Two...welll, three complaints re my TC30

[have_blue]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( Maybe they will start to evolve a new line to be more effective in the woods.! )</font>

Don't get me started. I'm tired of looking at antique technology. 30 years ago and earlier, it was hard and expensive to fabricate high strength steel frames. So using huge castings as the frame was understandable. Now days, there's no excuse for not having rugged frames and cages with motor, drive shaft to a separate transmission, and separate shafts to the differentials, PTO, pump, etc. Having to split a huge casting to get at the clutch etc. is flat rock and chisel technology. Almost everything else is modular these days except tractors. Could it be that the manufacturers are afraid to produce a product that doesn't resemble a 1945 tractor?

 

[thcri]

have_blue,

I guess it may boil down to who the manufactures are actually building the tractor for. Look at it, who is buying the compacts today. Not as many farmers or even landscaping people. It's people that have a day job and at night at home they have 2 to 10 acre lots that have become a past time or hobby should I say. So manufacturing has catered to them people, including me I guess. Can they build it to fit both applications? I would tend to think so but to make it so durable it would add great costs. This is just me thinking, but really all manufactures have gotten sloppy on the way they protect things.

murph

 

[slowzuki]

Hey tractors were the first unibody. I personally don't want whirling exposed shafts and seals in my tractors. Every one of those is a failure point.

I also wouldn't want tacked on frames of high strength steel, that means thin and that means rust will be the end of the machine.

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( </font><font color="blueclass=small">( Maybe they will start to evolve a new line to be more effective in the woods.! )</font>

Almost everything else is modular these days except tractors. Could it be that the manufacturers are afraid to produce a product that doesn't resemble a 1945 tractor? )</font>

 

[_RaT_]

If you really want to see a tractor that requires under body armour, take a look at the JD 110. It has a mass of hydraulic lines that look like they are all lined up ready for suicide. On the other hand, they make a factory body armour kit to protect it. It should actually be standard though. I think it would be crazy to not protect the plethora of hydraulic lines exposed under there.

 

[have_blue]

Murph,

And here I was thinking it would be cheaper to build, easier to protect, and easier to work on than 1930's technology. I just can't see cracking open a casting to replace a 50 cent O-ring or $20 bearing.

I guess they'll finally modernize them when I'm too old to climb up in one. Glad the auto manufacturers weren't that resistant to modernize, or we would still be running flat head engines and wooden spoke wheels.

 

[_RaT_]

I saw our 2120 cracked open. There was a whole bunch more then a 50 cent o ring or a $20 bearing. Rear reverser, labor and material, $3000. We thought it was just a leak.