The John Deere X9 1000 and X9 1100 sit at the top of Deere’s combine lineup, and at first glance the choice between them seems simple.
The X9 1100 has more horsepower, a larger grain tank, and faster unloading.
So it must be the better combine, right?
Not necessarily.
The two machines share most of the hardware that actually defines the X9 platform. Both use Deere’s 13.6 L JD14 engine architecture, X Series Dual Separator with two 24-inch rotors, the same listed threshing and separating areas, the same 75.02-square-foot cleaning system, and the same 330-gallon fuel capacity.
The real differences are much more focused.
The John Deere X9 1000 produces 630 maximum horsepower, carries 420 bushels in its standard grain tank, and unloads at up to 4.6 bushels per second.
The John Deere X9 1100 increases those numbers to 690 maximum horsepower, 460 bushels, and 5.3 bu/s.
That means choosing between them is not really about two completely different combines.
It is about whether your farm can use more output from the same high-capacity X9 architecture.
John Deere X9 1000 vs X9 1100 Quick Comparison
| Specification | X9 1000 | X9 1100 |
|---|---|---|
| Engine | JD14 13.6 L | JD14 13.6 L |
| Rated power | 549 hp | 603 hp |
| Maximum power | 630 hp | 690 hp |
| Rated engine speed | 1,900 rpm | 1,900 rpm |
| Power boost | 53 hp | 53 hp |
| Fuel capacity | 330 gal. | 330 gal. |
| Separator | Dual rotor | Dual rotor |
| Number of rotors | 2 | 2 |
| Rotor diameter | 24 in. each | 24 in. each |
| Rotor length | 11.5 ft | 11.5 ft |
| Rotor speed | 300-1,300 rpm | 300-1,300 rpm |
| Concave area | 17.22 sq. ft. | 17.22 sq. ft. |
| Separating area | 38.75 sq. ft. | 38.75 sq. ft. |
| Cleaning area | 75.02 sq. ft. | 75.02 sq. ft. |
| Standard grain tank | 420 bu | 460 bu |
| Optional grain tank | 550 bu | 550 bu |
| Peak unloading | 4.6 bu/s | 5.3 bu/s |
| Feederhouse width | 67.7 in. | 67.7 in. |
| Fuel capacity | 330 gal. | 330 gal. |
The table reveals the most important point immediately.
The X9 1100 is not a larger-separator version of the X9 1000.
It is a higher-output version of essentially the same core harvesting platform.
The Biggest Difference: 630 hp vs 690 hp
Engine output is the most obvious difference.
X9 1000
- 549 rated hp
- 630 maximum hp
X9 1100
- 603 rated hp
- 690 maximum hp
The X9 1100 therefore adds:
54 rated horsepower and 60 maximum horsepower.
Both machines use Deere’s 13.6 L JD14 engine architecture and operate at a rated speed of 1,900 rpm.
That makes the comparison more interesting than simply moving from a smaller engine to a larger one.
The question becomes whether the farm regularly puts enough demand on the X9 platform to use another 60 horsepower.
That can happen when several loads occur at once.
Heavy crop can load the separator.
Residue chopping requires power.
Unloading on the move requires power.
Tough straw can increase engine demand.
Terrain can add another load.
When all of those things happen together, additional engine reserve becomes valuable.
But if the X9 1000 rarely reaches its engine limit, another 60 horsepower may accomplish very little.
Same Dual-Rotor Separator
This is one of the most important facts in the entire comparison.
Both X9 models use Deere’s X Series Dual Separator.
Each has:
- two rotors
- 24-inch rotor diameter
- 11.5-foot rotor length
- 300-1,300 rpm rotor-speed range
- 17.22 sq. ft. concave area
- 38.75 sq. ft. separating area
- 4.85 sq. ft. discharge grate area
In other words, Deere does not give the X9 1100 a larger listed threshing and separating system.
That means the X9 1000 already has the defining hardware of the X9 platform.
For a farm choosing between the two, this matters enormously.
If separation or cleaning is already the limiting factor in a particular crop, simply adding horsepower with the X9 1100 will not necessarily produce a proportional increase in throughput.
Why Dual Rotors Matter More Than the Model Number
Both X9 machines differ fundamentally from Deere’s S7 family.
The S7 uses one longitudinal rotor.
The X9 splits crop flow across two rotors.
This creates substantially more separating area and allows Deere to process high crop volumes without relying on one extremely large rotor.
That is why the jump from the John Deere S7 Series into an X9 is much more significant than the jump from X9 1000 to X9 1100.
Going from S7 to X9 changes the harvesting architecture.
Going from X9 1000 to X9 1100 increases output within that architecture.
Same 75.02-Square-Foot Cleaning System
Both X9 1000 and X9 1100 use Deere’s Dyna-Flo XL cleaning system with 75.02 square feet of total louvered cleaning area.
That includes:
- 10.4 sq. ft. front chaffer
- 33.69 sq. ft. main chaffer
- 30.89 sq. ft. sieve area
Fan speed ranges from 570 to 1,430 rpm.
Again, the X9 1100 does not get a larger listed cleaning shoe.
This is important because cleaning capacity can become a combine’s practical limit before engine horsepower does.
If losses from the shoe are already rising, pushing more crop into the machine does not create useful capacity.
It simply creates more loss.
That is why an X9 1100 will not necessarily outperform an X9 1000 by the same percentage in every crop.
Deere’s Own Crop Tests Show Why Crop Type Matters
John Deere’s published comparison against the previous S790 shows how differently the two X9 models can behave depending on crop.
Tough wheat
- X9 1000: 134% of S790 capacity
- X9 1100: 170% of S790 capacity
Canola
- X9 1000: 135%
- X9 1100: 140%
High-moisture corn
- X9 1000: 130%
- X9 1100: 150%
Soybeans
- X9 1000: 130%
- X9 1100: 145%
These are Deere test comparisons and should not be treated as guaranteed farm results.
But the pattern is extremely useful.
Look at tough wheat.
The X9 1100 shows a much larger advantage over the reference machine than the X9 1000.
Now look at canola.
The difference between X9 1000 and X9 1100 becomes much smaller.
This tells us something important.
Additional horsepower does not produce the same benefit in every crop.
Different crops stress different parts of the combine.
In tough wheat, engine reserve and crop-processing demand may make the X9 1100’s additional power especially useful.
In other situations, separation or cleaning may become the limiting factor first.
X9 1000 vs X9 1100 for Wheat
For large Western Canadian wheat operations, this may be the comparison that matters most.
The X9 platform is designed for high crop flow, and Deere specifically highlights tough wheat performance.
Both combines have:
- dual rotors
- the same separating area
- the same cleaning area
- the same feederhouse width
The X9 1100 adds 60 maximum horsepower.
That additional power can become useful when wheat straw is tough and the machine needs to maintain crop flow through difficult conditions.
Think about late afternoon or evening harvest.
The wheat may have been flowing easily earlier in the day.
Humidity increases.
Straw becomes tougher.
Residue requires more power.
The combine begins working harder.
This is where the X9 1100 has an advantage that can be meaningful.
If those conditions are common and harvest time is expensive, the extra power can help justify the larger model.
X9 1000 vs X9 1100 for Canola
Canola creates a different picture.
Deere’s own published comparison shows relatively little difference between X9 1000 and X9 1100 capacity in its referenced canola conditions.
That is useful information for Prairie farms.
Both machines use the same:
- separator
- rotor dimensions
- cleaning area
If those parts of the machine become the practical limit before engine horsepower, the X9 1100’s additional 60 hp will have less opportunity to create extra throughput.
That does not mean the X9 1100 has no advantage in canola.
Tough straw, residue chopping, terrain and unloading can still create additional engine demand.
But a farm harvesting predominantly canola should not automatically assume the 1100 will outperform the 1000 by the same margin seen in tough wheat.
X9 1000 vs X9 1100 for Peas and Lentils
Pulse crops add another variable: grain quality.
Peas and lentils can be sensitive to aggressive threshing.
The goal is not simply maximum throughput.
It is maximum useful throughput while keeping cracked grain and losses within acceptable limits.
Because both X9 models share the same dual-rotor architecture, the larger engine in the 1100 does not automatically mean better pulse performance.
Machine settings matter enormously.
Current Deere Harvest Settings Automation can help manage targets around:
- grain loss
- foreign material
- broken grain
The machine can then adjust internal settings around those targets.
For Saskatchewan pulse farms, technology configuration may therefore matter almost as much as choosing X9 1000 or X9 1100.
Grain Tank: 420 vs 460 Bushels
The standard grain tank is one of the clear physical differences.
X9 1000
420 bu
X9 1100
460 bu
That gives the X9 1100 another 40 bushels of onboard capacity.
On a combine this large, 40 bushels might not sound dramatic.
But in a high-yielding crop, tank capacity affects the timing of every grain-cart cycle.
A larger tank gives the operator additional buffer when:
- the cart is servicing another combine
- the cart is travelling toward a truck
- the combine is opening a field
- field runs are long
- yield is very high
The benefit is not simply carrying more grain.
It is reducing the chance that the combine has to stop.
Both Can Have a 550-Bushel Tank
Current Deere X9 configurations can also use an optional 550-bushel power-folding grain tank.
That changes the standard 420 vs 460 comparison significantly.
Once both machines are equipped with 550-bushel capacity, grain tank size is no longer a major difference.
That brings the decision back toward:
- engine power
- unloading rate
- crop
- harvest window
Deere notes that the 550-bushel option requires compatible equipment, including 710 duals or tracks.
That makes sense.
Five hundred fifty bushels of grain adds considerable weight.
The final drives, tires or tracks and ground conditions all have to support it.
Is the 550-Bushel Tank Worth It?
It depends on how the farm handles grain.
The larger tank makes the most sense when:
- fields are long
- yields are high
- one cart services multiple combines
- carts travel significant distances
- opening fields requires additional storage
- keeping the combine moving between cart visits is difficult
It matters less when a grain cart stays beside the combine almost continuously.
This is why grain tank capacity should never be chosen in isolation.
It needs to match the harvesting system around the machine.
Unloading: 4.6 vs 5.3 bu/s
This may be the most practical difference besides horsepower.
X9 1000
4.6 bu/s
X9 1100
5.3 bu/s
The X9 1100 unloads approximately 15 percent faster at the listed peak rate.
That matters.
The faster a combine empties its tank, the less time it spends connected to the cart.
At theoretical peak rate:
X9 1000 standard 420-bu tank
About 91 seconds
X9 1100 standard 460-bu tank
About 87 seconds
Even though the X9 1100 carries more grain, its faster unloading system theoretically empties the standard tank slightly faster.
Real unloading times vary and the machine will not maintain theoretical peak flow during every second.
But the comparison makes the benefit clear.
The X9 1100 is designed not only to process more crop, but also to move grain out of the machine more aggressively.
Why Unloading Can Matter More Than 60 hp
Suppose an X9 1000 processes enough crop for the farm.
But every unloading cycle creates problems because carts are struggling to keep up.
The X9 1100’s additional horsepower does not fix that.
Its faster unloading rate might.
Now consider the opposite situation.
If the grain cart is already perfectly coordinated and unloading never limits harvest, the difference between 4.6 and 5.3 bu/s may matter much less.
This is why selecting between X9 1000 and 1100 requires understanding where time is actually being lost.
Machine Sync
Machine Sync can help coordinate unloading on the move between compatible Deere equipment.
The combine can control the grain-cart tractor’s speed, direction and position during unloading.
That makes grain transfer more consistent and reduces operator workload.
At X9 capacity, this matters more than it might on a smaller combine.
The goal is to keep crop entering the header continuously.
Any time the combine stops because the cart is out of position, an expensive high-capacity harvesting system is producing nothing.
Same 67.7-Inch Feederhouse
Both models use a 67.7-inch feederhouse.
They also share Deere’s four-strand feeder chain with formed steel slats and Feed Accelerator and Stone Trap system.
This is another area where X9 1100 does not simply become larger.
The feeding architecture remains essentially common across the two X9 models.
Consistent feeding is critical because two rotors need a steady supply of material.
A sudden slug of crop can:
- increase engine load
- overload separation
- affect cleaning
- increase losses
A smooth crop mat allows the rest of the combine to operate more consistently.
Predictive Ground Speed Automation
Both X9 models can use Predictive Ground Speed Automation when equipped with Deere’s Ultimate Technology Package.
Forward-facing stereo cameras measure crop height and volume ahead of the combine.
Pre-harvest field information also contributes to the predictive map.
The combine can then change ground speed before the crop reaches the feederhouse.
That gives the machine a chance to react earlier than a conventional engine-load-based system.
If heavier crop is coming, speed can decrease.
If crop becomes lighter, speed can increase.
Deere claims productivity improvements of up to 20 percent in its referenced comparisons.
That is a manufacturer claim, not a guarantee.
The real value is keeping the machine loaded more consistently while reducing operator workload.
Harvest Settings Automation
Harvest Settings Automation is available with Premium and Ultimate X9 technology packages.
The operator defines acceptable limits for:
- grain loss
- foreign material
- broken grain
The combine can then automatically adjust:
- rotor speed
- concave clearance
- fan speed
- chaffer
- sieve
That becomes valuable when conditions change during the day.
An X9 can move an enormous amount of crop.
A small increase in grain loss multiplied across that volume becomes expensive quickly.
Automation cannot replace an operator who understands the machine.
But it can help maintain the desired result once good targets are established.
Same Technology Packages
Technology generally should not be the reason to choose X9 1100 over X9 1000.
Both can be configured with Deere’s current Select, Premium and Ultimate technology packages.
Depending on package and licensing, that can include:
- G5Plus CommandCenter
- StarFire receiver
- JDLink
- AutoTrac
- Machine Sync
- AutoTrac Turn Automation
- Harvest Settings Automation
- Terrain Settings Automation
- Predictive Ground Speed Automation
- Harvest IPM
- In-Field Data Sharing
This means an X9 1000 can be configured with very sophisticated automation.
Do not assume the larger model automatically has more technology.
Model choice and technology package are separate decisions.
ActiveYield and Harvest Data
Both X9 models can work within Deere’s connected harvest ecosystem.
ActiveYield continually calibrates yield measurements as the grain tank fills.
JDLink connects the combine to Deere’s broader data environment.
For farms using Operations Center, harvest maps, machine information and other field data can become part of the same system used by tractors, sprayers and other Deere equipment.
Again, there is no major X9 1100 advantage here simply because its model number is larger.
The technology configuration matters more.
Residue Management
Both combines are designed around very wide headers and high residue volumes.
Deere offers residue-management systems capable of spreading across wide cutting widths, depending on crop and configuration.
This matters particularly in Western Canada.
A combine harvesting with a 45- or 50-foot header can leave enormous amounts of straw and chaff behind.
Uneven distribution can create problems during the following seeding season.
Poor residue spread can contribute to:
- uneven soil warming
- inconsistent seed depth
- nutrient concentration
- plugging
- uneven emergence
At this capacity level, residue management should be treated as part of combine performance rather than an accessory.
Header Size: Bigger Is Not Automatically Better
Both X9 machines can work with very large headers.
But header choice should match crop conditions.
A 50-foot front may make sense in lighter crop.
In extremely heavy wheat, a narrower header operating faster may keep crop flow more manageable.
Header selection should consider:
- crop density
- terrain
- field shape
- feeding performance
- transport
- residue spread
- desired ground speed
The right header keeps the combine consistently loaded.
The wrong one can leave the machine underfed or make crop flow difficult to control.
X9 1000: Where It Makes the Most Sense
The X9 1000 is already a very high-capacity combine.
It makes sense when:
- the farm genuinely needs X9 dual-rotor capacity
- 630 hp provides enough power reserve
- a 420-bu standard tank fits the grain-cart system
- 4.6 bu/s unloading is sufficient
- annual harvested acreage is high
- the operation can support continuous harvesting
- moving into an X9 is more important than having the highest-output X9
For many operations capable of justifying an X9 at all, the 1000 may already provide enough machine.
X9 1100: Where It Makes the Most Sense
The X9 1100 becomes more attractive when:
- tough wheat is a major part of the workload
- the X9 platform is consistently operated near its engine limit
- another 60 hp provides useful reserve
- faster 5.3 bu/s unloading improves cart logistics
- the additional 40-bu standard tank is useful
- the farm has a very short harvest window
- daily harvest capacity has a high economic value
- the grain-handling system can support the additional output
This last point is the most important one.
Which X9 Is Better for a Large Saskatchewan Farm?
There is no universal answer.
For Saskatchewan specifically, crop mix matters.
Wheat-heavy operation
The X9 1100 becomes especially interesting.
Deere’s own comparative testing shows a much larger advantage for the 1100 in tough wheat than for the 1000 under the referenced conditions.
Canola-heavy operation
The decision is less obvious.
Deere’s own canola comparison showed relatively little difference between the X9 1000 and 1100 versus its reference machine.
That suggests the additional horsepower may have less opportunity to create additional capacity in some canola conditions.
Wheat, canola and pulse rotation
This is where the decision needs to be based on the farm’s toughest harvesting workload.
Do not size the combine around the easiest crop.
Size it around the crop and conditions most likely to threaten the harvest window.
Does Acreage Tell You Which X9 to Choose?
Not by itself.
Acreage is important, but it is too simple to say:
“X acres equals X9 1000.”
or
“Y acres equals X9 1100.”
Two 8,000-acre farms can have completely different combine requirements.
Farm A may have:
- large square fields
- high yields
- excellent grain carts
- multiple trucks
- fast storage
- short harvest window
Farm B may have:
- scattered fields
- lower yields
- limited trucking
- more travel time
- slower grain handling
The first farm can use high combine capacity much more effectively.
That is why acreage should be treated as only one variable.
What Is Actually Limiting Your Harvest?
Before choosing between the two, identify the current bottleneck.
Engine load
If an X9 1000-sized machine regularly reaches engine limits while losses remain controlled, the X9 1100’s extra power can help.
Cleaning losses
Both models have the same listed cleaning area.
If the cleaning system is the limit, another 60 hp may not solve the problem.
Separation losses
Both share the same listed separator dimensions and area.
Again, additional engine power may not directly fix the limitation.
Grain tank
X9 1100 provides 40 more standard bushels, or both can be configured with 550 bu.
Unloading
X9 1100 has a clear advantage at 5.3 versus 4.6 bu/s.
Grain cart
If the combine waits for the cart, the cart is the problem.
Trucks
If carts cannot empty because trucks are unavailable, buying a larger combine will not fix harvest.
Storage
If grain handling at the yard is already saturated, additional field capacity simply pushes the bottleneck downstream.
The Hidden Cost of Choosing Too Much Combine
Most comparisons focus on the danger of buying too little capacity.
There is also a cost to buying too much.
A machine that is larger than the farm can use may bring:
- higher capital cost
- potentially higher operating costs
- heavier field weight
- larger support equipment requirements
- more expensive components
- capacity that sits unused
The X9 1100 is an impressive machine.
That does not make unused horsepower valuable.
The best combine is the one the farm can consistently operate close to an efficient workload without creating problems elsewhere.
X9 1000 vs S7 900
Before choosing either X9, it is worth asking whether the farm really needs the X9 platform.
The John Deere S7 900 reaches 617 maximum horsepower.
That is only 13 hp less than the X9 1000.
Yet X9 uses a completely different dual-rotor architecture with much more separation and cleaning capacity.
That means a farm should move from S7 to X9 because it needs more crop-processing architecture, not simply because it wants more horsepower.
If an S7 900 already handles the farm’s crop comfortably, an X9 may be unnecessary.
X9 vs New Holland CR
There are also natural cross-brand comparisons.
The New Holland CR10.90 reaches 700 maximum horsepower and uses New Holland’s Twin Rotor architecture.
The newer New Holland CR11 represents an even more modern high-capacity Twin Rotor platform.
John Deere and New Holland both use two-rotor concepts at this level, but the designs are not interchangeable.
They differ in:
- rotor geometry
- feeding
- threshing
- cleaning
- grain handling
- automation
- residue systems
- headers
Horsepower alone is therefore a poor way to choose between them.
Our New Holland CR Series comparison covers the traditional CR range in more detail.
What Deere’s 7,200 bu/hr Number Means
John Deere advertises the X Series at up to 7,200 bushels per hour in high-yielding corn under its referenced conditions.
That number demonstrates the scale of the platform.
It should not be used as a universal expected X9 output.
Actual capacity depends on:
- crop
- yield
- moisture
- grain loss
- header
- residue
- field shape
- cart availability
- machine settings
A Saskatchewan wheat farmer should not take a corn throughput figure and convert it directly into expected acres per hour.
The useful takeaway is simply that the X9 architecture was designed around extremely high material flow.
Used X9 1000 vs Used X9 1100
On the used market, condition can easily matter more than the model number.
Compare:
- engine hours
- separator hours
- JD14 service records
- dual rotor condition
- concaves
- separator grates
- feederhouse wear
- cleaning system
- grain elevators
- unloading system
- grain-tank augers
- residue system
- final drives
- tracks or tires
- ProDrive
- automation cameras
- technology package
- software licenses
- StarFire hardware
- maintenance history
A well-maintained X9 1000 may be a much better machine than a neglected X9 1100.
High-capacity combines can process enormous amounts of material in relatively few operating hours.
Hours should never be the only measure of condition.
So, Is the X9 1100 Worth It Over the X9 1000?
It can be.
But the reason needs to be specific.
The X9 1100 gives you:
+60 maximum horsepower
+40 bushels of standard grain capacity
5.3 instead of 4.6 bu/s unloading
What it does not give you is a fundamentally larger separator or cleaning shoe.
Both machines already share the core X9 architecture.
That makes the X9 1100 easiest to justify when engine reserve and grain handling are the remaining limitations of the X9 1000.
If they are not, the X9 1000 may deliver most of the same harvesting architecture with enough capacity for the operation.
Our Verdict
The John Deere X9 1000 and X9 1100 are not two completely different classes of combine.
They are two output levels of the same high-capacity X9 platform.
Choose the X9 1000 if:
You need the X9 dual-rotor architecture but 630 horsepower, 420 bushels and 4.6 bu/s unloading already match your operation.
Choose the X9 1100 if:
You can consistently use the same X9 platform harder, particularly in tough wheat or other conditions where additional engine power and faster grain handling can reduce harvest time.
For many farms, the X9 1000 is already an enormous step beyond the S7 platform.
For the very largest operations, custom harvesters or farms where every weather-safe harvest hour has significant value, the X9 1100 provides another level of output.
The most important question is not:
Which combine is bigger?
The X9 1100 is.
The useful question is:
What stops your harvest first?
If the answer is engine power and grain handling, the X9 1100 has a strong case.
If the answer is carts, trucks, cleaning losses, storage or field logistics, another 60 horsepower may not move harvest forward at all.
Browse the Aglist combine category for more combine models and comparisons, or explore additional equipment on the John Deere brand page.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the difference between John Deere X9 1000 and X9 1100?
Both use the same 13.6 L engine architecture, dual 24-inch rotors and 75.02-square-foot cleaning system. X9 1100 increases maximum power from 630 to 690 hp, standard grain capacity from 420 to 460 bushels, and unloading from 4.6 to 5.3 bu/s.
Which is more powerful, X9 1000 or X9 1100?
The X9 1100. It produces 690 maximum horsepower compared with 630 hp for the X9 1000.
Do X9 1000 and X9 1100 use the same engine?
Both use Deere’s JD14 13.6 L engine architecture, but the X9 1100 is rated for more output.
Do X9 1000 and X9 1100 use the same rotors?
Yes. Deere lists both with two 24-inch-diameter rotors measuring 11.5 feet long.
Which X9 has the larger grain tank?
The X9 1100 has the larger standard tank at 460 bushels versus 420 bushels for X9 1000. Current compatible configurations of both models can use an optional 550-bushel tank.
Which X9 unloads faster?
The X9 1100 unloads at up to 5.3 bu/s compared with 4.6 bu/s for the X9 1000.
Does the X9 1100 have more cleaning area than X9 1000?
No. Deere lists both with 75.02 square feet of total louvered cleaning area.
Does X9 1100 have larger rotors?
No. The listed dual-rotor dimensions are the same on both models.
Which X9 is better for wheat?
Both are designed for high-capacity wheat harvesting. Deere’s own referenced tests show a larger capacity advantage for the X9 1100 in tough wheat, making it especially interesting where difficult wheat conditions regularly limit harvest.
Which X9 is better for canola?
Both can handle high-volume canola harvesting. Deere’s own comparative data shows a much smaller difference between X9 1000 and X9 1100 in canola than in tough wheat, so farm-specific conditions and logistics matter.
Can both X9 models have Predictive Ground Speed Automation?
Yes, Predictive Ground Speed Automation is available through the appropriate Deere Ultimate technology package.
Can both X9 models have Harvest Settings Automation?
Yes. Harvest Settings Automation is available through Deere’s Premium and Ultimate X9 technology packages.
Is X9 1100 always better than X9 1000?
No. It has more power and grain-handling capacity, but both share the same basic separator and cleaning architecture. If the farm cannot use the additional power and unloading capacity, the X9 1000 may be the better fit.
X9 1000 or S7 900?
The X9 1000 makes sense when the farm needs the larger dual-rotor crop-processing architecture. The S7 900 may make more sense when its single-rotor capacity is already sufficient.
Compare John Deere Combines
- John Deere X9 1000 – 630 hp, 420-bu standard tank and 4.6 bu/s unloading.
- John Deere X9 1100 – 690 hp, 460-bu standard tank and 5.3 bu/s unloading.
- John Deere S7 900 – top S7 model below the X9 platform.
- John Deere S7 Series Compared – S7 600 vs 700 vs 800 vs 900.
- New Holland CR10.90 – 700-hp traditional Twin Rotor alternative.
- New Holland CR11 – next-generation high-capacity Twin Rotor alternative.
- All Combines – compare combine types, brands and models.
- John Deere Equipment – browse more John Deere equipment on Aglist.
Specifications and available equipment can vary by model year and configuration. Optional grain tanks, unloading augers and technology packages may not be installed on every machine. Manufacturer performance comparisons are identified as such and should not be treated as guaranteed results for every crop or field condition.
