"...one could make the assumption that there is no such thing as a bad tractor, as such, but rather that tractor quality is relative..."
Just a couple of observations (which I'm sure I will regret /forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif ):
"Good" and "quality" don't always mean the same thing to people.
On the other hand, one definition of "quality," which I believe originated with Quality Guru Phil Crosby is: "Quality is conformance to requirements." I think that is what a lot of responders have been saying -- if the tractor meets my requirements (for power, economy, maintainability, or whatever) then it is "good" or has "quality." It might be made from steel recycled from old ship anchors, and have cardboard fenders, but if it meets my needs (requirements) then it is "good."
It is interesting that by using this definition, the conventional meaning of "quality" is sometimes turned on its head. For example, if I have a Rolls Royce, but it's too big to fit in my garage and too expensive for me to operate, then to me it does not have "quality," no matter how nice the leather seats are! /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif Similarly, I may have the best tractor the Big Three makes (some might say it is a "quality" tractor), but if I want to plow with it, and the 3PH doesn't have draft control, and the plow keeps popping out of the ground, then it's just not a "good" tractor, at least for me.
Philip Crosby Web Site