The Objective Superiority of JD in 32-46 HP

[Bird]

<font color=blue>Bird, did you forget spouses in your list?</font color=blue>

And on purpose, too./w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif

I agree with some of the other guys; I have no brand loyalty. I buy what I think is the best deal for me at the time, but that may include factors that some would call subjective, some maybe not. For example, there are a couple of cars on the market that I really like, except that their blasted seats are just plain uncomfortable to me and there's no way I'd buy one of them. And obviously those seats must be comfortable to a lot of others because I see a lot of them on the road. Is that "objective" or "subjective"?

Bird

 

[JackIL]

Mid-mount decks with independent hydraulic lift are available for the 4500-4700s. Actually on 4200-4700 tractors the midmount mower lift is accomplished with a hydraulic cylinder that comes with the mower attaching parts--not with the 3 point hitch. Several options are available to control this cylinder: (1) You can connect to one of the pairs of ports on the Dual SCV if there is no loader or other attachment requiring the SCV being used simultaneously with the deck. (2) You can use a 3rd SCV with a control lever mounted on the right fender.

 

[glennmac]

Subjective and objective are often not easily distinguishable.

In legal trial procedure, judges are supposed to decide questions of law and juries are supposed to decide questions of fact. Appellate court judges are supposed to reverse trial judges only on errors of law and not on errors of fact. Sometimes you cant tell whether something is a question of law or fact. In those cases we say that it is a "mixed question of law and fact," and then ask the judge to do what we want him to do.

For example, in the Gore v. Bush recount trial in Tallahassee, Judge Sauls held that Gore was not entitled to a recount in three counties because there were not, in the words of the vote contest statute, "erroneous votes" cast for Bush in those counties. The Justices of the Florida Supreme Court, who theoretically could overrule Sauls only on an error of law and not an error of fact, asked Gore's lawyer whether Sauls' decision on "erroneousness" was one of law or one of fact. The lawyer responded that it was a mixed question of fact and law, and therefore that the Florida Supreme Court had the judicial power to overrule that decision. Four members of the Florida Supreme Court bought that semantic argument, reversed Sauls, and issued the recount order that was ultimately reversed, as a question of law, by the United Stated Supreme Court.

Bet you never thought we'd get all that in a tractor thread.

By the way, I dont mind lawyer insults. You see, I know it's the trial lawyers you really don't like (except when they're yours.) Me, my only role is to try to screw the IRS. I knew you'd approve.

 

[cowboydoc]

Radman,
Boy you are right on trade-in!!!! Those guys are the same around here. They won't give you a plugged nickel for a trade-in, even if it is deere. They are worse than car dealers for that.

 

[JOR_EL]

Glen, ( This will be a tangential trip into nebulosity, but what the hey!? /w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif )

[[[Larry, you also argue that each person's subjective feelings are an objective fact to him or her. Tricky.]]]

Help me stay with you here, ...how 'bout a quote of where it is that I make that argument.

But while I'm waiting to get-clear exactly what you think I meant, I'll try to make more-clear exactly what I think I meant.

I know ( KNOW!, insofar as "knowledge" is possible) that I am pleased/displeased by my perceptions of beauty/ugliness, sweet/sour, finished/crude, etc. And I know that practicality/utility clothed in "ugly" esthetics never satisfy me, because I always believe it is possible to clothe them "beautifully"( That's one of the things "design" is about!).

To pretend that this is not "a fact" of my nature/personality, and to argue-myself into a very expensive purchase/long-term commitment based SOLELY on measurable or 'objective" criteria, would be to set myself up for gnawing dissatisfaction.

To ignore that there IS such a thing as "your grain" that can be gone-against only with consequences, is, in my opinion to deny the complexity of human "being".

And to attempt to reduce that-which-cannot-be-measured (or agreed-upon by consensus) to "inconsequential" status, for the sake of easier decision making, is, in the matter of personal likes and dislikes, plainly and simply, "self"-denial. I think self-knowledge is generally to-be-preferred.

I certainly do NOT present anything sprinkled with words such as "I", "my", or "self", as a statement representing "objective" fact. Precisely the opposite, ..."subjective" fact. (never mind that the physicists tell us that all "objectivity" is at base, "subjective".)

Subjective facts, of course, being the ones that make-up our personal "worlds", ...the facts we react-to, ...the worlds we really "live" in, (as in "I think I'm Napoleon leading my troops to victory, ...and it's exhilerating and glorious!". You think I'm sitting drooling in the looney-bin, ...and that it's pathetic and disgusting. Only one of us is having a good time. Who is the most fortunate(ever see "Equis")?

What I DO argue(and what I THINK you argue,) is that both objective (measurable) "fact" AND subjective(measurable only by the "self") "fact"(or some other word-of-your-choosing) should be acknowledged as important elements when making a decision with "satisfaction" (a subjective experience!) as part of the goal. It seems to me that we have just chosen a different emphasis for our respective posts.

If someone finds the greatest satisfaction, not from appreciation of design esthetics( for example), but from having all their "objective" ducks in-a-row, ...from having all the "most practical" options gathered, then their subjective decision to "go-objective" may in-fact reap THEM the greatest harvest.

And if they were aware that this was what they were doing, I'd consider all well. "Different strokes"! The world has room for both bean-counters AND artists.

Incidentally I think the terms "objective" and "to him or her" are mutually-exclusive. When anything is qualified by "TO HIM(HER)" , objectivity is excluded (and subjectivity implied) BY the qualification.

Certainly I would not intentionally argue that "subjective feelings" were such impossible things.

I'm never quite sure whether everyone is having fun at these "dances-on-slippery-slopes", so I'll speak for myself,...I enjoy it.

Much more stimulating/thought-provoking than couch-potato tv!

Objective? Subjective? "tricky", ...I agree! /w3tcompact/icons/wink.gif

Larry

 

[art]

I don't understand this (objective) superiority. You state Deere's higher pump output, What does it get you? A faster loader? a far superior lift capacity? Maybe more fuel burned as it looks like a larger horsepower loss due to poor design as it is evident even in there literature there are losses in it's efficency compared to the Kubota's loaders. You say the Kubota hoe doesn't perform with the Deere? Read the spec's right off the literature! Mower quality, I'd love to see you watch a head to head Kubota, Deere comparison as the Deere deck doesn't begin to stay with the Kubota for a clean cut. You must have not read the rest of the literature or just went by what your JD dealer told you. Learn to read between the lines or get indepth enough to know more than a preprogramed salesperson that only keeps saying how great his equipment with no supporting facts. Yes the new Deeres were long over do but it doesn't mean they are across the board better built. Even in the farming industry they are becoming the "Johnny come later" brand.

 

[glennmac]

As Radman and Art point out, my argument on backhoe strength must be clarified. The JD 4300-4700 can all take the JD 48 backhoe. The 48 has stronger digging forces than the Kubota hoe (4690) available on the 3010-3410. However, the Kubota hoe available on the 3710 and above (4560) has stronger digging specs than the JD 48. Therefore, hoe strength is in JD's favor from 32-36 hp tractors, and in Kubotas favor for 37 hp and above. (We are not considering here third party hoes.) So, we have a split verdict here between JD and K on hoe strength, depending on the size of the tractor. I cannot find specs on the NH hoes.

JD hoes still remain superior in attach/detach. Any argument about this?

Art, the whole point of this thread is to get to the objective performance facts, to the extent we can, and to pierce through the "preprogrammed salesman."

Having conceded part of the backhoe issue to Kubota, I must point out that a statement like "the Deere deck doesn't begin to stay with the Kubota for a clean cut" is a completely conclusory statement--ie, it is not backed up by any facts. It is the kind of statement through which we are trying to pierce. What is it about the design of a Kubota deck that would give it a cleaner cut than a Deere deck? I own a ground contact 72" Kubota deck and know that the gauge wheels under this 480 lb. deck leave ruts in soft soil and press down grass. I also know from NH literature that their belly decks are ground contact decks. I have stated the fact that the Deere decks are completely suspended decks and therefore have little potential to leave wheel tracks or ruts. Do you deny these facts? What, specifically, is it about the Kubota decks in the HP range we are discussing that would give it a cleaner cut?

 

[RobS]

What about PTO clutch? JD makes a point about this in their video but I don't know how they really stack up. Thoughts?

Interesting thread /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif

 

[glennmac]

Rob, I'm still awaiting the mysterious Deere video. Unless the Orange and (especially Blue) owners start fighting back more here, Deere may replace the video with this thread.

Good point about the clutch. That's an objective difference. I dont know about all the models, but in general I think all the Kubota hydro L's require you to foot clutch to engage and disengage the pto (and to start the tractor?). The JD hydros dont have a foot clutch. You just move the pto lever. Is there some advantage to clutch, or is this whole issue a distinction without a difference?

 

[RobS]

The video makes it sound like you have to come to a complete stop on the Kubota to disengage the PTO where the Deere can be done on the fly. I only know my 790 and although I have to use the clutch, I don't think I have to come to a complete stop. Engagement is another story. I could probably engage while rolling (clutch depressed) but generally I do it while stopped. I also have the throttle at idle to ease the shock as the implement starts up. Can the others engage at PTO speed? The video shows the tractors mowing and crossing a gravel drive. Deere disengages and re-engages without stopping. Kubota has to stop. I can't remember what they show about NH.

Have you requested your video? Mine took a while to come. It's a well done video, but leaves a lot of suspicion since it's a manufacturers viewpoint /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif