# MF 1839 baler vs 1840 baler



## jd-tom (Jun 15, 2010)

I have owned a Massey-Ferguson (Hesston) 1839 small square baler now for 4 seasons and really like the baler. But it has a few what I consider a "capacity" problem, such as if you hit even what I think is a relatively small lump in the windrow, you will shear the stuffer shearbolt and have to dig the chamber out by hand to continue. Most of this type of "lump" would go thru a side-pull baler OK, just pull the tractor down a bit but no sheared bolts or unplugging stop. Has anyone owned an 1839 baler in the recent past and then traded for the new 1840 that replaced it? Does the 1840 have better capacity in this area? Any other noticeable improvements? I know it does have some added features (the knotter fan would be nice) but overall would it be worth trading up?


----------



## Stuckey1 (Jul 9, 2010)

I just purchased a 1840 and I'm trading in my 348's next season. The 1840's are an hard to find item!


----------



## Stuckey1 (Jul 9, 2010)

I'm extremely happy!


----------



## Vol (Jul 5, 2009)

You know I have been thinking alot about these slug problems people experience. What I have come to the conclusion is maybe the MF/Hesston series is better suited for the folks in the Mid-South to the deep South and of course the Western folk where it is either alot hotter and better drying conditions or the humidity is very low with very good drying conditions. It might not be as good for the folks in the Northern reaches that have much cooler summers....and maybe not quite as good drying conditions. I very, very seldom shear a stuffer bolt. I have baled alot of hay this year and have yet to shear the first stuffer bolt. I have sheared one flywheel bolt trying to go to fast in a big windrow.

One other change on the 1840 is the change in pickup rotation....supposedly better feed.

Heading out right now to rake and bale the last of the 2nd orchard/alfalfa.

Regards, Mike


----------



## Teslan (Aug 20, 2011)

I'm in the west and I had the same problems as JD-Tom with my 16 inch Hesston inline. But generally only while baling alfalfa at night on pivot lands. My cousin has an 1839 that pretty much is his backup baler in case one of his NH or Case side pulls breaks down. It just won't match the NHs.


----------



## jd-tom (Jun 15, 2010)

In the 30-35,000 bales I have run thru this machine, I have burned thru the package of shear bolts that came with the baler and partway thru another box of 10. The package of knotter shear bolts is unopened yet and I used up the last flywheel shear bolt that came with the baler yesterday. The knotter and flywheel shear bolts are standard Grade 5 bolts that I can purchase at any hardware store but the stuffer shear bolts are a special bolt I have to get from MF - why?


----------



## Vol (Jul 5, 2009)

jd-tom said:


> . The knotter and flywheel shear bolts are standard Grade 5 bolts that I can purchase at any hardware store but the stuffer shear bolts are a special bolt I have to get from MF - why?


Probably because of the odd length...2 1/8". I think a 2" will work....and a 2 1/4" could be ground down a 1/8" very easily if there was not enough inside clearance for it. Just put the nut on and grind the bolt down a 1/8" and back the nut off for good threading.

Regards, Mike


----------



## MFred (Nov 29, 2013)

The 1840 will eat more hay than an 1839. The geometry of the stuffer fork was changed to run closer to the rear pre forming chamber. This results in less plugging, that's where the problem usually came from and a shear bolt would break. I only put about 2000 bales through the one I demoed but it would definitely eat hay better than my 1839. Too many dam safety shields on it though.
Not sure if I'm going to trade up just yet. I'm limited by help, wagons and field size to do 13-1500 bales at once anyway. I can do that just fine in an afternoon with the 1839. That knotter fan may get me though, been gonna build one myself for about 5 years.


----------



## Vol (Jul 5, 2009)

MFred said:


> Too many dam safety shields on it though.


I was thinking about the newly designed shields and how they may effect getting at grease zerks.

Regards, Mike


----------



## MFred (Nov 29, 2013)

I took them off and left them in the shed. One around the flywheel wasn't too bad. I didn't break a shear pin but I can see where it would get in the way trying to turn the flywheel to unplug it. I would probably take it off too if I bought one and just replace the door with the one off the 1839.

Those ones that guard the needles are pretty much the dumbest thing on it.granted you shouldn't need to be in there much, but after reaching under them and scuffing my arm then hitting my shoulder on the tool box trying to twine it? Almost took them off with a hammer.

I don't remember them blocking grease fittings too bad. The one for the thrower idler by the flywheel was tougher but not terrible.


----------



## jd-tom (Jun 15, 2010)

Vol said:


> Probably because of the odd length...2 1/8". I think a 2" will work....and a 2 1/4" could be ground down a 1/8" very easily if there was not enough inside clearance for it. Just put the nut on and grind the bolt down a 1/8" and back the nut off for good threading.
> 
> Regards, Mike


But what grade bolt is it?


----------



## jd-tom (Jun 15, 2010)

MFred said:


> The 1840 will eat more hay than an 1839. The geometry of the stuffer fork was changed to run closer to the rear pre forming chamber. This results in less plugging, that's where the problem usually came from and a shear bolt would break. I only put about 2000 bales through the one I demoed but it would definitely eat hay better than my 1839. Too many dam safety shields on it though.
> Not sure if I'm going to trade up just yet. I'm limited by help, wagons and field size to do 13-1500 bales at once anyway. I can do that just fine in an afternoon with the 1839. That knotter fan may get me though, been gonna build one myself for about 5 years.


I like the idea of a knotter fan also, but want to be sure I'd be gaining something besides an optional fan if I were to trade. BTW - how do they power that fan?

One option that they should have and don't - a multi-luber for the knotter. My 1839 has one but only because I "robbed" it off my last JD 338 before I sent it down the road. Sure beats digging thru all the chaff in the knotter area to find all those zerks! (I did paint it black so it would look factory!)


----------



## Vol (Jul 5, 2009)

jd-tom said:


> But what grade bolt is it?


It would be a grade 5....



jd-tom said:


> Sure beats digging thru all the chaff in the knotter area to find all those zerks!


A multi-luber would be nice, but leaf blowers work great for a quick knotter area clean up before greasing.

Regards, Mike


----------



## SVFHAY (Dec 5, 2008)

Vol said:


> You know I have been thinking alot about these slug problems people experience. What I have come to the conclusion is maybe the MF/Hesston series is better suited for the folks in the Mid-South to the deep South and of course the Western folk where it is either alot hotter and better drying conditions or the humidity is very low with very good drying conditions. It might not be as good for the folks in the Northern reaches that have much cooler summers....and maybe not quite as good drying conditions. I very, very seldom shear a stuffer bolt. I have baled alot of hay this year and have yet to shear the first stuffer bolt. I have sheared one flywheel bolt trying to go to fast in a big windrow.
> 
> One other change on the 1840 is the change in pickup rotation....supposedly better feed.
> 
> ...


Agree %100 i bet I have sheared 10 bolts on my 5070 this year. Not proud of that.

On the knotter fan, my buddies did an awesome job of keeping the area clean. I wired it up for him as per instructions and using the factory wiring harness and 3 prong plug. Worked fine but this had fan running all the time the key was on. There is a switch that shuts it off when you lift the knotter cover. I would prefer a switch that turned it on anytime the flywheel turned. Anyway after they put a couple thousand bales thru it quit working, still has power to the fan motor. They are waiting for a tech to bring new motor and trouble shoot it, not sure what the problem is. Crazy thing about it is the motor/fan is specific to small baler, not shared with a 3x or 4x.


----------



## MFred (Nov 29, 2013)

Yeah, always like to blow it off and give everything a look over when greasing anyway. Fan takes care of most of the chaff anyway.

Fan has a separate harness for power, ground and a switch. I piggy backed it up with my thrower harness.


----------



## kfhanson (Jan 20, 2014)

I attended a Hesston baler school, put on by Hesston. The rep said you can increase the capacity of the 1839 by advancing the stuffer timing by moving the stuffer drive chain on the drive sprocket by one link. You want to move it further away from the plunger.

I have a 1840, which I bought spring of this year. I changed from a NH 326 and 13,000 bales so far this year, these are my observations: 1) I average a bale every 7 seconds. It will make bales faster but they look shaggy. 2) I've only broke one shear bolt and suspect it was from the head of a full size shovel the hay crew pulled from a bale. 3) I have only gotten out of the cab once to move a bale. 4) The metering wheel is held on the lift arm by one bolt. The bolt came loose resulting in 4 ft bales. Tightened the bolt and all is good. 5) the hay fan is awesome but is prone to getting plugged after about 400 bales with debris being sucked in. 6) All the shielding sucks. Chaff gets trapped everywhere. 7) to grease you have to have the plunger lined up with a hole in the shielding so you can get the zerk on the knotter drive, the zerk on the inside of the plunger drive sprocket, and the plunger bearing accessed on top of the machine. 8) like most balers it often misses then between string ball changes and most often catches the next bale.

it's a sweet machine, and the only drawback is I think the NH will produce good bales a little faster, but if you take into account not having to roll bales and get in and out of the cab all the time, its a wash.


----------



## Teslan (Aug 20, 2011)

kfhanson said:


> I attended a Hesston baler school, put on by Hesston. The rep said you can increase the capacity of the 1839 by advancing the stuffer timing by moving the stuffer drive chain on the drive sprocket by one link. You want to move it further away from the plunger.
> 
> I have a 1840, which I bought spring of this year. I changed from a NH 326 and 13,000 bales so far this year, these are my observations: 1) I average a bale every 7 seconds. It will make bales faster but they look shaggy. 2) I've only broke one shear bolt and suspect it was from the head of a full size shovel the hay crew pulled from a bale. 3) I have only gotten out of the cab once to move a bale. 4) The metering wheel is held on the lift arm by one bolt. The bolt came loose resulting in 4 ft bales. Tightened the bolt and all is good. 5) the hay fan is awesome but is prone to getting plugged after about 400 bales with debris being sucked in. 6) All the shielding sucks. Chaff gets trapped everywhere. 7) to grease you have to have the plunger lined up with a hole in the shielding so you can get the zerk on the knotter drive, the zerk on the inside of the plunger drive sprocket, and the plunger bearing accessed on top of the machine. 8) like most balers it often misses then between string ball changes and most often catches the next bale.
> 
> it's a sweet machine, and the only drawback is I think the NH will produce good bales a little faster, but if you take into account not having to roll bales and get in and out of the cab all the time, its a wash.


I was wondering about all the shielding getting in the way of maintenance. I guess it will be like a big square. Chaff get's everywhere.


----------



## Vol (Jul 5, 2009)

kfhanson said:


> 8) like most balers it often misses then between string ball changes and most often catches the next bale.


My 1839 seldom misses on the spool exchange....It has missed one time this entire year on the left side when it exchanged the first spool of the season....has not missed since.

Regards, Mike


----------



## Teslan (Aug 20, 2011)

Vol said:


> My 1839 seldom misses on the spool exchange....It has missed one time this entire year on the left side when it exchanged the first spool of the season....has not missed since.
> 
> Regards, Mike


When baling small or big bales the only spool exchange problems I ever had was a direct result of poor knot tying by someone.......


----------



## sethd11 (Jan 1, 2012)

Hey now. I've been tying spools together with square knots for years,cutting the tails off, etc. I always miss a few out of a dozen. Unless I'm doing it wrong. Which would have been nice to know.


----------



## Teslan (Aug 20, 2011)

sethd11 said:


> Hey now. I've been tying spools together with square knots for years,cutting the tails off, etc. I always miss a few out of a dozen. Unless I'm doing it wrong. Which would have been nice to know.


I quit cutting the tails off years ago. The tails are about an inch.


----------



## cornshucker (Aug 22, 2011)

kfhanson said:


> I attended a Hesston baler school, put on by Hesston. The rep said you can increase the capacity of the 1839 by advancing the stuffer timing by moving the stuffer drive chain on the drive sprocket by one link. You want to move it further away from the plunger.


The dealer we bought our 1837 has a mechanic that has worked on the inline balers since the late eighties. He said the same thing about advancing the timing. All of the balers that this dealer sells are fixed like this before they are delivered. He has said that he has went on several calls that people have bought used balers and complain about not having enough capacity and advancing the timing almost always satisfies the customer. Evidently a lot of the dealer mechanics don.t know this or don't seem to care. I told him that I had looked at Haytalk when I was looking a buying the baler and the biggest complaint was shearing stuffer bolts, he said that that is the reason. If someone does decide to change this on their baler be sure to read the operators manual because when you do this you also need to reset the needle to plunger timing.


----------



## Vol (Jul 5, 2009)

sethd11 said:


> Hey now. I've been tying spools together with square knots for years,cutting the tails off, etc. I always miss a few out of a dozen. Unless I'm doing it wrong. Which would have been nice to know.


Do you use hemp or plastic twine? Reason I ask is that I have always been able to get a little smaller splice knot with plastic....seems as if I can cinch the knot down a little bit smaller making for better exchange. I worry less about tails (like Teslan) and more about knot size.

Regards, Mike


----------



## SVFHAY (Dec 5, 2008)

cornshucker said:


> The dealer we bought our 1837 has a mechanic that has worked on the inline balers since the late eighties. He said the same thing about advancing the timing. All of the balers that this dealer sells are fixed like this before they are delivered. He has said that he has went on several calls that people have bought used balers and complain about not having enough capacity and advancing the timing almost always satisfies the customer. Evidently a lot of the dealer mechanics don.t know this or don't seem to care. I told him that I had looked at Haytalk when I was looking a buying the baler and the biggest complaint was shearing stuffer bolts, he said that that is the reason. If someone does decide to change this on their baler be sure to read the operators manual because when you do this you also need to reset the needle to plunger timing.


Does this timing advance apply to the 1840 also? Why don't they do this to all at factory? Is there some negative that they feel is too big a trade off?


----------



## cornshucker (Aug 22, 2011)

SVFHAY said:


> Does this timing advance apply to the 1840 also? Why don't they do this to all at factory? Is there some negative that they feel is too big a trade off?


I would think that it does apply to the 1840 also. From what I understand from the factory setting is more for smaller windrows like you would make in low tonnage hay or raked with a smaller rake. Sent you a PM about this.


----------



## Marc_in_CO (Jun 23, 2016)

I quit using square knots and went to a fisherman's knot (I think that's the name). Makes a much smaller profile knot. I made a video of it, quality is kinda crappy as I was going out to bale at night when the humidity was coming on.


----------



## Trillium Farm (Dec 18, 2014)

Before thinking about a 1840 I'd have a look at your windrow; Do you rake with a V rake?

If so I'd consider getting a Rotary Rake & a Tedder or at least the rake, this ought to eliminate the clumps.

The 1840 even though it bales much faster and has improvements over the 1839 it still doesn't like clumps.

It's amazing what a rotary does for windrow quality/consistency


----------

