Power-Tracs are not cheaper in my opinion

[IslandTractor]

I still don't believe that those who haven't lived with a PT for a while can't really understand their value...

I don't think anyone has challenged the utility or "value" of the PT. If I had a PT I'd have few hours on my tractor too. The discussion has been on cost compared to CUTs. I certainly wouldn't discourage anyone from buying a PT but it is good to understand the costs as well as the value of owning one.

 

[KentT]

I don't think anyone has challenged the utility or "value" of the PT. If I had a PT I'd have few hours on my tractor too. The discussion has been on cost compared to CUTs. I certainly wouldn't discourage anyone from buying a PT but it is good to understand the costs as well as the value of owning one.

Uh, somehow I think cost is directly related to value... or perhaps I should say usefulness should be directly a factor in evaluating cost. I don't want a "garage queen" regardless of how much it or how little it costs... Except for "bragging rights" what value do impressive specifications or capabilities have if they're sitting in the garage or barn and not being used?

If I use something 3 times as much as something else -- comparing what they cost against each other doesn't really make a lot ot sense, does it?

I keep coming back to the point that you (we) are comparing apples and oranges...

 

[Rivco]

OK, so once in awhile someone sales one. Get much for it...that's what this thread is about

Well...let me put it this way. I had the 180 advertised for over 2 months. I received a lot of calls from people wondering what a Power-Trac is. I also showed it to several people.

The biggest complaints were:
1- no dealer support
2- Limited lift ht ( 50" on the 180 )
3- Resale marketable
4- useless owners manual / parts manual

I ended up selling it for less than I wanted.

 

[MossRoad]

My PT's wheel motors won't be 12.5ci as soon as I can get the 22.7ci ones installed...

We are waiting to see it, too. A mountain goat comes to mind.

 

[Rivco]

My PT's wheel motors won't be 12.5ci as soon as I can get the 22.7ci ones installed...

I think it is your civic duty to all former and present PT owners to get those new wheel motors installed ASAP with lots of pictures and a write up so we can all read about the performance results.

 

[J_J]

My PT's wheel motors won't be 12.5ci as soon as I can get the 22.7ci ones installed...

I would expect to see more torque, and less speed. How will you measure the torque? Do you have a steep hill that you could not climb with the old wheel motors?

I do have a question. If you have not changed out the tram pump, then you are pumping the same volume of fluid, have you really gained anything? I am thinking that the new motors will not be able to reach their maximum potential, based on the stock pump limits. In essence, the pump is pumping like crazy, and the wheel motors are just loafing along. In order to get maximum potential from the new wheel motors, a new pump would have to be matched to the new wheel motors.

 

[IslandTractor]

Uh, somehow I think cost is directly related to value... or perhaps I should say usefulness should be directly a factor in evaluating cost.

I don't want to beat a dead horse here but I do think there are differences between cost and value. Moss sees great value in his PT because it saves him time doing chores so he can spend time with his family. If he values spending time with his family he may be willing to pay a significant premium "cost" in order to achieve that goal. Someone else might be more focused on saving money either initially or as a function of total ownership costs as a prime consideration in choosing a tractor. They might not put as much emphasis on the convenience and Swiss Army Knife characteristics of the PT and might focus more on the total amount of money involved in owning one for 5 years for example. Defining the comparative costs of owning a PT vs CUT is the main theme of this thread. No one has challenged the personal value of a PT and I think virtually every poster has identified to some extent that they see value in PT ownership.

 

[SnowRidge]

I would expect to see more torque, and less speed. How will you measure the torque? Do you have a steep hill that you could not climb with the old wheel motors?

I do have a question. If you have not changed out the tram pump, then you are pumping the same volume of fluid, have you really gained anything? I am thinking that the new motors will not be able to reach their maximum potential, based on the stock pump limits. In essence, the pump is pumping like crazy, and the wheel motors are just loafing along. In order to get maximum potential from the new wheel motors, a new pump would have to be matched to the new wheel motors.

And maybe a new engine to maintain the same top speed combined with better climbing ability. There isn't any free lunch.

When they went from the old wheel motors to the "high torque" wheel motors, top speed dropped, and the machines now roll on even a slight grade, which I understand did not use to be the case. Whether or not there was a pump make, model, or calibration change is known only to the gnomes in the Department Of Mystical Engineering at the University of North Tazewell.

 

[MossRoad]

... known only to the gnomes in the Department Of Mystical Engineering at the University of North Tazewell.

I like that... gnomes in the D.O.M.E.

 

[KentT]

I don't want to beat a dead horse here but I do think there are differences between cost and value. Moss sees great value in his PT because it saves him time doing chores so he can spend time with his family. If he values spending time with his family he may be willing to pay a significant premium "cost" in order to achieve that goal. Someone else might be more focused on saving money either initially or as a function of total ownership costs as a prime consideration in choosing a tractor. They might not put as much emphasis on the convenience and Swiss Army Knife characteristics of the PT and might focus more on the total amount of money involved in owning one for 5 years for example. Defining the comparative costs of owning a PT vs CUT is the main theme of this thread. No one has challenged the personal value of a PT and I think virtually every poster has identified to some extent that they see value in PT ownership.

I agree that there is a difference between cost and value... just like in general, I think you get what you pay for....

The lowest cost is not always (I'd venture to say, most often) the best value... Usefulness is a factor in value, and not in cost. I can buy junk that I don't need or can't use, and it has no value, regardless of its cost...

IMO, PT's are high-value for the typical small-property owner, regardless of their cost...

I define small-property owner as someone who has something larger than a large suburban lawn to maintain, and something less than a working farm where he needs an ag-tractor -- the same market that SCUTs, especially, are targeted at...