Interesting dealer comment

[monkeybreath]

I just finished re-reading the entire JD4310 vs Kubota 3130 post, and because of some of the comments there, it caused me to think of what a JD dealer mentioned to me yesterday. After he told me what the hp was for various units, I asked if those were PTO hp numbers. He said no, then gave me the pto hp numbers, and then went on to say that the reason he initially gave me the gross hp numbers was not to avoid mentioning the pto hp, but that while they used to always state the pto hp, because Kutota began marketing their tractors by listing gross hp, they now had to do that as well to avoid adverse comparisons. He then mentioned that Kubota was the only tractor company which did not submit their tractors to the Nebraska tractor tests for ratings and confirmation of the the hp and so on. He did not do this in a way to put down the Kubota tractors, which he said were good tractors. I do not mention this to put down Kubota, and in fact I may end up owning one soon if I can get the right price, but just thought it was interesting enough to pass on. I have no idea what it all means in the real world.

 

[Anonymous Poster]

That is some interesting information. I did a search and found the Nebraska Testing web site. The testing is based on a Nebraska law. The following is from the web site.

<font color="blue"> Provisions for testing tractors are made in the Nebraska Tractor Test law, first passed in 1919 and most recently changed in 1971. This law requires that a stock tractor of each agricultural model (new or used) of 20 or more horsepower offered for sale in Nebraska be tested. In addition, a permit for sale shall be obtained and a full supply of replacement parts be maintained within the state.
</font>

At the site there are listings for all tractors that have been tested. Kubota was involved in testing in the 80's. Interesting to note that none of the JD 4xxx series show up on any of the lists. The 5xxx series does. So the salesman is correct in that JD submits tractors for testing and Kubota does not but it appears that JD did not submit the 4xxx series so it is a moot point for the size tractors you are looking at.

This may be because the 4xxx series are not deemed agricultural models.

This is the web site:

Nebraska Tractor Testing

Jeff

 

[Anonymous Poster]

That is interesting. I just went to the Nebraska test lab site and it doesn't list Kubota does that mean that Kubota can't sell tractors in Nebraska? Maybe some Nebraskan can enlighten us on that.

I also heard or read somewhere that the TTL (tractor test lab) doesn't test tractors less than 42 hp. I didn't see it listed anywhere on their site so I don't know if that's true, but I did notice that none of the tests listed on the site were less than that.

 

[Anonymous Poster]

This is a better link to the home page rather than the purpose page. It contains links to the test reports. Recent ones are available on line. Others are listed by their report number and must be ordered.

Nebraska Tractor Test Laboratory

Jeff

 

[MossRoad]

<font color="red">agricultural model </font>

That's probably the key right there. Are the Kubotas "agricultural models"?

 

[Splinterguy]

I too received simular information from a JD dealer when I first started looking for a tractor. His comments were not directed toward any manufacturer, but were geared toward educating me. He was aware that I was just starting my search and knew little of tractors in general. He was educating me so that I would be able to make apples to apples comparissons. A good dealer that I have had pleasure doing business with.

 

[jlemon]

This might explain why, in the Minnesota DOT tractor contracts, the Kubota 5030 page has stamp on the top saying "Not for Sale in Nebraska".

 

[monkeybreath]

Now, that IS interesting. But why would Kubota want to exclude themselves from the Nebraska market (which is the result of their not submitting tractors for testing there) which I would think would be a decent market ? Also, when I went to the Nebr. test site, it mentioned it was the official testing lab for all tractors in US . . .or something like that.

 

[Bird]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( why would Kubota want to exclude themselves from the Nebraska market )</font>

I don't know why, but I can think of a few reasons. For one thing, until recent years, they didn't make any of the larger "agricultural" tractors. For another, they may have thought a cost analysis didn't show it to be worth getting involved with another governmental agency, and I sure wouldn't blame them for that.

For an unrelated example: Honda, for many years, made a motorcycle that was much better for police use than Harley Davidson and/or Kawasaki, police departments tried to get Honda to produce and sell a "Police motorcycle", but they refused to market a "Police Motorcycle" and get involved in the headaches that go with that. A lot of officers in departments in which the individual officer owned his own bike used them, but in those departments in which the governmental agency owned and maintained the bikes, they didn't. The Goldwing would run over 120 mph, but Honda's manuals said to not exceed posted speed limits and in no case operate in excess of 85 mph. I know Kawasaki's claims that they could be used at high speeds resulted in lots of lawsuits for them to defend, and probably cost them more than the profit they made selling the bikes to police departments. At one time, BMW claimed to have 85% of the world police motorcycle business, said they were "going to take over the police motorcycle business in the United States". They loaned bikes to police departments (including mine) to try out and in less than 2 years, they pulled out of the market when they realized they didn't want that business. /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif

Whether something similar applies to Kubota and Nebraska or not, I have no idea, but I can't say I'm surprised.

 

[MossRoad]

<font color="blue">does that mean that Kubota can't sell tractors in Nebraska? </font>

Apparently there is a Kubota dealer in Omaha.