Too much reading for me, im outa here.
Yes, I was just thinking "what a long-winded drama" whilst trying to focus on the facts. I watched some of the video footage and reached the same conclusion. It needs to be brief, concise, accurate and straight-to-the-point, but was just too long and drawn-out.
There are, nevertheless, serious faults with:
a - the machine, which require rectification under warranty,
b - the Dealer's repair strategy, reactions to faults not rectified, and
c - AGCO's lack of remedial action and on some occasions delays in further action.
Could the Dealer not loan you a unit while yours was in their workshop?
I can understand Garry's exasperation, frustration, anger and worry. Add to the mix more than a few frightening experiences and it becomes a machine he doesn't want to use. Who can blame him? But at the same time, the Dealer and the manufacturer need to stand behind their product.
Up front ... all my machines are 40+ years old. They're very strong, robust, and virtually unbreakable. I've never claimed to have a huge amount of experience, but I've learnt where the limits are ..... seen the edge without going over it, so to speak.
Regarding the "drag/binding/reluctance to move" fault: Does this seem similar trying to move backwards, as it does forwards - that is, does the resistance seem as severe in both directions?
My first thought was that it sounds as though the transmission is trying to partially-engage additional gear or additional range. Up front - I know nothing about it's design. On a few occasions I drove an old Ford 3000 with a "Select-speed" transmission, and found if the lever was not
exactly centred in position for the gear engaged, it would "load up" the engine heavily because it seemed a clutch or band for the next (higher or lower) gear was also being partially applied. A light tap would centre the lever and instantly relieve the problem. I suspect an internal pressure leak is the probable cause, given it doesn't occur on some occasions - not clearance problems. It is likely to be in the F-R shuttle, being hydraulically-shifted.
The steering issue has to be rectified immediately ..... that is an accident waiting to happen.
Loader control valves sticking also falls into the same category as above.
The issue of ballast weight and front axle load: I believe this appears to have been somewhat misunderstood. I can see both Garry's and AGCO's as well as all others' viewpoints, and what I think has been missed is the
relationship between
axle weight and
grip level. The strength of the front axle drivetrain may be designed for the weight and therefore grip of only the tractor itself.
While they permit the addition of a loader of a certain specification, that will significantly alter the grip of both front and rear axles. Especially with the bucket full, the front axle grip will be significantly increased. They will then be able to drive much more before before breaking traction. Therefore the drive components to the front wheels will have to cope with
a higher load (torque load). Without rear ballast the rear axle grip will be notably reduced, which will only compound this issue, because they cannot "push" as much as they should. Ballast weight, wheel weights and loaded tyres are all options for combatting this problem. Stability will also be increased, as I have said elsewhere.
Lack of lifting capability is also a no-brainer - who can use a loader that can't lift any weight? I'm still amazed at what my 40y/o loader will lift.
Lurching shuttle: This also has to be rectified immediately. This is an 80HP tractor. Harsh engagement of any transmission elements (clutch packs or bands) will not only damage drive-train components, it could easily cause loss of control and compromise safety.
Bottom line - we all want to hear it all has been fixed properly.
I hope it is soon too - this has gone on for much too long.
I also note Garry appears to reside not far from me. I can only say our local MF dealer appears to be quite the opposite, but again I've only ever bought parts from them.
