Threshing Section, (3) Separating Section.
1. Investigating the cause of the cleaning sieves accidental FIGURE 3. (1) Threshing Concaves, (2) Separating Concaves, (3) Tailings Return.
closing and making modifications to either prevent the sieve
from closing by itself or to prevent the cleaning sieve from Crop is fed to the rotor intake fins, which spiral the material
plugging. into the rotor. Threshing begins upon first contact with the rotor
2. Supplying full bin sensors. and continues throughout the length of the threshing concaves.
3. Modifications to improve straw spreading. The angled rasp bar ribs and adjustable fins on the top of the rotor
4. Modifications to make the shaft speed monitor more convenient housing move the crop rearward. Separation starts at the threshing
to view. concaves and continues as the crop spirals over the separating
5. Modifications to the propulsion control lever to reduce the side- grates. The winged discharge beater strips the processed crop away
to-side free play and to give it smooth positive positioning. from the rotor and discharges it out the back of the combine. The
6. Modifications to provide convenient, positive cleaning sieve material separated from the threshing and separating concaves is
adjustment. fed to the cleaning shoe by augers. Tailings are returned to the rotor
7. Modifications to allow safe convenient sampling of the return above the third threshing concave (FIGURE 3).
tailings while harvesting. The test combine was equipped with a 180 hp (134 kW) turbo-
Senior Engineer: G.E. Frehlich charged 6 cylinder diesel engine, a 13 ft (4.0 m) pickup header,
Project Manager: L.G. Hill 13 ft (4.0 m) 2 roller belt pickup, powered rock beater, and optional
Project Technologist: W.A. Beckett accessories as listed on page 2.
The Case IH 1660 has a pressurized operators cab, power
steering, hydraulic wheel brakes and a three speed transmission
THE MANUFACTURER STATES THAT with hydrostatic ground drive.
With regard to recommendation number: Separator and header drives are electrically controlled through
1. Modifications to the cleaning sieve adjusting mechanism will hydraulically actuated belt tighteners. Header height and unloading
be evaluated. auger swing are hydraulically controlled. Rotor speed, pickup speed
2. A full grain tank warning indicator will be evaluated for the and cleaning fan speed are controlled from the cab while concave
future. clearance and shoe settings are made on the machine. There is no
3. Modifications to improve straw spreading are being evaluated. provision to safely sample return tailings while operating. Important
4. Modifications will be considered for the future. component speeds and harvest functions are displayed on electronic
5. This will be considered for the future. monitors.
6. This will be investigated for future models. Detailed specifications are given in APPENDIX I.
7. Methods for sampling or measuring return tailings will be
investigated for future models. SCOPE OF TEST
The Case IH 1660 was operated for 130 hours while harvesting
about 1183 ac (479 ha) of various crops. The crops and conditions
GENERAL DESCRIPTION are shown in TABLES 1 and 2. During the harvest, it was evaluated
The Case IH 1660 is a self-propelled combine. It has a single for rate of work, quality of work, ease of operation and adjustment,
longitudinally mounted rotor, threshing and separating concaves, operator safety, and suitability of the operator’s manual. Extended
discharge beater, and cleaning shoe. The rotor is a closed tube durability testing was not conducted. Mechanical failures were
design with infeed fins, a combination of parallel and spiral rasp recorded.
bars, and separating fins (FIGURE 2). The threshing concaves
are bar, and wire design. The separating grate is slotted, formed
metal (FIGURE 3). The discharge beater is a wing type beater. The
Page 3
TABLE 1. Operating Conditions conditions. These differences make it impossible to directly
Crop Variety Average Yield Width of Cut Hours Field Area
compare combines not tested in the same conditions. For this
reason PAMI uses a reference combine. The reference combine is
bu/ac t/ha ft m ac ha
simply one combine that is tested along with each combine being
Bonanza 60 3.3 25 7.6 10 73 30 evaluated. Since the test conditions are similar, each test combine
Barley Herrington 65 3.5 30, 60, 9.1, 18.3 8 65 26 can be compared directly to the reference combine to determine
Johnstone 45 2.4 25 7.6 8 69 28
relative capacity or “capacity ratio”. This capacity ratio can be used
Tobin 25 1.4 25, 30 7.6, 9.1 10 55 22 to indirectly compare combines tested in different years and under
Canola
Westar 25 1.4 18, 25 6.5, 7.6 10 116 47
different conditions. As well, the reference combine is useful for’
Rye Muskateer 30 1.9 20, 21, 24 6.1, 6.4, 7.3 39 346 140 showing how crop conditions affect capacity. For example, if the
Flax Dufferin 35 2.1 21 6.4 6 35 14 reference combine’s capacity is higher than usual, then the capacity
of the combine being evaluated will also be higher than what might
Columbus 30 2.0 25, 28, 42 7.6, 8.5, 12.8 14 168 68
Wheat Katepwa 35 2.4 30, 60 9.1, 18.3 22 222 90 be normally expected.
Neepawa 30 2.0 24 7.3 3 34 14 For 10 years PAMI has used the same reference combine.
However, capacity differences between the reference combine and
TABLE 2. Operation in Stony Conditions
some of the combines tested have become so great that it has become
Field Conditions Hours Field Area difficult to test the reference combine in the conditions suitable for
ac ha the evaluation combines. PAMI has changed its reference combine
Stone Free 12 106 43
to better handle these conditions. The new reference combine is
a larger conventional combine that was tested in 1984 (see PAMI
Occasional Stones 81 734 297
report #426). To distinguish between the reference combines
Moderately Stony 37 343 139 the new reference will be referred to as Reference II and the old
Total 130 1183 479 reference as Reference I.

RATE OF WORK
Capacity Test Results: The capacity results for the Case IH
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 1660 are summarized in TABLE 3.
TERMINOLOGY The performance curves for the capacity tests are presented
MOG, MOG Feedrate, Grain Feedrate and MOG/G Ratio: A in FIGURES 4 to 6. The curves in each figure indicate the effect
combine’s performance is affected mainly by the amount of straw of increased feedrate on rotor loss, shoe loss, unthreshed loss,
and chaff it is processing, and the amount of grain or seed it is and total loss. From the graphs, combine capacity can also be
processing. The straw, chaff, and plant material other than the grain determined for loss levels other than 3%.
or seed is called MOG which is an abbreviation for “Material-Other-
than-Grain”. The quantity of MOG being processed per unit of time
is called the “MOG Feedrate”. Similarly, the amount of grain being
processed per unit of time is called the “Grain Feedrate”.
The MOG/G ratio, which is the MOG Feedrate divided by the
Grain Feedrate, indicates how difficult a crop is to separate. For
example, MOG/G ratios for prairie wheat crops may vary from 0.5
to 1.5. In a crop with a 0.5 MOG/G ratio, the combine has to handle
50 lb. (22.7 kg) of straw for every 100 lb (45.4 kg) of grain harvested.
However, in a crop with a 1.5 MOG/G ratio, for a similar 100 lb
(45.4 kg) of grain harvested, the combine now has to handle
150 lb (68.2 kg) of straw – 3 times as much. Therefore, the higher
the MOG/G ratio, the more difficult it is to separate the grain.
Grain Loss, Grain Damage, and Dockage: Grain loss from
a combine can be of two main types: Unthreshed Loss, consisting
of grain left in the head and discharged with the straw and chaff, or
Separator Loss which is free (threshed) grain discharged with the FIGURE 4. Grain Loss in Harrington Barley.
straw and chaff. Separator loss can be further defined as Shoe Loss
and Walker (or Rotor) Loss depending on where it came from. Loss
is expressed as a percentage of the total amount of grain being
processed.
Damaged or cracked grain is also a form of grain loss. In this
report, cracked grain is determined by comparing the weight of the
actual damaged kernels to the entire weight of the sample taken
from the grain tank.
Dockage is determined by standard Grain Commission
methods. It consists of large foreign particles and of smaller particles
that pass through a screen specified for that crop. It is expressed as
a percentage of the total sample taken.
Capacity: Combine capacity is the maximum rate at which
a combine, adjusted for optimum performance, can process crop
material at a certain total loss level. PAMI expresses capacity in
terms of MOG Feedrate at 3% total loss. Although MOG Feedrate
is not as easily visualized as Grain Feedrate, it provides a much
FIGURE 5. Grain Loss in Columbus Wheat.
more consistent basis for comparison. A combine’s ability to process
MOG is relatively consistent even if MOG/G ratios vary widely.
The Harrington barley crop used for the test was from a uniform
Three percent total loss is widely accepted in North America as an
stand and was laid in well formed side-by-side double windrows. The
average loss rate that provides an optimum trade-off between work
crop was mature and both the grain and straw were very dry. The
accomplished and grain loss. This may not be true for all combines
grain threshed easily and the awns broke off readily. Straw break-up
nor does it mean that they cannot be compared at other loss
was quite high. The grain yield was slightly below average but the
levels.
straw was short which resulted in a low MOG/G ratio. The low MOG/
Reference Combine: It is well recognized that a combine’s
G ratio meant that high grain feedrates accompanied relatively low
capacity may vary greatly due to differences in crop and weather
MOG feedrates.
Page 4
TABLE 3. Capacity of the Case IH 1660 a Total loss of 3% of Yield

Crop Conditions Results

Width of Cut Crop Yield Moisture Content MOG Feedrate Grain Feedrate Grain
Cracks Dockage Foreign Loss
Crop Variety ft m bu/ac t/ha Straw % Grain % MOG/G lb/min t/h bu/h t/h % % Material Curve

Barley Harrington 56 17.1 54 2.9 10.2 10.8 0.64 585 16.0 1140 24.9 0.5 0.5 0.5 2

Wheat Columbus* 29 8.9 43 2.9 8.5 16.4 1.21 800 21.8 660 18.0 0.9 2.9 2.9 3

Wheat Katepwa* 29 8.9 46 3.2 8.4 14.3 1.40 825 22.5 590 16.1 1.1 0.8 0.8 4
*Loss at maximum attainable feedrate was 2% of yield.

approximate capacity differences. For example, if one combine has

a capacity ratio of 1.2 times the reference combine and another
combine has a capacity ratio of 2.0 times the reference combine,
then the second combine is about 67% larger (2.0 - 1.2) / 1.2 x 100
= 67%).

TABLE 4. Average Workrates

Average Yield Average Workrates

Crop Variety bu/ac t/ha ac/h ha/h bu/ac t/h

Barley Bonanza 60 3.3 7.3 3.0 440 9.6

Herrington 65 3.5 8.1 3.3 630 11.6
Johnston 45 2.4 8.6 3.5 390 8.5
Canola Tobin 25 1.4 5.5 2.2 140 3.2
Westar 25 1.4 11.6 4.7 170 3.9
Rye Musketeer 30 1.9 8.9 3.6 170 4.3
Flax Dufferin 35 2.2 5.8 2.4 200 5.1
Wheat Columbus 30 2.0 12.0 4.9 360 9.8
Wheat Katepwa 35 2.4 10.1 4.1 350 9.6
FIGURE 6. Grain Loss in Katepwa Wheat. Wheat Neepawa 30 2.0 11.3 4.6 340 9.3

In this barley crop, the maximum practical feedrate was about A test combine can also be compared to the reference combine
585 lb/min (16.0 t/h) MOG. Total loss at this feedrate was about at losses other than 3%. The total loss curves for the test combine
2%; beyond this feedrate total loss increased sharply due to erratic and reference combine are shown in the graphs in the following
shoe loss. Operating at higher feedrates would be impractical. It is section. The shaded bands around the curves represent 95%
possible that in barley crops with a higher MOG/G ratio, the shoe confidence belts. Where the bands overlap very little difference
loading wouldn’t be as severe and slightly higher MOG feed-rates in capacity exists; where the bands do not overlap a significant
would be attained. difference can be noticed.
Both wheat crops were from uniform stands. Both crops were PAMI recognizes that the change to the new Reference II
laid in well formed single windrows. The crops were mature and the combine may make it difficult to compare test machines which were
straw was dry. The grain was dry for the Katepwa wheat and tough compared only to the older Reference I. To overcome this, a capacity
for the Columbus wheat. In both crops, the grain threshed easier ratio comparing the test combine to Reference I is also given in the
than Neepawa wheat. The straw was long and did not break up Summary Chart on the last page of the report. This ratio is based on
readily. Although the grain yield was above average, the very long two years of tests, which indicate that Reference II has about 1.50
straw resulted in high MOG/G ratios for both crops. The high MOG/ to 1.60 times the capacity of Reference I in wheat and about 1.40 to
G ratios meant that relatively low grain feedrates accompanied the 1.50 times Reference I’s capacity in barley.
MOG feedrates. Capacity Compared to Reference Combine: Capacity of
In wheat the capacity ranged from about 800 lb/min (21.8 t/h) the Case IH 1660 was greater than that of the PAMI Reference II
at power limit and 2% total loss in Columbus to 825 lb/min (22.5 t/h) combine in both barley and wheat. The Case IH 1660 had about
at 3% loss in Katepwa. More available power would have increased 1.40 times the capacity of the Reference II combine at 3% loss in
capacity in Columbus wheat. Harrington barley, about 1.20 times its capacity at power limit in
In both wheat and barley, the low loss over most of the operating Columbus wheat and about 1.30 times its capacity at 3% loss in
range enabled large variations in feedrate with only small changes in Katepwa wheat. FIGURES 7 to 9 compare the total losses of both
loss. combines in wheat and barley.
Average Workrates: TABLE 4 indicates the average workrates
obtained in each crop over the entire test season. These values are
considerably lower than the capacity test results in TABLE 3. This is
because the results in TABLE 3 represent instantaneous rates while
average workrates take into account operation at lower loss levels,
variable crop and field conditions, availability of grain handling
equipment, and differences in operating habits. Most operators
could expect to obtain average rates in this range, while some daily
rates may approach the capacity test values. The average workrates
should not be used to compare combines. The factors, which affect
workrates are too variable and cannot be duplicated for all combine
tests.
Comparing Combine Capacities: The capacity of combines
tested in different years or in different crop conditions should be
compared only by using the PAMI reference combines. Capacity
ratios comparing the test combine to the reference combine are
given in the following section. For older reports where the ratio is not
given, a ratio can be calculated by dividing the MOG feedrate listed FIGURE 7. Total Grain Loss in Harrington Barley.
in the capacity table by the corresponding MOG feedrate of the
reference combine listed in APPENDIX II for that particular crop. QUALITY OF WORK
Once capacity ratios for different evaluation combines have Picking: Pickup performance was good. The pickup was
been determined for comparable crops, they can be used to normally operated at about a 30 degree angle with the ground. The
Page 5
picking speed was set just slightly faster than ground speed with
the teeth just touching the ground. With these settings, crops in well
supported windrows were picked cleanly at speeds up to 5 mph (8
km/h). In poorly supported windrows, the picking angle was reduced
and pickup speed increased. In hard-to-pick conditions, pickup loss
often increased noticeably at speeds over 3.5 mph (5.6 km/h).

FIGURE 10. Concave Damage.

In all crops, the multiple pass threshing action maintained very

low unthreshed loss over the entire operating range. Even in tough
conditions, unthreshed loss was only a small part of the total loss.
FIGURE 8. Total Grain Loss in Columbus Wheat. Reducing rotor speed and increasing concave opening increased
unthreshed loss noticeably.
Even with the aggressive threshing, grain damage measured
in the clean grain sample was low for all crops. Generally, changing
rotor speed had little effect on grain damage, while changing
concave opening had no effect.
TABLE 5 shows the settings PAMI found to be suitable for
different crops.

TABLE 5. Crop Settings

Crop Settings

Crop Rotor Concave Chaffer Chaffer Cleaning Fan

Speed Setting Sieve Extension Sieve Speed
Position Setting Setting Setting

rpm in mm in mm in mm rpm

Barley 800-900 3ww 7/8 22 5/8 16 1/2 13 700-850

Canola 700-800 4nw 1/2 13 5/8 16 1/16-1/8 2-3 600-700

FIGURE 9. Total Grain Loss in Katepwa Wheat.
Flax 900-1000 0nw 3/8 10 1/2 13 1/8 3 500
The pickup picked small stones when operating in hard-to-pick Rye 800-900 2nw 5/8 16 5/8 16 1/4 6 600-700
conditions.
Wheat 1000- 0nw 5/8 16 3/4 19 1/4 800-860
Feeding: Feeding was good. 1100
Feeding the windrow off centre with the feeder did not affect
nw -- narrow wire
combine performance. ww -- wide wire
The table auger, which is larger than previous models, provided
smooth flow of crop under the auger and to the feeder conveyor. The
Separating: Separating was very good. In all crops, the crop
auger seldom plugged but did wrap in tough flax straw. Changing
flowed smoothly through the separating section. Plugging and
the auger finger timing did not stop the wrapping.
bridging did not occur.
The feeder conveyor was aggressive and conveyed most
In barley, two wide wire threshing concaves were used. The
crops without plugging. Although the conveyor handled dry canola
transport vanes and separating grate channels were left in the
well, it plugged frequently between the top conveyor shaft and rock
factory set position. Rotor loss increased gradually with feedrate
beater in tough canola crops. This made harvesting tough canola
and was low at feedrates up to when shoe loss limited capacity.
nearly impossible.
However, had shoe loss remained low then rotor loss would have
Backfeeding down the top side of the feeder conveyor occurred
limited capacity at higher feedrates.
occasionally in tough conditions, but seldom plugged the conveyor.
In wheat, all three narrow wire threshing concaves were used.
Stone Protection: Stone protection was good.
Rotor loss was very low over the entire operating range and did not
The stone trap was most effective if emptied regularly to
limit capacity even in long straw wheat crops.
prevent grain and dirt from hardening in the “trap”. The stone trap
In canola and flax, the narrow wire threshing concaves were
collected many stones and roots, which were driven into the pocket
used. In canola there was always some rotor loss, although it did not
when contacted by the rock beater. Objects up to 4 in (102 mm) in
limit capacity.
diameter were often emptied from the trap. A full stone trap often
The settings used to achieve optimum separation in the
caused backfeeding. Some roots and stones did go through the
different crops encountered are listed in TABLE 5.
combine, but caused only minor damage to the concaves (FIGURE
Cleaning: Cleaning shoe performance was good.
10).
In all crops, the material was delivered uniformly to the shoe.
Threshing: Threshing was very good.
However, the cleaning sieve plugged several times, usually in
In most crops, rotor speeds used were similar or slightly
wheat. After unplugging, the cleaning sieve was found to be almost
higher than the cylinder speeds used for equivalent size cylinders
closed. It was not determined if the adjustment had worked closed
in a conventional combine. Fairly close concave clearance was also
and caused the plugging or if the shoe had plugged first and forced
used. With these settings, in dry conditions, crop flowed smoothly
the sieve closed. It is possible that material destined for the return
into and around the rotor. In tough or damp conditions, the crop
was stopped by the “air dam” or more likely the rubber flap hanging
throughput was decreased slightly due to the increased power
from the chaffer (FIGURES 11 and 12). It is recommended that
required.
Page 6
the manufacturer consider investigating the cause of the cleaning 15 ft (3.7 to 4.6 m) directly behind the combine (FIGURE 14). This
sieve’s accidental closing and make modifications to either prevent was a narrow spread for the windrow width needed for this combine.
the sieve from closing by itself or to prevent the cleaning sieve from It is recommended that the manufacturer consider modifications to
plugging. improve straw spreading.
Chaff was not spread and the windrow formed when dropping
the straw was generally not suitable for baling.

FIGURE 11. Air Dam Between Chaffer and Cleaning Sieves.

FIGURE 13. Unloading.

FIGURE 12. Rubber Flap From the Chaffer Sieve.

In barley, shoe loss was low over most of the operating range FIGURE 14. Straw Spreading.
but became erratic at about 580 lb/min (15.8 t/h) of MOG. This
sudden increase in shoe loss limited combine capacity. Although EASE OF OPERATION AND ADJUSTMENT
the MOG feedrate was not extremely high, the accompanying grain Operator Comfort: Operator comfort was very good. The
feedrate was well over 1000 bu/h (21.8 t/h), which is a high shoe Case IH 1660 was equipped with an operator’s cab positioned
load for most combines. ahead of the grain tank and slightly left of center. The cab was easily
In wheat, shoe loss was low over most of the operating range. In accessible and quiet. However, the noise from the feeder chain was
Columbus, shoe loss was very low even at power limit. In Katepwa, annoying. Incoming air was effectively filtered while fans pressurized
shoe loss increased at the high feedrates so that at capacity it was the cab to reduce dust leaks. The heater and air conditioner provided
about half of the total loss. comfortable cab temperatures. The seat and steering column were
In flax and canola crops, shoe loss limited capacity. The shoe adjustable and provided a comfortable operating combination for
could be set to obtain low loss (less than 1%) in most of these most operators. Forward and side visibility was very good. The
crops. large convex rear view mirrors provided good rear visibility. View of
In all crops, the Case IH 1660 had a clean grain sample when the the incoming windrow was partially blocked by the steering column
shoe was set for minimal loss. The settings PAMI found suitable for (FIGURE 15). The view was improved if the operator leaned forward
the crops encountered are listed in TABLE 5. and to the right. This was still a comfortable operating position. Grain
Clean Grain Handling: Grain handling was very good. level visibility was restricted by the grain tank screen. Visibility while
The open grain tank filled evenly in all crops, although the unloading was good.
top corners usually did not fill completely. A full tank of dry wheat Instruments: Instrumentation was good.
held about 175 bu (6.4 m³). No full bin sensors were provided and if The instruments were located to the right of the operator
overfilled, grain spilled over the front of the tank. It is recommended and in the upper right corner of the cab (FIGURES 16 and 17).
that the manufacturer consider supplying “full bin” warning sensors. The instrument panel to the operator’s right contained gauges for
The unloading auger was hydraulically positioned for unloading to the engine oil pressure, coolant temperature, battery voltage, fuel level
left. The hydraulic swing was useful for topping loads and unloading and engine hours. It also contained an audio alarm and warning
on-the-go. The unloading auger had ample reach and clearance for lamps for low engine oil pressure, excessive coolant temperature,
unloading into all trucks and trailers encountered (FIGURE 13). The and shoe and elevator drive speed reductions. A digital readout
auger discharged the grain in a compact stream and unloaded a full selectively displayed engine rpm, fan rpm, rotor rpm and ground
tank of dry wheat in about 110 seconds. speed. A separate continuous readout for engine rpm would have
Straw Spreading: Straw spreading was poor. been useful.
In most conditions the straw from the rotor of the Case IH 1660 The instrument panel in the upper right corner, had warning
was severely broken and additional chopping was not required, The lamps and audio alarm for reduced speed of the clean grain elevator,
bat-type spreaders spread most of the straw evenly over about 12 to tailing elevator, cleaning fan, feeder, rear beater, spreaders, shoe
Page 7
shake, and rotary air screen. The alarm set point for the rotor and engagement by detents. The switches had to be lifted to turn the
fan was adjustable. The warning lamps for shaft speed reductions drive on. The feeder reverser control switch worked in conjunction
worked well but were inconvenient to observe while harvesting. with the feeder drive switch. The header height control switch was
This was annoying when momentary slowdowns in shaft speeds located on the propulsion control lever. Although it was convenient
occurred. Although the alarm sounded, the warning lamps did not to operate, the lift rate was slow. The propulsion control lever had
stay illuminated long enough for the operator to see which alarm annoying side-to-side free play, which gave a poor feel of control.
had triggered. It is recommended that the manufacturer consider Also, the tension adjustment could not be easily set for smooth
modifications to make the shaft speed monitor more convenient to fore-and-aft control. If the control lever was set to keep it from
view. creeping back to neutral then its operation was stiff and jerky. It
is recommended that the manufacturer consider modifications to
reduce the side-to-side free play and to provide smooth positive
operation of the propulsion control lever.

FIGURE 17. Shaft Speed Monitor in Upper Right Corner of the Cab.

The pickup speed could be either adjusted manually, or set to

automatically maintain the same pickup to ground speed ratio. The
automatic control worked well and was very convenient. Rotor speed
and fan speed were adjusted by rocker switches. The unloading
auger swing control on the steering column was convenient. The
unloading drive lever was located to the left of the operator and was
easy to use.
Loss Monitor: The loss monitor was very good.
Two grain loss sensor pads were located at the rear of the
rotor and two at the rear of the chaffer sieve. The meter display
was located to the right of the operator on the cab corner post and
was convenient to observe (FIGURE 18). The grain loss monitor
contained four sensor lights above the meter that signalled which
sensor(s) were being activated. These lights did not indicate the
amount of loss. However, a meter was also provided to indicate a
FIGURE 15. Operator’s View of Incoming Windrow. relative loss from the shoe, rotor or both. Grain loss readings were
meaningful only if compared to actual losses observed behind the
combine.
Lighting: Lighting was very good.
Lighting for nighttime harvesting was provided by six field
lights, a grain tank light, and an unloading auger light. The field
lights provided long, medium, and short range forward lighting. The
unloading auger light provided rear lighting when in the transport
position. It also illuminated the auger and side of the truck and grain
stream while unloading, regardless of auger position. The grain tank
light effectiveness was reduced by the small holes in the grain tank
screen. The instruments were well lit and a dimmer was provided to
adjust the backlighting to personal preference. The road lights were
adequate. The two tail lights and four warning lights aided in safe
road transporting.
Handling: Handling was very good.
The Case IH 1660 was easy to drive and very maneuverable.
Steering was smooth and responsive. The wheel brakes aided in
cornering but were not required for picking around most windrow
corners. The “foot-n-inch pedal” was helpful when combining
FIGURE 16. Instrument Panel to Right of Operator. bunchy windrows and also aided in shifting the transmission, which
otherwise was often difficult to shift. The hydrostatic ground drive
Controls: The Case IH 1660 controls were good. was very convenient for matching ground speed to crop conditions.
Most of the controls were located to the right of the operator It also made backing up on hard to pick corners quick and easy.
(FIGURE 16), a few to the left, and the rest on the steering column. The combine was very stable in the field even with a full grain
Most of the controls were conveniently placed and easy to use. tank. Normal caution was needed when operating on hillsides and
The separator and header drives were engaged by toggle when travelling at transport speeds. The combine travelled well at
switches. These switches were protected from accidental speeds up to its maximum of 16.6 mph (26.7 km/h). However, while
Page 8
combining in some soil conditions, the combine vibrated noticeably. The power feeder reverser backed out most slugs from the
No cause or cure was found. table auger and feeder. However, a severe plug in the feeder often
caused the feeder clutch to slip before the slug was backed out.
When a severe plug occurred between the feeder chain top shaft
and the rock beater, it was often easier to open the stone trap and to
eject the slug by running the feeder forward.
Operating the reverser put heavy demands on the electrical
system. This was most noticeable at night. As the reverser was
engaged the lights dimmed substantially.
The rotor seldom plugged. If a plug did occur, it could usually
be cleared by lowering the concave, putting the rotor drive into low
gear and powering the slug through. If the slug could not be powered
through, the concaves had to be partially removed and the slug
cleared by hand. The slug wrench provided to rock the rotor did not
help because the variable speed belt slipped.
Machine Cleaning: Cleaning the Case IH 1660 for harvesting
seed grain was good.
Cleaning the grain tank was easy, but, cleaning the grain
tank sump was difficult. The sieves were fairly easy to remove and
provided access for cleaning the tailings and clean grain auger
troughs. The shoe delivery auger troughs were accessible from the
sides and could be cleaned using a vacuum. Chaff and dust that
built up on top of the rotor cage and in front of the rotor housing was
difficult to remove, unless a portable blower was used. The outside
of the combine was easily cleaned.
Lubrication: Ease of lubrication was very good.
Daily lubrication was quick and easy. There were only a few
lubrication points and most were easily accessible. The combine
had 54 pressure grease fittings. Five required greasing at 10 hours,
twenty-two at 50 hours, an additional sixteen at 200 hours and
eleven more on an annual basis. Engine, gearboxes and hydraulic
oil levels required regular checking.
The fuel inlet was 7.5 ft (2.3 m) above the ground and was
difficult to fill from some gravity fuel tanks. Changing engine oil
and filters was easy. Maintenance: Ease of performing routine
maintenance was very good.
Most chains and belts were easily accessible for checking
and adjusting tension. The engine was also easily accessible for
inspection and service.
FIGURE 18. Grain Loss Monitor. Although the rotary screen greatly reduced radiator plugging,
the radiator had to be cleaned periodically. Gaining access to
Adjustment: Ease of adjusting the combine components was the radiator was difficult. The engine air filter restriction indicator
good. indicated when the primary filter needed servicing.
Pickup speed, rotor speed, and fan speed could be adjusted Slip clutches protected the table auger, feeder, clean grain and
from within the cab while operating. Concave clearance, and shoe tailings return drives.
settings were located on the machine.
Auger finger timing, auger clearance and auger stripper bar ENGINE AND FUEL COMSUMPTION
adjustments were easily made to suit crop conditions and once set, The Navistar DT-466 diesel engine started easily and ran well.
did not have to be readjusted. The engine operated at or near power limit in most crops. It provided
Adjusting concave clearance was easy. Changing threshing adequate power to maintain its capacity in most conditions.
concaves for combining different crops was not difficult but was Average fuel consumption was about 5.9 gal/h (27 L/h). Oil
inconvenient. Changing the rear two concaves took about 20 consumption was insignificant.
minutes while changing all three took from 40 minutes to one hour.
The cleaning sieve was easy to adjust. However, the wing nut OPERATOR SAFETY
on the adjustment lever had to be tightened with a wrench to keep The operator’s manual emphasized operator safety. The Case
the lever from moving. This was inconvenient. It is recommended IH 1660 had warning decals to indicate dangerous areas. All moving
that the manufacturer consider modifications to provide convenient, parts were well shielded and most shields were easily removed for
positive cleaning sieve adjustment. easy access.
Field Setting: Ease of setting the Case IH 1660 to suit crop A header cylinder safety stop was provided. The stop should
conditions was very good. Once initial adjustments had been made, be used when working near the header or when the combine is left
usually little fine tuning was required. unattended.
Threshing was easy to set for in all crops. Since the combine If the operator is required to work in the header or other
was not equipped with a straw chopper, unthreshed losses could be potentially dangerous areas, it is important that all clutches be
easily checked. Separation was also easy to set for, especially when disengaged and the engine shut off.
the spreaders were removed. The settings that provided optimum The combine was equipped with a slow moving vehicle sign,
threshing were usually the same settings that provided optimum warning lights, signal lights, tail lights, road lights and rear view
separating. mirrors to aid safe road transport.
Setting the shoe for optimum performance was fairly easy. Shoe A fire extinguisher, class ABC should be carried on the combine
loss was easy to sample and the manufacturer’s suggested settings at all times.
were close. The operator had to be careful not to overload the shoe
by over-threshing the crop as this made setting more difficult. No OPERATOR’S MANUAL
provisions were made for sampling the return. It is recommended that The operator’s manual was very good. It was clearly written
the manufacturer consider modifications to permit safe, convenient and well organized. It provided useful information on safety, controls,
sampling of the return tailings while harvesting. adjustments, crop settings, servicing, trouble-shooting, and machine
Unplugging: Ease of unplugging was good. specifications.
Page 9
MECHANICAL HISTORY CONCAVE (THRESHING):
The intent of the test was evaluation of functional performance. -- number 3
Extended durability testing was not conducted. However, TABLE 6 -- type bar and wire
-- number of bars 23 each
outlines the mechanical history of the Case IH 1660 for the 130 -- configuration
hours of field operation during which about 1183 ac (479 ha) of crop - narrow space 22 intervals with 0.19 in (4.8 mm) wires and
was harvested. 0.23 in (6 mm) spaces
- wide space 22 intervals with 0.25 in (6.4 mm) wires and
0.55 in (14 mm) spaces
TABLE 6. Mechanical History -- area WIDE NARROW
- concave total 1339 in² (0.86 m²) 1339 in² (0.86 m²)
Field Area
- concave open 749 in² (0.48 m²) 605 in² (0.39 m²)
Operating
- open area 55% 45%
Item Hours ac (ha)
-- wrap 140 degrees
-An O-ring on a plug in the hydrostatic motor failed and was replaced -- grain delivery to shoe 4 auger conveyors
at 10 83 (34) -- options filler bars
-The oil seal between the engine and transmission started leaking at 29 260 (105)
-The header reverser chain broke and was replaced at 106 991 (401) CONCAVE (SEPARATING):
-The drive chain for the clean grain elevator came off and was -- number 3, plus perforated upper cage
replaced at 122 1122 (454) -- type perforated formed metal
-- area total 2434 in² (1.57 m²)
-Several concave wires were damaged by small stones During Test Season -- area open 691 in² (0.45 m²)
-- open area 30%
-- wrap 280 degrees
Oil Seal: The main seal between the engine and transmission -- grain delivery to shoe 4 auger conveyors
started leaking slightly. The problem was not serious enough to -- options square bar grates
have to be repaired during the test season.
THRESHING AND SEPARATING CHAMBER:
-- number of spirals 12
-- pitch of spirals 22 degrees
APPENDIX I
SPECIFICATIONS DISCHARGE BEATER:
MAKE: Case IH Self-Propelled Combine -- type 3 wing triangle
MODEL: 1660 -- speed 800 rpm
SERIAL NUMBER: Header-001197
Body-016065 SHOE:
Engine-467TF2V1951501 -- type opposed action
MANUFACTURER: J. I. Case Company -- speed 260 rpm
700 State Street -- chaffer sieve and tailing sieve adjustable lip, 2635 in² (1.70 m²) with
Racine, Wisconsin 53404 2.25 in (57 mm) throw
U.S.A. -- tailings sieve adjustable lip, 465 in² (0.30 m²)
-- clean grain sieve adjustable lip, 2330 in² (1.50 m²) with
WINDROW PICKUP: 1.25 in (32 mm) throw
-- make Case IH -- options straw chopper
-- type belt chaffer sieves
-- pickup width 13 ft (4.0 m) - 1-1/8 in (29 mm) regular tooth
-- number of belts 7 - 1-5/8 in (41 mm) deep tooth
-- type of teeth plastic - 1-1/8 in (29 mm) Petersen
-- number of rollers 2 - 1-5/8 in (41 mm) Close slat
-- height control castor wheels round hole sieves
-- speed control hydrostatic - 1/10 in (3 mm), 7/32 in (6mm)
-- speed range 0 to 534 ft/min (0 to 2.71 m/s) - 3/8 in (10 mm), 1/2 in (13 mm)
Alfalfa Package, Side Hill Grain Pan
HEADER: Dividers
-- type centre feed
-- width CLEANING FAN:
- table 13 ft (4.0 m) -- type 6 blade undershot
- feeder house 34.5 in (880 mm) -- diameter 23 in (585 mm)
-- auger diameter 23.25 in (590 mm) -- width 33.7 in (855 mm)
-- feed conveyor 2 roller chains, undershot slatted conveyor -- drive electrically controlled variable pitch belt
-- conveyor speed 8.2 ft/s (2.5 m/s) -- speed range 440 to 1400 rpm
-- range of picking height -39.5 in to 41 in (-1000 mm to 1040 mm) -- options slow speed kit, inlet shields
-- number of lift cylinders 2
-- raising time 6s ELEVATORS:
-- lowering time adjustable -- type roller chain with rubber flights
-- options rigid header, flex header, corn heads, auto -- clean grain (top drive) 6 x 12 in (152 x 305 mm)
header height control, accumulator, auto -- tailings (top drive) 6 x 8 in (152 x 203 mm)
feeder shutoff -- options steel flights, perforated screens

STONE PROTECTION: GRAIN TANK:

-- type travel limited front feeder drum and a power -- capacity 174 bu (6.3 m³)
driven three winged beater -- unloading time 109 s
-- ejection manually open and close trap door -- unloading auger diameter 11.25 in (285 mm)
-- unloading auger length 195 in (4950 mm)
ROTOR: -- options perforated unloader tube, longer tube
-- number of rotors 1
-- type longitudinally mounted, closed tube with STRAW SPREADER:
parallel and spiral rasp bars at front portion -- number of spreaders 2
and 3 parallel smooth bars at rear portion -- type steel hub with 6 rubber bats
-- diameter -- speed 240 rpm
- tube 19.5 in (492 mm) -- options straw chopper
- feeding 34 in (860 mm)
- threshing 24.5 in (622 mm) ENGINE:
- separating 22 in (562 mm) -- make Navistar
-- length -- model DT-466B
- feeding 20.25 in (515 mm) -- type 4 stroke, turbo-charge, after cooled
- threshing 43 in (1095 mm) -- number of cylinders 6
- separating 46 in (1165 mm) -- displacement 466 in³ (7.6 L)
- total 109 in (2770 mm) -- governed speed (full throttle) 2690 to 2770 rpm
-- drive electrically controlled variable pitch belt -- manufacturers rating 180 hp (134 kW)
through 2 speed gearbox -- fuel tank capacity 75 gal (340 L)
-- speeds
- low 250 to 611 rpm CLUTCHES:
- high 470 to 1190 rpm -- header electro-hydraulic
-- options specialty rotor -- separator electro-hydraulic
-- unloading auger over center belt tightener
-- traction drive hydraulic valve (foot-n-inch pedal)

Page 10
 NUMBER OF CHAIN DRIVES: 8

NUMBER OF BELT DRIVES: 12

NUMBER OF GEARBOXES: 4

LUBRICATION POINTS:
-- 10 hr 5
-- 50 hr 22
-- 100 hr 16
-- annually 11

TIRES:
-- front 23.1 x 26 R1
-- rear 11 x 16F2

TRACTION DRIVE:
-- type hydrostatic
-- speed ranges
- 1st gear 0 to 3.4 mph (0 to 5.5 km/h)
- 2nd gear 0 to 6.3 mph (0 to 10.1 km/h)
- 3rd gear 0 to 16.6 mph (0 to 26.7 km/h)
-- options adjustable axles, wheel spacers, drive
tracks, weights, axle extensions, platform
ladder extensions, powered rear axle

OVERALL DIMENSIONS:
-- wheel tread (front) 9.0 ft (2.7 m)
-- wheel tread (rear) 6.5 ft (2.0 m)
-- wheel base 11.5 ft (3.5 m)
-- transport height 13.0 ft (3.9 m)
-- transport length 31.8 ft (9.7 m)
-- transport width 18.9 ft (5.8 m)
-- field height 13.0 ft (3.9 m)
-- field length 31.4 ft (9.6 m)
-- field width 18.9 ft (5.8 m)
-- unloader discharge height 12.8 ft (3.9 m)
-- unloader reach 6.7 ft (2.0 m)
-- unloader clearance 13.1 ft (4.0 m)
-- turning radius
- left 20.3 ft (6.2 m)
- right 21.0 ft (6.4 m)

WEIGHT (EMPTY GRAIN TANK):

- right front wheel 7862 lb (3566 kg)
- left front wheel 8633 lb (3916 kg)
- right rear wheel 2775 lb (1259 kg)
- left rear wheel 2775 lb (1259 kg)
TOTAL 22045 lb (10000 kg)

PAMI REFERENCE COMBINE CAPACITY RESULTS

Page 11
 APPENDIX II

PAMI REFERENCE COMBINE CAPACITY RESULTS

TABLE 7 and FIGURES 19 and 20 present the capacity results from the PAMI FIGURE 20 shows capacity differences in wheat crops for the two years. In 1986
reference combines in barley and wheat crops harvested in 1984 to 1986. the Katepwa wheat crop had higher than average straw yield, and average grain yield. It
FIGURE 19 shows capacity differences in barley crops for 1984 and 1986. The also had average grain moisture and slightly below average straw moisture content.
1986 Harrington barley crop shown in TABLE 7 had lower than average straw yield and Results show that the reference combine is important in determining the effect
slightly lower than average grain yield. It also had slightly below average straw and grain of crop variables and in comparing capacity results of combines evaluated in different
moisture. years.

TABLE 7. Capacity of the PAMI Reference Combines at a Total Grain Loss of 3% Yield

Crop Conditions Capacity Results

Width of Cut Crop Yield Moisture Content MOG Feedrate Grain Feedrate Grain Foreign
MOG/G Cracks Dockage Material Loss
Crop Variety ft m bu/ac t/ha Straw % Grain % Ratio lb/min t/h bu/h t/h % % % Curve

Barley Harrington1 56 17.0 62 3.3 10.5 10.8 0.64 424 11.6 828 18.1 0.4 0.3 0.2 19
Wheat Columbus1 56 17.0 51 3.4 8.8 16.7 1.14 647 17.7 568 15.5 1.5 4.6 3.5
R Wheat Katepwa 29 8.9 49 3.3 6.5 14.0 1.32 644 17.6 488 13.3 1.8 1.7 1.0 20
E
F
Barley Bonanza1 42 12.8 52 2.8 15.0 11.2 0.70 363 9.9 648 14.1 0.5 1.0 19
II Barley Bonanza 24 7.3 77 4.1 11.3 11.6 0.66 352 9.6 687 14.6 0.5 1.0
Wheat Neepawa1 44 13.4 36 2.4 6.3 10.9 1.32 539 14.7 408 11.1 1.1 5.5 20
Wheat Neepawa 22 12.8 44 3.0 8.7 10.2 1.18 601 16.4 509 13.9 4.5 7.0

Barley Harrington 28 8.5 59 3.7 10.5 9.2 0.56 294 8.0 656 14.3 0.8 0.5 0.2
Wheat Columbus1 42 12.8 32 2.2 11.8 14.7 1.09 438 12.0 402 11.0 1.2 4.9 3.0
Wheat Katepwa 29 8.9 50 3.4 7.5 14.1 1.33 420 11.5 316 8.6 1.3 1.5 0.7

R Barley Argyle1 60 18.0 75 4.0 25.5 11.4 0.94 293 8.0 390 8.5 2.0 1.0 0.4
E Barley Bonanza1 55 16.8 83 4.5 21.0 15.0 0.76 285 7.7 469 10.2 1.0 1.7 1.2
F Wheat Neepawa1 42 12.8 42 2.8 23.7 18.0 1.43 391 10.7 273 7.5 4.9 2.3 0.2
Wheat Katepwa1 41 12.5 82 4.2 24.8 18.5 0.95 435 11.9 458 12.5 2.5 1.3 0.2
I
Barley Bonanza1 42 12.8 68 3.7 18.5 12.9 0.74 275 7.5 464 10.1
Barley Bonanza 24 7.3 85 4.8 12.0 12.1 0.62 213 5.8 429 9.4
Wheat Neepawa1 44 13.4 42 2.8 6.7 11.8 1.47 308 8.4 209 5.7
Wheat Neepawa1 42 12.8 41 2.8 8.5 10.3 1.17 356 9.7 304 8.3
Wheat Neepawa1 42 12.8 23 1.8 7.2 12.5 0.99 345 9.4 348 9.5

1
Side by side double windrows

FIGURE 19. Total Grain Loss for the PAMI Reference Combines in Barley. FIGURE 20. Total Grain Loss for the PAMI Reference Combines in Wheat.

Page 12
 APPENDIX III
REGRESSION EQUATIONS FOR CAPACITY RESULTS

Regression equations for the capacity results shown in FIGURES 4 to 6 are

presented in TABLE 8. In the regressions, U = unthreshed loss in percent of yield, S = shoe
loss in percent of yield, R = rotor loss in percent of yield, F = the MOG feedrate in lb/min,
while ln is the natural logarithm. Sample size refers to the number of loss collections,
Limits of the regressions may be obtained from FIGURES 4 to 6 while crop conditions are
presented in TABLE 3.

TABLE 8. Regression Equations

Crop - Variety Figure Number Regression Equations Simple Correlation Coefficient Variance Ratio Sample Size

lnU = -5.66 + 6.73 x 10-3F 0.86 38.152

Barley - Harrington 2 S = -0.11 + 3.401 x 10-14F5 0.72 15.562 8
lnR = -4.44 + 7.74 x 10-3F 0.96 236.702

U = 0.17 + 5.89 x 10-5F 0.08 0.54

Wheat - Columbus 3 S = -0.06 + 7.45 x 10-4F 0.63 10.181 8
R = -0.19 + 1.21 x 10-3 F 0.80 24.382

U = 0.02 + 4.51 x 10-4F 0.77 17.172

Wheat - Katepwa 4 S = -0.004 + 2.67 x 10-9F3 0.70 00.892 7
lnR = -2.74 + 3.30 x 10-3F 0.88 36.452

1
Significant at P O 0.05
2
Significant at P O 0.01

APPENDIX IV
MACHINE RATINGS
The following rating scale is used in PAMI Reports:
excellent fair
very good poor
good unsatisfactory

Page 13
 SUMMARY CHART

CASE IH 1660 SELF-PROPELLED COMBINE

RETAIL PRICE $135,126.00 (May, 1987, f.o.b. Humboldt, Sask.)

CAPACITY
Compared to Reference
Combine - barley 1.40 x Reference II, 2.0 x Reference I
- wheat 1.20 to 1.30 x Reference II, 1.85 to 2.00 x Reference I
MOG Feedrates
- barley - Harrington 585 lb/min (16.0 t/h) at 3% total loss, FIGURE 2
- wheat - Columbus 800 lb/min (21.8 t/h) at 3% total loss, FIGURE 3
- Katepwa 825 lb/min (22.5 t/h) at 2% total loss, FIGURE 4

QUALITY OF WORK
Picking Good; picked cleanly, fed crop smoothly under table auger
Feeding Good; handled dry crops but plugged in tough canola straw
Stone Protection Good; small stones caused minor concave damage
Threshing Very Good; aggressive, low unthreshed losses
Separating Very Good; changing concaves was inconvenient
Cleaning Good; losses unstable at high feedrates in barley
Grain Handling Very Good; unloading system was fast and convenient
Straw Spreading Poor; spread up to 15 ft (4.6 m)

EASE OF OPERATION AND ADJUSTMENT

Comfort Very Good; quiet cab, adequate seat and steering adjustment
Instruments Good; upper console difficult to observe
Controls Good; propulsion control lever hard to adjust for operation
Loss Monitor Very Good; useful if reading compared to actual loss observed
Lighting Very Good; good long range visibility
Handling Very Good; easy to maneuver
Adjustment Good; lower sieve adjustment inconvenient
Setting Very Good; little fine tuning required
Unplugging Good; feeder reverser worked well
Cleaning Good; cleaning internal components was difficult
Lubrication Very Good; few daily lubrication points
Maintenance Very Good; easily accessible

ENGINE AND FUEL CONSUMPTION

Engine Very Good; ran well, adequate power
Fuel Consumption 5.9 gal/h (27 L/h)

OPERATOR SAFETY OPERATOR’S All moving parts well shielded

MANUAL MECHANICAL HISTORY Very Good; contained much useful information A few mechanical problems

Prairie Agricultural Machinery Institute

Head Office: P.O. Box 1900, Humboldt, Saskatchewan, Canada S0K 2A0
Telephone: (306) 682-2555

3000 College Drive South Test Stations:

Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada T1K 1L6 P.O. Box 1060 P.O. Box 1150
Telephone: (403) 329-1212 Portage la Prairie, Manitoba, Canada R1N 3C5 Humboldt, Saskatchewan, Canada S0K 2A0
FAX: (403) 329-5562 Telephone: (204) 239-5445 Telephone: (306) 682-5033
http://www.agric.gov.ab.ca/navigation/engineering/ Fax: (204) 239-7124 Fax: (306) 682-5080
afmrc/index.html
This report is published under the authority of the minister of Agriculture for the Provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba and may not be reproduced in whole or in part without the prior
approval of the Alberta Farm Machinery Research Centre or The Prairie Agricultural Machinery Institute.