Buying a first Tractor; HST or not?

[DK35vince]

SethO,
Now just because they cost more they are automatically BETTER!
Now this post makes no sense to me at all ..

 

[SethO]

RanchMan,

Now that you mention it, all vehicles SHOULD have automatic transmission. Why exactly do you need to change gears? The purpose of a vehicle is to move from point A to B, the less you as a driver have to do to achieve that, the better the car.

You listed a number a features in a car that you feel do not make a car better, but will you buy a car without these things at a higher price than one with? I did not think so.
Do you know of any car maker selling a manual for more than an automatic?

Seth

 

[SethO]

Wolbert,

The issue is not that they cost more, but why they cost more.
All the tractor manufacturers list HST when available as an option that ADDS to the cost of the BASIC equipment, that is what makes it better in each instance. I am not comparing apples to oranges but one bigger apple to another from the same tree.

Will you pay more for a geared tractor than an HST from the same manufacturer?

Seth

 

[RanchMan]

That's kindof funny Rat-

Reliability is one of the things I have very little concern when it comes to running a HST. My father purchased a Deere in '77. To my knowledge, it's never needed any major repair to the HST. (Although there are plenty of other parts that have needed replacement, it's been a good tractor) I have to admit, I can't think of anyone I know with a HST that has had an issue with the transmission. I'm sure there's someone out there, but there's always going to be a "lemon" that gets out there. With 30+ (or more for all I know), I'd think HST is pretty well understood regarding how to make 'em reliable. I doubt you'll ever have trouble with it.

That's interesting on the cost issue! I wouldn't have guessed that. I wonder why it is less on the Kubotas? (Isn't it generally higher on everyone else’s?) I don't claim to understand how HST works, so I can't comment on how many parts are involved or what manufacturing costs would be in comparison to a gear-box tractor, so I'd be curious as to if either of these could be driving the cost down (or maybe volume of sales???)

 

[DK35vince]

SethO,
No I would not pay more for a gear model over hydrostat.
But I also saw no need for me to pay more for hydro. over gear.

 

[SethO]

Wolbert,

That is nice, but to the manufacturer, the HST is worth more, therefore BETTER. I know this is getting boring, but a push mower that I like because it keeps me fit is not BETTER than a self propelled version. Enough said.

SethO

 

[RanchMan]

SethO-

<font color=blue> The purpose of a vehicle is to move from point A to B, the less you as a driver have to do to achieve that, the better the car.</font color=blue>

/w3tcompact/icons/hmm.gif Hmmm. It appears you haven't owned/used a sports car. (I say "used" because I have seen some folks who have drive sports cars like the proverbial "little old lady driving to church on Sundays" - which is hardly using the vehicle for it's designed purpose).

I thought the example of cars would be a common reference for understanding since cars, as most would freely admit, are designed for a multitude of purposes (hense all the different models & options.) I suppose I was wrong in believing that you would see this "common ground."

If you don't see the need/purpose for a manual transmission in a car/truck, then the reference is lost. Unfortunately I just really don't have the desire to explain this in detail as I suspect you'd simply reject everything out-of-hand anyway.

<font color=blue>You listed a number a features in a car that you feel do not make a car better, but will you buy a car without these things at a higher price than one with? I did not think so. </font color=blue>

Sorry - but you'd be safer if you didn't assume. In actuality, your statement is incorrect. I have paid "extra" to NOT have some of those "features" I listed. Not every one of them, but some of them. Those that I consider as "worthless" or "more trouble than their worth" or simply didn't like, yup - I've paid not to have.

<font color=blue>Do you know of any car maker selling a manual for more than an automatic?</font color=blue>

Yes. Chevrolet. It's called a Corvette. In the Coupe & Convertible (2002), a manual transmission is a $915 upgrade option. The automatic is the “base” level. In their highest performance model (and most expensive at over $50K "sticker"), the Z06, an automatic is not even offered - you must get the standard transmission. Here’s the link in case you want to check it out yourself.....

<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.chevrolet.com/corvette/features.htm#engine>Chevrolet web site - Corvette Specs</A>

BTW, you might want to re-read where Rat states something "interesting" on HST price vs. GST on Kubota....

 

[SethO]

Thanks for the education, but a sportscar is not a tool. It is like an antique or a painting worth what you are willing to pay for it.

Take this country, by LAW a sports car does not get you from point A to point B faster than a family sedan. The potential advantage is only really realised on a race track. But people still buy them in droves, more expensive YES, more functional NO.

It is not unusual to claim that old, tested technology or methods are better than new ones, but look closely we have people defending either their preferences, or protecting their stake in the old ways.

Seth

 

[DK35vince]

SethO,
<font color=blue>a sports car does not get from point A to point B faster than a family sadan.But people still buy them in droves,more money Yes,more funtional NO.</font color=blue>


But since they cost more they must be BETTER.

 

[RanchMan]

SethO-

You are welcome for the education. I was more than happy to answer the questions you posed with factual answers.

I believe the question you posed was <font color=blue>Do you know of any car maker selling a manual for more than an automatic?</font color=blue> I find it humorous that now you yelp "those cars don't count!!!" when I brought up the specific example of a sports car. (Not the only car type I could have brought up, just one I picked.) ‘Course, I have no doubt that it wouldn’t have mattered what “type” car I mentioned...

I find it interesting how you magically "disqualify" a sports car because it suddenly doesn't "fit" your model of "BETTER." Seemed that "functionality" was never mentioned - only money. $$$$=BETTER. Why did you not point this "issue" when I brought up car colors or chrome "do-dads" or the like? Because it didn't matter then. Only matters now when an “out” seems open. /w3tcompact/icons/hmm.gif Hmmmm - yes, very interesting indeed... (Oh, for the record, there are some "improved functionality" aspects of sports cars other than speed between "Point A & B", but I won't bore you with those. I'm sure you'd see some type of "flaw" in each of them as well.....)

Funny - I haven't heard "DO OVER!" for a long time....