Since I'm contemplating purchasing a Kioti I'm riffling through all threads like this. Much of this doesn't do me a lot of good other than to show that Kioti DID "resolve" the issue. Not being biased on any manufacturer (well, I've got a Kubota that I'll gloat over, but I'm not brand loyal in any way that would tend to blind me), I do know that issues can come up and you cannot magically go back in time and rectify/take a different course of action. It's ALWAYS a matter of where one goes from a given point, forward.
The initial reactions by the dealer, if I can pretend to know exactly what they thought or what their instructions from the factory might be, might have been that they were assessing all the possible things that might have to be pursued and they were wanting to make sure that the factory would support them. That is, the dealer was being prudent not only financially but also on the side of technical support.
With 20 hrs run time it might have been figured that lower than acceptable levels of fluid, and keep in mind that not all 20 hrs would have been with low fluid (started out full, no idea on the rate of decline), wouldn't have likely caused any real harm. I'd argue that any decent dealer would want to make sure that a problem doesn't come back as that really makes for bad word-of-mouth (seems like Kioti relies on this more than spending on marketing). And I think that the dealer, as I suggested above, might have been wanting to make sure they had full support from the factory to ensure that this got taken care of in one shot, did as they should have.
Going forward, if there's any issue as a result I'd think that it should show up sooner rather than later, and if so that it occurs under the warranty period. And over time if nothing bad happens then it'll slowly become "a thing of the past" (yeah, I agree that early on these things will be burning in your head and you're just always looking over your shoulder; my only advice would be to push the tractor, within what would be its operational limits, to force it to either prove that it's capable, or make it break (I'd make this clear to the dealer that you're wanting to make sure that it's going to hold up).
My parents purchased a new Toyota Camry back in the mid 80s. Driving down the freeway it threw itself in reverse. If ever there was an incident begging to run away from something this was it. They got a new transmission, not a new car. Never another problem. I'd wager that the new transmission was likely vetted more closely than something just rolling off the assembly line.
I can probably be more cynical than most, and I'll agree that in some instances it proves warranted, but I still believe in "innocent until proven guilty"- I prefer to get all the facts out before I pass judgment.
Was this a design flaw or a manufacturing flaw? Either way I'm pretty sure that it all got visibility inside of Kioti (same as likely with any other manufacturer). The ONLY issue is whether their culture is one of being serious about QA and improvements to design. Unless one is privy to internal corporate documentation it's pretty hard to really know: nearly everything comes with compromises; life is really about risk management.
Folks don't buy things expecting them to break. Manufacturers don't expect to manufacture things to break: those that really don't care aren't going to be in business long enough; it's bad when you get hooked on to one of them (I don't think that Kioti is one of these).
