FOURTEEN
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2004
- Messages
- 1,028
- Location
- Efland - Triangle of North Carolina.
- Tractor
- 2004 Power Trac PT-425
BAGTIC said:From my viewpoint it is much ado about nothing, an attempt to gild the lily.
PowerTrac would not have recommended engine oil if was going to HARM the system.
If someone has a headache and you don't give him an aspirin, you haven't harmed him, but you haven't helped him either!! Theoretically, if the hydraulics in a PT could last trouble free for maybe 20 years with Synthetic Hydraulic Fluid (SHF), but maybe only last 10 years with Motor Oil (MO), did PT actually HARM the PT-425 by using MO instead of SHF??
I think that Power Trac is a good responsible company, BUT, remember, ANY company is in business to make money. They do so by: (A) producing a product as economically as possible, (B) selling new products, and (C) selling replacement parts, while (D) still pleasing their owners and future customers.
(A) Power Trac, for example, may well know that SHF would be far superior to MO in hydraulics, but providing SHF in a PT-425 would cost PT about $220 more than using MO which is apparently adequate. If PT is making a $2,000? profit on each PT-425 that it sells, then PT can make an additional 11% profit just by using MO as OEM!! Of course then they can’t put MO in as OEM, but specify SHF for replacement!!
(B) By producing the PT cheaper, PT can attract more buyers. Most buyers want a machine that works OK, and seems to give good value, and a PT does both. “Gee, I don’t even have to use expensive SHF in it!”.
(C) MO will most likely get a PT through the warranty period without a repair. After the warranty period PT can make additional profit by selling replacement parts. Maybe a repair wouldn’t have been needed if SHF had been used, but who can say for sure!?!
(D) If a product makes it through the warranty period and beyond without a breakdown, most owners will be happy, and most future customers will be impressed! Maybe using SHF would double or triple the life of the PT hydraulics, but no one knows for sure, and most don’t care!!
If MO is just as good as SHF in hydraulics, why do the oil companies, which are lubrication experts, make both products? PT engineers may build a nice tractor, but that doesn’t qualify them to know what the best lubricants are! I trust PT to build a good tractor, but I rely upon the oil company to determine how to best lubricate and protect it!!
PS: I switched from MO to SHF (https://www.amsoil.com/storefront/ath.aspx) about 3 years (300 hours) ago, shortly after I got my PT-425.
Why? Because it didn’t make sense to use MO in the hydraulics, or to use SHF in the engine!
Is the PT better off? Maybe!
Was it a wise investment? Maybe!
Am I happy? YES!!
Why? Because I prefer preservation to restoration!!