RocketJSquirrel - Can I just call you Rocket for short? /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif
How long ago did you rent the EarthForce? It must've been an older one - I was told they've been using Kubota diesels in the EF-1 (as well as everything else) for several years, but that may not be correct.
I'm not sure I have a definite point yet - I was basically preparing to conduct an experiment in the open-mindedness of tractor buyers, I think. As you discovered, the EF-1 is a lot of tractor for the money. All of them are, for that matter, but I can understand why most of the members of TBN wouldn't be interested in the EF-5. It's too much money, good deal or no, because it's too much tractor for most folks. Weighing in at almost 10,000 pounds, it's quite a bit more ponderous than a 1000 pound CUT, and it ought to be. But one of the biggest things I was trying to get across is that there are EarthForce machines that are closer to the size, weight, and horsepower that the typical CUT purchaser is looking for.
I've been looking at the jobs that were mentioned as the kinds of things CUTs are used for and there are some interesting things that came out of it. Obviously, if the tractor is used primarily for general farming, it has to have a typical tractor form factor, because that's what the implements need. But that isn't, by far, the typical use for a CUT. Interestingly, one of the biggest deficiences of a mini-TLB for the typical uses mentioned in response to my question is in the ability to pull a trailer. You can certainly put a quick-attach plate on the loader that will carry any trailer the front end loader can pick up (which, for any EarthForce machine, is anything any CUT could drag), but that's not a very workable solution, in most cases. It would be pretty easy to make a trailer hitch for the backhoe quick-attach, though, and just hook the trailer up to that. (In fact, I think I just came up with another project to add to my list.) It would look a little goofy, but it should be a very workable solution. Not as convenient as putting a ball on the drawbar, but a lot more versatile. (And a whole lot more convenient than putting a backhoe on a CUT.) (Wouldn't it be nice to be able to position a trailer exactly where you want it with the backhoe boom sometimes?)
For most other uses, it's simply a matter of doing the job with a little different approach. Which is easer, driving forward with with a tiller on the back of a CUT and looking over your shoulder at the tiller all day long - or having the tiller up front where you can see it and looking behind you as you're backing up? My gut feel is that it's easier with a CUT, because you don't have to look behind you to see where you're going, which is where you spend the majority of your time looking. But, with the EarthForce machines, I've already found that you can backdrag without ever turning around because it's got such good shock-mounted mirrors on both sides - which effectively negates most of the problem in practice, but doesn't do anything for the problem of mind-set. As I said, it involves a new way of doing things. Some folks are good at being able to adapt to new techniques and new ways of seeing things, and others aren't.
All of which begs the question: Why even think about learning a new way of doing things in order to buy a mini-TLB? Here's my take on it. Say you've got 10 tasks and two choices, with respect to equipment: With Machine 1, some of the tasks will be easier to do than with Machine 2, but you can't do them all. With Machine 2, it will be a bit harder to do some of the tasks, but you can do them all. Given those 2 choices, I would almost always pick Machine 2, especially if the definition of "harder" involves adaptability, or learning new ways, on my part.
So, to use one of my favorite expressions, "relevance please?" Well, EarthForce mini-TLB's have far better loaders than any CUT. You've always got a backhoe, so you can quickly do things with it that would take a long time, or not even be possible, without it. An EarthForce machine with 4-wheel-steering is much more maneuverable than a CUT, so having the loader and backhoe always there aren't the liability they would be, unless the weight itself is the issue. But weight is usually more of an advantage than a liability.
But, some will say, a mini-TLB doesn't have a PTO. Incorrect. Mine has 3. Two on the back and one on the front. They just happen to be hydraulic. There are both advantages and disadvantages to that. I happen now to like the advantages a lot better, though I was once firmly in the mechanical PTO camp. Just like I was once in the mechanical transmission camp, but am now firmly in the HST camp.
So, I guess my point is that I believe the mini-TLB is worth looking at for a lot more CUT purchasers than it appears at first glance.
