Thoughts on adaptability of sub-compacts

[LBrown59]

And your rototiller resembles a toothbar how ???

I use it and the BH on the BX23 to break up the soil so I don't need a tooth bar.
IF I didn't have those then i could see a tooth bar otherwise no.

 

[Renovator]

I have 300 lb on the front of my tractor and 200 gallon sprayer on the back. There is18.4x24 tires on the back. I try to float across the wet spots and so far it has worked but i come close in the marshes sometimes. If it gets bad I can back out so far. Maybe I am just lucky.
Renovator

 

[ray66v]

Yeah, but from high school I remember that if A = B, and B = C, then A = C.

So therefore, if 2310 tractor = estate tractor, and if I own a 2310 tractor, then I own an estate.

Can't argue with science.

Jay

Did you learn how to look up the word estate in the dictionary in High School?

 

[barneyrb]

I've heard that sayin' around here before...however the third part of saying isn't hoofs. Your granddad was being nice. plowking

King, the other version was for trouble...

 

[ray66v]

I really like my GC2310, but:

1) low ground clearance
2) not a lot of power to the loader/backhoe

I feel the power to the loader and the buck are more than sufficient. In both cases the available amount of power is enough to exceed the rated limits of the tractor. Available power and ability, is as good as it gets in its class.

Keep in mind, if the machine has more power than the mechanics can handle, it is only going to break its self all the time. And, its light weight is going to limit its digging ability no matter how much power it has.
Make it heavier, and stronger, with more power, and more ground clearance, then it's no longer a subcompact.

 

[jaybrad]

Did you learn how to look up the word estate in the dictionary in High School?

Not necessary, since I have read a book or two over the past 50+ years. But if there's lingering confusion, here's a definition brought to you by the nice folks at dictionary.com that seems to fit:

es·tate
-noun
1. a piece of landed property, esp. one of large extent with an elaborate house on it: to have an estate in the country.

When I leave my estate in the AM to go to work, I'll be sure to enjoy how my property and elaborate house have benefited from my little red tractor.



Jay

 

[ray66v]

Not necessary, since I have read a book or two over the past 50+ years. But if there's lingering confusion, here's a definition brought to you by the nice folks at dictionary.com that seems to fit:

es??ｷtate
-noun
1. a piece of landed property, esp. one of large extent with an elaborate house on it: to have an estate in the country.

When I leave my estate in the AM to go to work, I'll be sure to enjoy how my property and elaborate house have benefited from my little red tractor.



Jay

Ok, heres another word for you:
delusion
de-lu-sion, noun, A delusion is an unshakable belief in something untrue.

 

[jaybrad]

Ok, heres another word for you:
delusion
de-lu-sion, noun, A delusion is an unshakable belief in something untrue.

Sorry, but I'm too busy this morning surveying my vast property and elaborate house in the country to provide a more detailed response to your latest vocabulary offering.

Maybe later.

Maybe not.



Jay

 

[MossRoad]

I own an "estate"? Wow, that's awesome!

Hey Honey, look at this....says right here on the TBN that we have an "estate".

Better get out the good plastic dinnerware, open up an extra can of brown bread, and invite the neighbors over for an "estate" party.



Jay

Sure you have an estate. I have an estate, too. They will be settled when we croak.

 

[Soundguy]

Yeah, but from high school I remember that if A = B, and B = C, then A = C.

So therefore, if 2310 tractor = estate tractor, and if I own a 2310 tractor, then I own an estate.

Can't argue with science.

Jay

Logical falacy.. might want to check a conversational logic course, and a statistics math couse and see how those two things reconcile..

a= estate tractor does not mean that the tractor cannot have other titles.. IE.. draw 3 circles.. overlap 1 with 2, and 2 with 3, so that 2 is common to both, but 1 and 3 are not common.. 2 shares comonalities with 1 and 3.. but 1 and 3 do not share comonalities.. ..

soundguy