13 replies to this topic

[cornshucker]

Went today to look at a New Holland Stack wagon, culled it not worth even half the asking price no more than I know about them. Will get one before next season,still undecided on an older self propelled or a newer pull type. Gots lots of questions you guys have already given me some good information. I would like to know what you think of Roeders Implement in Seneca Kansas, from what I have heard they are great. Some of the questions I would like to know is if I get a pull type how much problem to put cab controls on it, is the single bale unload and rolling rack on the 1038 worth the trouble or is the 1037 better. What is the most important things to look at when choosing that may not be obvious to most people. From what I have seen the later model 1037 and 1038 pull types or the 1047, 1049, or some 1069 are within my budget and the 1085 and 1089 are pretty much out of my league price wise. I like the size of the 1047 but it does not have the auto-tie but I am almost sure that I can retrofit it from parts off of another model. Also I know this machine is getting old but I am almost sure I can keep it running as I have worked at Massey and New Holland dealerships years ago and have been a welder and fabricator in a
Deere factory. Am I being over confident or is the machine a little long in the tooth. I would like to get one by February and have a couple of months to tinker with it and go over it good and get more familiar with its operation. As I said on the earlier thread I will be doing around 10,000 to 15,000 bales a year depending on how many round bales we put up. Any pros and cons will help. The New Holland dealership I worked at never sold one while I was there. Mostly trying to decide whether the speed on the road of the self propelled is worth the extra up keep of a running gear (Already have tractors that I could use) What size tractor best for a 1037 or 1038. Better to use big one or smaller one for manuevering as long as it will handle the weight. Thank You!!!!!














Going to get

[Mike120]

Am I being over confident or is the machine a little long in the tooth.

I ran a NH 1000 until a few years ago when I switched over to a Hoelscher. The guy that bought it is still running it. I can't say much for the newer ones, but if you take care of them, they will pretty much run forever. I've never heard anything but good about Roeders. A few years ago they had a "dealer" out in your part of the country. Don't know if they still do.

[Teslan]

I've never ran a pt NH hay stacker, but have always run a SP hay stacker. I would go with a SP stacker anytime any place before a pull type. Not only is the road gear much faster so is in the field and dumping as well. I would really look into the sp stackers especially since you have experience as a welder and a fabricator. That and engine work I would think would be the best experience to owning a 1069 or something as you most likely will be needing to do some welding on the frame, bale pickup or something. As well as clutch and engine wear on a machine that old. But if you get a SP one you will not want to go to a PT after that.

[lfc]

I started looking for a bale wagon a few years ago, and figured a 1033 was my best bet. Not many bale wagons at all in New England, but I happened to find a local 1047that someone had bought, used a couple times and never liked, so I was able to pick it up for a good price. I've used it now for three seasons, averaging 5000 bales or so per season. Did also buy a 1033 last winter for next to nothing in PA, but haven't really used it much yet so I can't comment too much on the differences between a SP and pull type. All of my fields are close by so my 1047 never gets out of 2nd gear, but it sure is nice having the SP for ease of manuevering. Some advice I can offer:
1. I'd stay away from the single bale unload models (1034 and 1038) unless you really need that feature. It adds a lot of extra stuff that can break.
2. The models with spring-controlled rolling racks cannot stack a partial load. Since I do not usually want to stack a partial load in the barn, it isn't an issue for me.
3. My 1047 doesn't have autotie, but it isn't a big deal jumping up on the second table to rearrange the bales. Biggest problem is the potential to slip and fall.
4. The 1047 stacks eight high, while the 1049/69/89 stack nine high. I will eventually switch to a newer model so I can better utilize the space in my barn, but something to consider. That being said, none of the SP like wet ground and get stuck very easily. I think the 1047 is better as it is quite a bit lighter than the nine high models. Since I never travel on the road, I put some used R4 tread tires off a boom lift on my 1047, and it handles wet ground much better.
5. Some parts for the 1047 are tough to get from NH, but the powertrain parts usually cross over. My transmission lost first gear, but I was able to get a complete rebuilt kit from a Jeep shop for a reasonable cost. Brake master cylinder is also Jeep. I need to cross over the clutch master and slave cylinders now.
6. To pull a 1033/37 I think a 50 hp tractor is fine as long as the drawbar is rugged. I tried my 1033 on my Ford 4610, and my biggest issue was not being able to see the bale pickup over the fender. I think I'll use it on my Ford 7710 instead, as you sit much higher. The cab controls are all push-pull cables that act on the standard push-pull control rods. I suppose you could rig up your own handle and cable system, as the setup from NH is very expensive.
7. Accept the fact that it will probably take you a season or two (yes, that long) before you get fully comfortable with the do's and dont's of a balewagon. You will end up with broken bales and tipped stacks!
8. I've always heard good things about Roeder's too, but have only talked with them. I'll likely go to them when I decide to update the 1047. Their prices are reasonable, and they don't appear to hide things with new paint. I'm not convinced I'd pay extra for a "rebuilt" bale wagon from a jockey though.

[hay hauler]

Go for a 1049 or a 1069....

There speed is worth the extra cost. If you can fix most stuff and have it by feb, just rebuild a straight one yourself. They dont cost that much to fix up. A few grand will go a long way with these machines.

Get good tires.

With that many bales skip the pull type, exspecialy for road stuff....

You will want to give yourself some time the first time you go out to stack with it. More than likely everything will not work perfictaly the first few loast... Dont ask me why but they seem to have some personality....

[darren]

I got mine from Roeders sight unseen.They answered all my questions quickly.Its a 1038 pull type with auto tie. I never have used the single bale unloader.The wagon needed some tlc but has worked o.k so far.It cost $11,300 delivered.A bit steep on price for the condition.I wish i went to see it in person because some welds on loader arm were bad and the pump seals leak.

[nmhayfarmer]

I would go with a 1069. I had a 1069 and a 1089 and the 1069 would out stack the 1089. If you are going to haul hay any distance I would go with a self propelled

[hay wilson in TX]

I would go with a 1069.

If you have the verticle clearance go with something that will stack 9 tiers high.
What eats up time is the travel time a 69 or 89 will haul 160 bales, 18 bales 9 tiers high is 162 minus two bales for the two tie tiers.

A pull type is 15 bales to a tier 7 tiers high is 105 bales less one bale for the tie tier.

My NH 1003 stacks 83 bales at a time, 12 X 7 minus 1 for the tie tier.

All but the 1089 need a bulkhead to lean the stack against.


It is easier and quicker to back a truck into the barn.

What ever you get be sure to get an owners manual for it. If you can get a parts and service manual even better.

[cornshucker]

Thanks, all of the posts have some interesting information. Another thing I want to know is from what I have read all of the the 1047, 1049 and most of the 1069 have gasoline engines any danger of fire. Have seen some of the older gasoline powered combines that have burned. Do you know of any that have been converted to diesel.( 354 Perkins or 4-53 detroit that are two that I could probably lay my hands on pretty quick). I know from past experience that some conversions are complicated and some are fairly easy to do. I do not want a 1048 or 1068 2 wide machine because the length of the bale because some of the hay we sell people won't to be able handle a very solid 42 inch bale. As a matter of fact one or two have complained about the 36 inch bale that we are baling now as being to heavy. (Horse women)

Edited by cornshucker, 22 October 2011 - 07:11 AM.
add on

[Teslan]

My cousin has a gas powered 1069 from 1981. It has been rebuilt once. No fires. Diesel is better of course.

[hay hauler]

YES! fire is a issue with these. The engines sit right under the working part of the machine. If you clean the machine regulary though you will be ok. Diesel exhaust is hot as well. That is where fires start.


Converting would not be that difficult on a 1049, I just dont know that it is worth it. All hydrolic functions are run off of one pump that is conected to the front of the crank shaft. You will need a vacume pump to run the brake booster, the clutch is hydrolic, the park brake is on the rear of the transmision, and the clearence will be one thing to look at. I burn 1.5 gallons per load with my 361 industrial....Depending on your transmision choice, advanced adapters might make something for you to use, I don't know that the NP435 transmision will hold up though. The gas engines are hard enough on them. If you can a automatick that will hold up to abuse would be the ticket. It would increase the speed of these ten fold! The coolant system is plenty in my opinion to run a diesel, its a 4 layer core if i rember correctly, simular to a modern diesel radiator. The fan is a hokey setup to say the least, but i dont think you can find a electrical one that will pull what it does, There is no return to the fuel tank. I would recomend updating the intake one way or the other to something simular to a 1069 or newer. Plan to run around 2000 rpm to get the output out of the hydrolic pump that is needed.

All gages except the speedo is remote sencing.




Some 1069's came with diesel engines, others have a big block ford, think they burn more fuel, but have more power. Dont know much about them.


It you do pleas put up a inprogress build up. I am very interested to see what you come up with!!! Good luck, sould like you would not have a problme.

[chappy_22]

My dad has run a super 1049 bale wagon for over 30 years. The reason some peole have fire issues is because they never blow off the hay dust and material that builds up over-top of the engine. Blow or clean that off at the end of each day and you'll never have a problem. The engine has lasted quite long, mainly cuz he never took off the govenor, just a stopping plate that doesn't let you over rev it. The engine is getting tired now, burns about a liter of oil on a 8 to 10 hour day. Time for a rebuild. He's gone through one transmission. My uncle's farm, now cousin's run a fleet of 4 bale wagons for their haying operation. Three 1069 and one super 1049, the 1069's have air conditioning. Anyways dad has had to rebuild the a couple things on the super 1049 but all and all its doing just fine. The guides on the push-off feet will start to wear out and cause the push off feet to lean to the outside which will eventually catch the last table when pulling in if you don't take fix them up soon enough. And the flat iron that the slide back rack sits on, on the last table will eventually sag down on the outside edges, that's been replaced with a bit heavier steel at the welding shop in town.

[Rodney R]

I know a fellow that has a 1069 with a 460 gas in it, and the neighbor has a 1069 that has a perkins in it. I don't think that fire is much more of an issue with a gas, cause on the newer machine the engine sits down in the middle, and the exhaust shoots out the side, and it gets hot. I think it would pay to keep things cleaner on the gas engine, but I don't think a guy should shy away from one if it has a gas eninge. Definately get an SP, and forget the PT with single bale unload. Do you plan on putting this hay in a pole shed? The SP is much easier to back up and get the stacks tight when you unload. Much faster, period.

Rodney

[manveru]

we ran a 1069 with a 460 for the past 15 years and have never had a fire with it stacking grass, alfalfa, and straw. Also from what i know the 460 will run circles around the diesels going down the road. We're upgrading to a 9870, and when i test drove it, i still think from an acceleration stand point the 460 has it beat. we'll be selling our 1069 in the near future but we're in colorado