Is it just me, or does this go too far?

rockyridgefarm · Aug 23, 2006

"Deere bashing "

Hold on, Skurka is an equal opportunity Basher. He is just as ready to give Deere credit in the many areas that they deserve it. And it isn't Deere, just a recent marketing trend that has many of us up in arms! The pamphlet is far more detailed than any other specs that we have been able to track down.

Now, if you wannna suggest Bob is funny lookin'....

Bob_Skurka · Aug 23, 2006

John, most people accuse me of DEFENDING Deere too much so it is interesting to be accused of bashing Deere. I will admit to missing the measurement regarding point 2, I've made mistakes before and am willing to admit them. Regarding point 3, honestly I do not see the answer to that question in the linked page. Yes there is a partial answer, addressing one point, but not the others.

The reason I asked for those 3 measurement points (12", 59" and full) is because Deere has in the past used all three of those points in literature. Sad, but Deere used to be one of the best in providing full disclosure of their information. In fact I think they were a model that other manufacturers should have followed. Then a few years ago some of the minor brands started to play 'fast and loose' with their stats and Deere began to follow suit. I don't understand why.

But you can go back and do some searches where I have been accused of being a Big 3 backer to the extreme. I rather suggest that I will call a spade a spade if it is a spade. In this case, Deere deserves to take a black eye.

BTW I've also got a Deere brochure on my desk, it is totally worthless in terms of specs. It has even less than the linked page in Willl's post.

Oh, and Mike, the comment about funny looking . . . I presume you are talking about my face and not my Hawaiian shirts. I don't take kindly to insults about my shirts! But my face, well, I can't argue with that!

BillyP · Aug 23, 2006

Bob_Skurka said:
BTW I've also got a Deere brochure on my desk, it is totally worthless in terms of specs. It has even less than the linked page in Willl's post.

Hey Bob, think you could scan and post that brochure?

rockyridgefarm · Aug 23, 2006

Oh, and Mike, the comment about funny looking . . . I presume you are talking about my face and not my Hawaiian shirts. I don't take kindly to insults about my shirts! But my face, well, I can't argue with that!__________________

As long as the Lovely Mrs Bob keeps you - we don't care how you look!

Willl · Aug 23, 2006

rockyridgefarm said:
Wonder why that isn't on Deere.com........

The stuff I posted ?

If yes, I also wondered, heck, it's not even in their manual. Nothing.
Even the unit weight is no where to be found.

FYI, here's the weights.

MossRoad · Aug 23, 2006

Bob_Skurka said:
The problem with Bush Hog, is very similar to the problem with Woods. It makes a claim, and puts in the discalimer that it requires XX gpm of flow and XXXX pressure. The problem is that people assume incorrectly their tractor can put out those flows & pressures.

They tell us what pressure and flow are needed to make the loader do what they advertise. That seems very honest and straightforward to me.

Bob_Skurka · Aug 23, 2006

Bob_Skurka said:
The problem with Bush Hog, is very similar to the problem with Woods. It makes a claim, and puts in the discalimer that it requires XX gpm of flow and XXXX pressure. The problem is that people assume incorrectly their tractor can put out those flows & pressures.

MossRoad said:
They tell us what pressure and flow are needed to make the loader do what they advertise. That seems very honest and straightforward to me.

David, you obviously did not read what I wrote very well because I was obviously laying blame on the buyers because I wrote "people assume incorrectly . . ." further later in the same paragraph I wrote . . .

Bob_Skurka said:
This is NO fault of the loader company, they often don't know what tractor the loader is going to be mounted on, but it does go to show that even people who think they are educated about loaders really often are clueless.

Noodlearm · Aug 23, 2006

Wow, I really need that 400cx loader, it lifs more at 500mm forward than at pivot pin

JohnSinVA · Aug 24, 2006

Bob - I think maybe you just got on a roll. I understand the frustrations with the numbers game. Sounds like there's an opportunity for some independent testing business: stop at a random dealer and buy a tractor/loader combo off the lot. Take it "home" and fill it with weight until it can no longer lift to full height. Add up what it could lift to full height and there you have it. The test would have to be repeated to accout for things such as hydraulic fluid temperature to get the max number. You could give a "cold" lift capacity and a "hot" lift capacity to give a better idea of what you can expect it to do during a full workday. You could expand the testing to other lift heights if so desired, but it would be done the same way, with actual measureable weight in the bucket.

That might better yield numbers that are fair and accurate.