Warranty vs Proven Reliability

[mo1]

Warranties seem to be a big reason why people buy new things. But just how useful is a tractor warranty anyway?
Not all warranties are equal, or treated equally at all dealers. So what makes a good warranty and why have one?

From a manufacturing viewpoint, warranties are a big money saver. Putting a warranty on a product saves a lot of money compared to the cost of making one with less failures - or one that just cannot fail.

What about from the tractor buyers viewpoint - is a warranty worth the cost? Or would you rather have something else?

rScotty

The warranty on equipment that is expected to last a very long period of time like a tractor is basically there to handle manufacturing, assembly, and setup defects and such. For example, if a sealed bearing came from a supplier without grease and seizes up after 30 minutes of operation and wipes out the assembly connected to it. That's why equipment warranties often aren't all that long, you are going to get through the "infant mortality" phase pretty quickly in using the equipment. Sometimes you will see longer warranties as a marketing tool to try to imply that the equipment is reliable (usually used on lesser-known brands).

Personally I don't look at a warranty with deciding to buy new vs. used as the fact that the used piece of equipment got past the infant mortality phase satisfied the whole point of a warranty. I generally buy used as it's less expensive, unless I can't find a suitable used piece of equipment at an appropriate price, which happens occasionally.

I did design engineering for awhile (20 years) before going into another branch of engineering. We always designed something the best we could - and then sometimes had to battle over cost.

In my opinion, the whole concept of "designed obsolescence" is a folk tale. Maybe it started as speculation or a PhD project by some university economics or engineering department somewhere.
Planned obsolescence sounds good enough to be true - and maybe some where it is - but reality in manufacturing is that designing something to last a certain amount of repetitions then fail isl just about impossible.

It's hard enough designing it to last. Trying to hit a target of designed obsolescence would be incredibly expensive. Consider the testing time involved in each design iteration.... no way.

Not sure how it would relate to warranties, though.

rScotty

There are some markets where there is designed obsolescence, such as with electronics where a design is tied to a specific technical standard that periodically changes, and the standard changes mandate a new design. There are also products with a specific known lifespan such as electronics with non-replaceable batteries where the known limited lifespan of the battery determines the lifespan of the device. Other than a handful of specific cases such as the ones I mentioned above, what you get is price point engineering where the goal is to meet a specific price point and the lifespan is whatever you get out of that price point.

View attachment 804138

I see you work for Oracle...

 

[RandyT]

In my manufacturing experience "designed obsolescence" is definitely a real phenomenon. I don't attribute it to malice on the part of the manufacturers. It is the result of competing design criteria which results in items that don't last as long as comparable products of generations past.

Consumers don't generally prefer to pay more if they believe they can get a comparable product at less expense. Most consumers are not capable of determining the engineering sufficiency or manufacturing quality of the products they buy. So if two items look pretty similar and make similar claims of performance and longevity, the consumer typically opts for the lower cost item.

To reduce product price and stay competitive one of the simplest techniques is to reduce component weights. The global supply chains for manufacturers of complex machinery like cars or tractors are mind boggling. Individual components get shipped from place to place across oceans and continents as raw materials become parts and parts become sub-assemblies and on and on until a final product is readied and shipped to a dealer's lot.

Another good technique to reduce cost is to change the material used to construct a part to a less expensive material. This often results in using a material less suited to the task, but it is an engineers job to try and make a component that is still suited to purpose, but less costly.

Overall, consumer price pressures and government efficiency edicts have guided manufacturers' engineering choices to produce items which are more lightly built and have shorter overall life expectancies. Are we all better off? Sometimes we are, sometimes maybe not.

What you describe is indeed true. And the consumer market is what drives the build it cheaper and I don't care if it doesn't last as long as the last product. In my Mower repair industry this has been going on for years. Part of the equation is the manufacturers trying to build a quality product for a cheaper cost of production. The customers wanting a new product at last years prices, etc. And also need to take into account that the average push mower is ran 12 hours/yr and is replaced every 3.5 years. the average riding mower is ran 38hr/yr and is replaced every 4.5 years. So those numbers tend to drive the quality market and the OEM's mower companies are indeed building their products around that life expectancy. Snapper several years ago did a redesign of the rear engine snapper mowers to have a 5 year life expectancy. and the dealers were informed of this information.

In the mower repair business the OEM's tend to stop production of parts 10 years after that part was last used in production. So for trimmers and chainsaws the first part to normally go is the air filters followed by ignition parts. For riders it is the blade spindles.

 

[arrow]

Warranties seem to be a big reason why people buy new things. But just how useful is a tractor warranty anyway?
Not all warranties are equal, or treated equally at all dealers. So what makes a good warranty and why have one?

From a manufacturing viewpoint, warranties are a big money saver. Putting a warranty on a product saves a lot of money compared to the cost of making one with less failures - or one that just cannot fail.

What about from the tractor buyers viewpoint - is a warranty worth the cost? Or would you rather have something else?

rScotty

I disagree entirely w your premise as to warranties being money savers for the manufacturer as they relate to the tractor sector.
Warrantee work costs big money and the less a manufacturer has to be involved w them, the better off they are.
One upmanship as they relate to warrantees provides the manufacturer a sales opp.
If you are building your stuff so good you feel confident to extend your warranty say from 5 to 7 yrs, that is a selling incentive and not that you are cutting so many corners it’s cheaper to build lesser stuff and simply cover the failure.
Running the risk of losing customers is the most expensive cost a manufacturer can endure.