Post COVID CUT tractoring “truths”

[Paystar]

Warranty is the one thing I don't consider at all. For one, most machines never break until the warranty is expired. Some will even say they are designed that way? LOL

Secondly, all I ever hear is people complaining about all the ways dealers and manufacturers try to deny your warranty, in which case, it really doesn't do you any good.

 

[Beeenvenue]

As I read the most recent last 2 pages of posts I go back to my original premise - tons of “reason” to buy bigger and bigger etc. as though money is not a consideration. If I can’t do one job I’m not going to cry because I stopped at 35 hp, especially because if I had bought 50 I still might have jobs I can’t do.

Most users today are in it for hobby farm/casual use/rural work from home on 5-20 acres. Risk exists but isn’t much consideration since I don’t NEED it daily. I can rent or hire out anything one-time if it is HP intensive.

I appreciate the variety of answers people have posted but I think there are still way too many who want to tell me what I need and why I need it, and it is always bigger, brand name, and $$$

 

[MHarryE]

I bought my first tractor, a CUT, 23 years ago when I was still working as an engineer and flying worldwide much of the time, but I had bought this little 40 from my dad with intentions of building on it for retirement. Friends talked me out of Deere and into Kubota so we went to the Kubota dealer to buy a SCUT we saw in ads and my wife talked me into a CUT as more tractor for the money. That open platform L3710 did okay for me until I retired. We’d been talking to a dealer about getting a backhoe because of our needs but big delay in getting us a quote and we ended up buying a used mini-excavator - thank you dealer I never visited again because the mini was a much better option for not much more money (yes, dealer did eventually give me a staggering quote). So now we’re retired, in fishing country, and I found I’d rather drive tractor for my nephew and cousin than sit on a lake every day, so the L3710 changed to a L5740. But I had the opportunity to rent idle farmland myself and needed more tractor so we added a Kubota M135GX. Loved it, but missed the hydro and 4 years later it was replaced with the newly introduced M7-171 with a CVT and all electric hydraulics plus more. So from 37 to 171 HP. I’ve bought what I needed at the time and needs change. Why the M135GX rather than Deere, the only other dealer within 200 miles? The Deere dealer could not tell me the advantages of his offering, only about how stupid I’d be to buy a Kubota. I felt if you can’t tell me your advantages and only run down the opposition, why would I consider buying, especially since his quote was over $10k higher. Why Kubota instead of New Holland which my Kubota dealer also sells? That was my dealer’s choice as to what would better fit my needs, and unlike the Deere dealer, he came out and visited my operation. But he did push me into the M7 knowing my arthritis was advancing and how much more comfortable the ride and controls would be on my aging body. So for me, dealer has been invaluable, and what was right can change as you do. And a tractor without cab plowing snow at 30 below might be fine at 55 but it really sucks at 75. A CTL with snow blower in a heated garage works quite well for an old guy.

 

[DK35vince]

My 35 HP tractor has done everything I've needed on our 15 acres for the past 2+ decades
Runs an 8 1/2' backhoe, 6' tiller, 6' brushmower, 7' rearblade, 7' sickle mower, 6' boxblade, 9' power angle snowplow,Etc.

 

[Cahaba Valley Farm]

SNIP...

Now that is fascinating We hear all the time that a warranty is one of the big reasons people buy new, but I don't believe in all my years on TBN that I've seen a discussion of the difference in warranties. Lots on HP & loader capacity; little on warranty differences.

All I recall about our Kubota warranty is negotiating for an extra year extension then watching it expire without a need to use it. I honestly do not have the slightest idea of what the factory warranty covered or how. My main concern was who would to do any required trailering...

What in the world is forced arbitration? What difference does that make? What should a buyer look for?

rScotty

Hey Scotty, forced arbitration is a clause that is often times sneaked into a warranty that forces the consumer to go to an arbitrator/mediator of the manufacturers choosing when there is a breech of warranty. This means the consumer is can not bring a claim against them in state court which is the most vitally import right a consumer has if and when a company breeches their obligations to the consumer under their warranty agreements and service contracts.

Daedong is the only manufacturer in the industry that is doing this. I have read all the other warranty contracts from the other manufactures and I have not found this clause in any of theirs. From a underwriting standpoint Daedong is bad bet no matter how good the price is or even how good the equipment is. By putting that clause in their warranty they are essentially telling any consumer that does business with them that they have to legally subordinate their right to trial by court to the legal interests of Daedong. Once they do that you have lost all control and ability to bring any accountability to the company when there is a problem.

We know from members reports on this site over the years that Daedong/Kioti has not always stood behind their products and in some cases have left consumers and dealers out to dry. It's my belief that Kioti knows that a certain percentage of their tractors are going to be problematic and if the repair costs get too high they would rather just walk away then to keep losing money repairing it. This of course will trigger a lawsuit but the problem is the consumer has no ability to bring one anymore so they get off scott free.

The buyers should first and foremost look for warranties that don't erode or take away their rights. By putting arbitration clauses in their warranty they are essentially transferring the risk from them back to you and that makes purchasing a tractor with a warranty worthless. You would be better off just buying one used.

A manufactures ability to meet warranty obligations is the greatest risk to us as consumers and that should always be carefully investigated. If a manufacturer has an inconsistent track record with standing behind their products then they should be considered high risk. If they are putting forced arbitration clauses in their warranties then you should walk away and not do business with them. Risk is very real thing whether you see it and understand it or not. It's something that most consumers don't see and the producers know this. Take your time and do your due diligence before you make an investment in a tractor. Tractors are very expensive. Much more expensive then a car so it behooves us to slow down and consider if the investment makes rational sense.

 

[3 Horse Ranch]

We know from members reports on this site over the years that Daedong/Kioti has not always stood behind their products and in some cases have left consumers and dealers out to dry.

If you are trying to single out Kioti, two words: Kubota B3350
I read the thread on here about that machine did some research, and it turned me off from even considering Kubota when I bought a new tractor. (the extra $5000 price was no help either) My thought was, that maybe the new tractor I bought from them just might be another B3350 and I would be hung out to try like the owners of those tractors were. If Kubota had been honorable, they would have recalled every single one of those machines and either replaced the engine and tier IV system, or given a new tractor of similar size to replace the machine. Kubota finally offered a fix, but it took them 6 years to do it.

 

[Cahaba Valley Farm]

If you are trying to single out Kioti, two words: Kubota B3350
I read the thread on here about that machine did some research, and it turned me off from even considering Kubota when I bought a new tractor. (the extra $5000 price was no help either) My thought was, that maybe the new tractor I bought from them just might be another B3350 and I would be hung out to try like the owners of those tractors were. If Kubota had been honorable, they would have recalled every single one of those machines and either replaced the engine and tier IV system, or given a new tractor of similar size to replace the machine. Kubota finally offered a fix, but it took them 6 years to do it.

Everything you say here is legitimate and true. I agree 100%. However, the main difference here between Kubota and Kioti is consumers had the ability to bring a lawsuit against Kubota. They don't have that ability under Kioti's warranty terms.

 

[3 Horse Ranch]

Everything you say here is legitimate and true. I agree 100%. However, the main difference here between Kubota and Kioti is consumers had the ability to bring a lawsuit against Kubota. They don't have that ability under Kioti's warranty terms.

The thing is, nobody is going to sue over a ten thousand dollar repair on a thirty-five thousand dollar tractor, even if they could find a lawyer to take the case. Tractors aren't protected by lemon laws and with what someone might pay a lawyer to get satisfaction, they could buy a new tractor. What you are saying might be true but in reality, it is a distinction without a difference. Actually, a person might come out better with compulsory arbitration.
from Kioti's warranty: "Said arbitration shall be conducted in a manner similar to the processes, procedures and regulations set forth by the American Arbitration Association (the "AAA")."
Without reading the rules and procedures of the AAA my guess is that any arbitration has to have a semblance of neutrality and fairness to comply with the AAA. Probably more fair than dealing with Kubota's or John Deere's high priced corporate lawyers.

 

[Cahaba Valley Farm]

The thing is, nobody is going to sue over a ten thousand dollar repair on a thirty-five thousand dollar tractor, even if they could find a lawyer to take the case. Tractors aren't protected by lemon laws and with what someone might pay a lawyer to get satisfaction, they could buy a new tractor.

Of course they won't, they will sue for a buy back.

Actually, a person might come out better with compulsory arbitration.
from Kioti's warranty: "Said arbitration shall be conducted in a manner similar to the processes, procedures and regulations set forth by the American Arbitration Association (the "AAA")."
Without reading the rules and procedures of the AAA my guess is that any arbitration has to have a semblance of neutrality and fairness to comply with the AAA. Probably more fair than dealing with Kubota's or John Deere's high priced corporate lawyers.

You clearly don't have a clue about arbitration.

 

[rScotty]

My 35 HP tractor has done everything I've needed on our 15 acres for the past 2+ decades
Runs an 8 1/2' backhoe, 6' tiller, 6' brushmower, 7' rearblade, 7' sickle mower, 6' boxblade, 9' power angle snowplow,Etc.

I'm not surprised at that. Lots of companies made simple basic tractors like that back then and they do tend to last nearly forever. 5000 to 10,000 hours before a rebuild is what we used to figure on 20 to 50 years ago.

Tractor Data says your Kioti DK35 is a three cylinder, pre-computer, pre-emissions, naturally aspirated, and has independent injection by Bosch - not common rail.
Plus it has a manual transmission with shuttle shift. It's a heavy tractor, built low with a wide stance.

That's a combination made to last. The shuttle saves on clutch wear and my guess is it is fuel efficient too, since like all the diesels of the era it was made to work well at any engine speed from idle on up.

All those are simple components with close to a century of development. Basic standard tractor.

Glad you have one, it sounds like a keeper
But I'm curious - What would you buy today?

rScotty