Used Value vs Age

[fried1765]

Take about way foo in left field...

Huh ?????

 

[Hay Dude]

The "best of both worlds" is having a relatively modern, pre tier-4 tractor for most of the work, and an old, easily serviced, good parts availability one for backup. That's what I do with my 2005, John Deere 4120, and 1951 Ford 8n. For the last 16 years, there has never been a job I couldn't get done because my tractor(s) were broken down.

With that pair, I dont suppose there will ever be a need for me to purchase a post tier-4 tractor. Certainly their efficiency is still lagging that of the JD 4120.

I remember back when the tractor manufacturers were scrambling to get tier 4’s out the door in about 2013. Coincidentally I was looking for another new (highly efficient) 130HP tractor. Was looking at Kubota, NH, MF and Case-IH.
Every tier 4 tractor that year also seemed to have a newer, updated cab and other improvements. I distinctly remember the newer M126“G” had a nicer cab and buddy seat and a 24 speed transmission. It was more expensive, too. Dealer had a “leftover” 2012 M126x and made me a great offer which I took. Still have it.

Looking back on it, I wonder why manufacturers had to make substantial improvements to those tier 4 tractors in the first year they came out? I bet it was to help customers decision to buy on new unproven technology (tier 4 dpf) a little ”easier”.

 

[fried1765]

I remember back when the tractor manufacturers were scrambling to get tier 4’s out the door in about 2013. Coincidentally I was looking for another new (highly efficient) 130HP tractor. Was looking at Kubota, NH, MF and Case-IH.
Every tier 4 tractor that year also seemed to have a newer, updated cab and other improvements. I distinctly remember the newer M126“G” had a nicer cab and buddy seat and a 24 speed transmission. It was more expensive, too. Dealer had a “leftover” 2012 M126x and made me a great offer which I took. Still have it.

Looking back on it, I wonder why manufacturers had to make substantial improvements to those tier 4 tractors in the first year they came out? I bet it was to help customers decision to buy on new unproven technology (tier 4 dpf) a little ”easier”.

I'll be that was the case too!

 

[5030]

Huh ?????

Fixed it. I have the fat finger issue....lol

 

[5030]

I bet it was to help customers decision to buy on new unproven technology (tier 4 dpf) a little ”easier”.

Exactly.

 

[DieselBound]

My 1965 Nova weighs in at 2,910lbs. That’s with a 383 stroker V-8 and no back seat.

Maybe you're meaning a 396? My 1968 Dart GTS, stock, had a 383: I replaced that with a 440 (because I was a kid).

 

[DieselBound]

I don’t like tuning carburetors and I’ve never been good at it. That sounds like 6 times the headache. My dad’s 47 Ford pickup had dual 2 barrels on a 90ci flathead that ran amazing and looked really cool. I remember him using a string of vacuum gauges hanging from the hood to tune the carbs.

I did something similar on dual side-draft SU carbs on an old Volvo I once owned. I could make that thing run smoother than any engine.

 

[DieselBound]

The king-of-the-hill pursuit by many manufacturers as pertains to power relies heavily on computer operation. I have computer-controlled engines in my VW TDIs and in my Kioti. I've had none in my diesel trucks: I've attempted to get one that did, but I couldn't justify the cost- and I'm talking used! Cannot even start to compare the power outputs between my 94 Dodge Cummins 5.9L and a new Ram Cummins 6.7L (although a larger displacement, the per-litre output is more than twice that of the 1994; enough said on the torque numbers). My cars have been flawless, and they're 18 and 21 years old; both are benefiting from computer tweaks that bump power, something that you're not going to be able to do with a non-computer controlled engine (without a lot more cost): yeah, I could have left them stock, but we're talking 90hp! Only 675 hrs and 5 years on my Kioti and not a single engine or computer issue (<knocks on forehead!>); time will tell.

In all this mix, and not mentioned yet in this thread (if so, then sorry I'm forgetting/missed), is changes to the fuel. While old and new engines alike have to run it, my point here is the evolution/change took place for valid reasons (reduction of sulfur in diesel; reductino of lead in gasoline). Interesting/fair article here:

Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD): the Good, the Bad, and the Rusty

Reduction in sulfur dioxide IS a good thing vis a vis health, if, that is, we're less taking less-than full accounting: again, as I noted in a previous post, we're far from being able to make a full accounting of impacts; that does not, however, mean we should dismiss things in a "ah ha! we cannot prove it so why bother doing it" manner; lots of times we are aiming in the right direction, meaning it's the right path/idea, but we're not shooting with the correct trajectory- that's pretty much been the history of humans.

At one point the world was going to end when fuel injection came on to the scene... I'll refrain from pointing out (well, not really) that fuel injection results in the sale of a lot of chemicals (for cleaning fuel injectors and other gummed up stuff). I cannot feign certainty in ANY direction (other than knowing that perpetual growth on a finite planet is mathmatically impossible, yet we base our entire economic system on that premise). I ain't pushing anything. I just do with, or try to do with, what I have. I'd have no broad brushes in my tool box...

 

[DieselBound]

I took the original sbc 327 ,13:1 compression ratio, to the machine shop for a complete rebuild. They explained to me how the 383 with 9:1 compression ratio was going to make more power, double the fuel economy and last 4 times longer than the 327. They took a 350 small block and modified it to fit a 400 small block crankshaft, increasing the piston stroke inside the cylinder which increases the cubic inches from 350 to 383. There are several other performance mods but that’s the basics of it. This was all at the same cost of rebuilding the 327 to the original specs it was at to produce 375 HP. The 383 produces 420 HP. I didn’t care about the car being original so this was a no brainer decision for me.

Yeah, not a factory displacement spec. I knew there were a lot of odd ones that floated out there but I don't recall GM ever producing a displacement of this size. Dodge produced some GTS Darts with 428 hemis in them, 50 I think. Getting power down to the ground starts to become problematic! I liked big blocks, but as the years progressed I got into smaller and smaller engines, settling on my mildly tuned 1.9L TDIs (fun to drive; AND, I can get over 800 miles on a tank of fuel).

 

[prairiegirl]

"We need to do all we can to slow climate change and cut emissions"

Do the Chinese, Indians, Russians, etc. feel this way too, or if just "we" do it, the problem will be solved?
The others don't give a hoot about what "we" do!

and there's a new round coming in 2027. 'The Western Producer': that will add $58,000 to the cost of a heavy-duty truck. An extra SCV, double DEF, electric exhaust heater, cylinder de-activation. And if any of these things are on the fritz, you're just standing there.