Best tractor list

Status
Not open for further replies.
   / Best tractor list #1  

weesa20

Silver Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2004
Messages
212
Location
North Carolina
This comes from a discussion thread regarding the CK20 that has basically regressed into a brand loyalty discussion.

On the topic of not having brand loyalty, wouldn't it be interesting if everyone made a list of what THEY think is the best tractor at each size/power (ie subCUT: Simplicity Legacy XL, JD 2210, JD 2305, MF 2300, Kubota..., NH TZ/Case DXEs, etc) segment for 1-2 tasks (ie primarily mowing and secondarily ground engaging work vs primarily ground engaging work and secondary as a mowing machine) You could add more "task" categories and make a huge table...you could even organize it by price point (MSRP)...fun

I think that this is next to impossible though because no two tractors are directly comparable on more than a couple levels.

W
 
   / Best tractor list #2  
I think it would be hard to make a list like that unless you are actually objective. Take the Class I tractors, they range from 20hp to roughly 32hp. But some are 'small frame' and some are 'medium frame' so do you divide it by class, or frame size?

Or lets just look at the 21 horsepower tractors and limit it to that. The CK20 that you mention is a decent tractor. It is heavy and has lots of capacity so it is very good for loader work, box blade work, etc. But the same tractor (excluding the loader issues, and valve issues) is not the best choice for mowing the lawn, an articulated front implement mounted tractor like a Ventrac or a Steiner would be a vastly superior choice. Those are also far better for slope work. But they are not well suited to narrow crop work, at that point I'd take a look at the narrow gauge B7510 that is specifically designed to get in between rows or crops like blueberry bushes, but being narrow it is not suited to slope work, and being light it is not suited to boxblading the driveway. So maybe you need to consider TASKS & CONDITIONS instead of size or HP or brand?

My point seems obvious. TASKS you need to accomplish, in the CONDITIONS you intend to use the tractor, are far more important than brand or color or country of manufacture.
 
   / Best tractor list #3  
Bob_Skurka said:
My point seems obvious. TASKS you need to accomplish, in the CONDITIONS you intend to use the tractor, are far more important than brand or color or country of manufacture.

I'll second that! I've been on a tractor- and soul-searching mission now for a couple of months comparing every aspect of every machine that I can get my hands on from 20HP to about 35HP. I've looked at a lot of colors, a lot of countries-of-origin, and a lot of sizes. I often get answers that lean to one brand (obviously from the dealers of that brand, as well as brand-loyal owners), and often get answers that lean to "bigger is better". And as I've looked, I've circled closer and closer to the understanding that it really does depend more on what I want to do and what the conditions of my site are. I know when I'm done looking and I finally do make the purchase, I'll likely have honed in on the best matched machine for those factors - and that I won't really have given much consideration to the color of the paint or the biggest horsepower for the money.
 
   / Best tractor list #4  
I think this would also be made difficult as a person woul have had to own or use pretty much all tractors in a class to make a decision.

Soundguy
 
   / Best tractor list #5  
Way too many variables. How tall is the operator? Left handed or right? What sort of terrain will it be used on? What sort of payment plan? What sort of dealer do you have nearest to home? Are you buying to keep for a lifetime? Or just a few years then trade up? How well do you adapt to features you aren't 100% happy with?

It's always good to hear everyones opinions, but opinions must be regarded not as "fact".
 
   / Best tractor list #6  
Farmwithjunk said:
It's always good to hear everyones opinions, but opinions must be regarded not as "fact".
Ah but there is the rub because some facts are wrongly dismissed as opinion. Take for example these photos, it shows a tractor with loyal fans here on TBN (and I will not mention the brand, I blocked out the name in the photos) I've pointed some things out in the past and been "flamed" for pointing out what is in these photos.

Photo 1: The tractor has the rear remotes and the lever is actually UNDER your right leg so you have to move your leg to operate the remotes. That is fact. It is opinion that it is bad ergonomics.

ALSO in Photo 1:
Also, the tractor has no rubber mats or flat floor. For a tractor this size that is sold as a full featured tractor this is surprising. That is opinion. Fact is that the floor will scratch and rust and the large hump will get in your way. This is a large tractor for its power range, about 30hp, I know of only one or two other tractors this physical size without a flat floor.

Photo 2: This is sold as a 39hp deluxe tractor with HST. OK now here I hit one of my major pet peeves! When a loader is installed, these tractors become ONE SIDE entry/exit machines. You can see my hand in one of the photos, my hand measures roughly 8" across, which illustrates that there is no room to exit from the right of the tractor. It is fact that you cannot exit/enter from the right side. It is opinion that this is bad design.

Photo 3:
This is the same tractor again, you can see the "stout" (that is how it was described by the sales guy) loader valve mount. To me it is a "mess". Both are opinions. Fact is the hoses are exposed to tree limbs or other things that can snag it.

Photos 2 & 3
will illustrate the next points. The loader control valve is also set in an awkward place (that is Opinion). Most loader controls that I have used, whether fender mounted or loader mounted, have the end of the loader control stalk/lever roughly in line and to the right side of the center hub of the steering wheel (that is fact). This one was well behind the center of the steering wheel, in fact it was in line with an imaginary line that would run from the bottom plane of the steering wheel (that is fact). It seemed too far back to me (that is opinion). Again, that is just my opinionated view. You can see how far behind the center of the steering column the loader is located in the first picture. In these pictures also look at the placement of the throttle control. With the throttle pulled back, it could come into contact with someone's leg who had the drivers seat pulled forward (that is fact), but it is my opinon that it is also a bad design.

Photo 4:
This shows a very lightly built bucket (fact). The tractor claims to have lots of capacity (fact). My opinion is that the bucket is too lightly built and will be damaged far too easily given the size of the tractor and the claimed capacity. My opinion is that the top of the bucket should have some reinforcement instead of a simple 60-degree fold. My opinion is that the bucket top will collapse if bucket hooks are welded to it and a heavy load is lifted (again the tractor is rated to lift heavy loads). Fact is the bucket come standard with a QA system. Opinion is the QA system is roughly made poorly finished, but it will probably provide a long service life, even if it is not the smoothest to operate.

I could post more photos of these tractors as I did make a pretty complete review of them. I walked away less than impressed (opinion) because these tractors, while brand new, had the ergonomics that were roughly equivalent to a 1985 to 1995 tractor (that is fact). They had decent fit & finish (fact) but they were not up to the design standards of some other brands (opinion & fact). They were feature filled and low price relative to some other brands (fact & fact). Were they worth the low price? It depends on if you are willing to give up some things (and that is where the ultimate opinion of the buyer come into play).

So what I am trying to illustrate is that often FACTS and OPINIONS become intertwined. And things that ONE person sees are not always seen by another person.
 

Attachments

  • 1.jpg
    1.jpg
    55.3 KB · Views: 556
  • 2.jpeg
    2.jpeg
    71.8 KB · Views: 492
  • 3.jpeg
    3.jpeg
    81.2 KB · Views: 474
  • 4.jpeg
    4.jpeg
    74.4 KB · Views: 480
Last edited:
   / Best tractor list #7  
Bob_Skurka,

Darn good post. I guessing you might go along with the statement "God is in the details".:) :)
 
   / Best tractor list #8  
Ohhh, I dunno, Bob. You've obviously given this alot of thought and the value of evaluating a tractor in terms of intended Tasks & Conditions can't be debated. But, rather than being a flat-out 'factual' example of bad design, the tractor in the photos would benefit from the T & C approach in at least a couple of cases.

Addressing just the issues you raised about the tractor in photo 1; having those remotes buried low behind a leg is a big advantage when working around trees. Also for an orchard spray-rig tractor that gets doused occasionally, a floor without a rubber mat but with drain holes would be an advantage as well. I notice the rears have rounded fenders with the grab handles aligned with the direction of travel; this too would make it a superior orchard tractor.

While some of these things might be examples of bad design for a general utility tractor, they point to a design that, at some point, may have been intended for orchard work. If orchard work wasn't one of your tasks, the design would obviously be lacking. If it was one of your tasks, this tractor has some things going for it. If it's an orchard tractor that's being marketed as a utility tractor then the market itself will declare the tractor a loser in the long run.

For my own part the one "FACT" is that I don't know and probably cannot imagine all the different usages a tractor might be put to. But I should have my own applications firmly in mind as well as a critical eye as to what will meet my needs. Obviously, this is too much to ask of the sales/marketing people. They might suggest this or that based on my HP or weight requirements, but it's up to the buyer to spot the winners and the losers based on his own needs.

A statement that is 'fact' in terms of your own application should rightfully be regarded as 'opinion' by someone else trying to evaluate a tractor for his application....because his Tasks and Conditions may be quite different.

As for the FEL control arrangement....wellll, I won't attempt to rationalize that.
Bob
 
   / Best tractor list #9  
Bob summed it up very well... I will say though that shorter folk can probably fit better in smaller packages ergonomically speaking... I'm only talking about size and distance now in tractor design... A tractor that my be cramped for someone else may be fine for me since I've got short legs... The guys that works with me was interested in my YM1700 after he heard that I had traded it in on a 1720 New Holland... He's 6'-6" for Pete's sake... I told him that the 1700 was a great unit but he would feel like an elephant on a bicycle with that tractor... It was fairly snug for me and I'm only 5'-7" but a little on the...ahem...heavy side...lol
 
   / Best tractor list #10  
THE BOYS AT THE BAR WERE BETTING
ON WHOSE BEER WAS THE BEST
I DIDN'T HAVE A NICKEL
SO THEY CHOSE ME TO MAKE THE TEST
THOSE FIFTEEN DIFFERENT KINDS OF BEER
WERE WONDERFUL TO ME
EACH ONE WAS MY FAVORITE BREW
THE BEER I DRINK FOR FREE

"Free Beer" lyrics by da Yoopers -- a great old singing group from Upper Michigan!

My butt has been on a lot of tractors in the last 50 years. A number of them were loaners, or tractors people left for me to "store."

There are so many good tractors out there, I'd have to classify them like free beer.

Lots of them have been my favorite at the time I was using it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
 
Top