Are all sub compacts essentially equal?

[Cherokee140]

Ridiculous theory, with completely flawed logic. They don't list specs for how much a tractor can push, or how steep of a hill it can climb, so those two are out. If things were driven by lawyers, they wouldn't make a machine that can lift more than the listed specs, they'd make the machine lift less by turning down the hydraulic pressure, so you would be less likely to make a mistake that would roll it. That would also make for less wear and tear, and fewer warranty claims, so it's a win-win situation for the company.

A policy of intentionally publishing lower specs would also be terrible from a marketing perspective, and with the Internet, they know people do a lot of research.

You get the idea no point in sharp shooting me. You must have legal people in your family.

 

[TSO]

I don't want to "join the argument" or anything ... But Cherokee, I have to disagree with you. Specs are specs. The only way I could see a companies legal department getting involved, is in such a capacity that a company doesn't overstate their claims. So for example, if they publish a lift rating of 900lbs at a location, but I get one and test it at 875 lbs, then in theory I could complain about published specs. In that case, their legal department would probably suggest they err in the side of understating (just slightly enough) to safely cover that margin.

That margin would be slight. So if two different tractors have a lift difference of +/- 50 lbs, then no big deal. But if the published difference is substantial, then it's reasonable to assume that the differences are accurate (with each accounting for that margin of error)

 

[Cherokee140]

Truth in advertising....ahh yea right. Reminds me of the miles per gallon on car stickers a few years ago. Hybrids having MPG (SPECS) on the window sticker that are no where near what real world numbers are.....and the fed nailed them to the wall for it.

You really think any other large industry is any different......all I can say is ok.

 

[murphy1244]

Truth in advertising....ahh yea right. Reminds me of the miles per gallon on car stickers a few years ago. Hybrids having MPG (SPECS) on the window sticker that are no where near what real world numbers are.....and the fed nailed them to the wall for it.

You really think any other large industry is any different......all I can say is ok.

I take it you have been sued.

 

[Cherokee140]

I don't want to "join the argument" or anything ... But Cherokee, I have to disagree with you. Specs are specs. The only way I could see a companies legal department getting involved, is in such a capacity that a company doesn't overstate their claims. So for example, if they publish a lift rating of 900lbs at a location, but I get one and test it at 875 lbs, then in theory I could complain about published specs. In that case, their legal department would probably suggest they err in the side of understating (just slightly enough) to safely cover that margin.

That margin would be slight. So if two different tractors have a lift difference of +/- 50 lbs, then no big deal. But if the published difference is substantial, then it's reasonable to assume that the differences are accurate (with each accounting for that margin of error)

I see where you are coming from, but if you have a machine that mechanically can lift X amount....the arms will support the weight, the hyd. system will support the pressure and weight, however when you move the machine it becomes so unstable with the added weight, or while sitting still the weight at full height is just too much leverage for the weight or wheelbase of the machine and it becomes unstable I can fully see the systems being de-tuned to get to a safe operating limit.

My two bits, I am not saying the specs they print in their advertisements are not accurate. I am saying that they are not 100% of the machines abilities.

 

[Cherokee140]

I take it you have been sued.

Almost weekly.

 

[GManBart]

My two bits, I am not saying the specs they print in their advertisements are not accurate. I am saying that they are not 100% of the machines abilities.

If the numbers on their advertisements don't reflect 100% of the machine's capabilities, they aren't accurate. No way around that.

 

[whizdbiz2]

I can't imagine a side by side HST control. I have been heel toe since the 90s when I used to own and run a couple of Elgin Pelican street sweepers. I will have to check a side by side out...

My eMax 22 has the side by side hyro pedals, I like it. I tried out the heel/toe arrangement on a Max 22 and didn't care for it as well. It's probably all in what you get used to.

 

[94BULLITT]

I'm not "passionate" about it, I'd just like to see consistency in what people are complaining about. One machine is a SCUT, but another that's virtually identical in size isn't. That's just silly....

I tend to agree with Gman on this one... If the tractors match up in size & weight, then they have to be classified together. I agree that the specific classification between sizes (ie SCUT to CUT) may be rather ambiguous, and maybe there are big SCUT's & small SCUT's ... but if size matches, then the machines are comparable. Whether one "feels" larger is irrelevant. And if two similarly sized tractors match up in size but one is stronger, that doesn't mean the stronger one must be bumped up in class ... it just means that it'ss stronger.

A 1/2 ton and 1 ton Chevy truck are the same width, length, height. Does that make them comparable?

All SCUTs have 26-12-12 tires or smaller. Look at what size tires are on a Kubota B2620 or JD 2520 and look at what is on the boomer 25. Does the length of the Boomer 25 include the 3 point hitch?

 

[whizdbiz2]

All SCUTs have 26-12-12 tires or smaller. Look at what size tires are on a Kubota B2620 or JD 2520 and look at what is on the boomer 25. Does the length of the Boomer 25 include the 3 point hitch?

On tire size, not quite, the Mahindra Max 22 has 27x12.5-15 (R4s), I believe the eMax has the same. Of course there is the argument being made that the Max/eMax are not SCUTs either, but something in between SCUT and CUT. I guess I call them big SCUTs.

 

[GManBart]

A 1/2 ton and 1 ton Chevy truck are the same width, length, height. Does that make them comparable?

All SCUTs have 26-12-12 tires or smaller. Look at what size tires are on a Kubota B2620 or JD 2520 and look at what is on the boomer 25. Does the length of the Boomer 25 include the 3 point hitch?

Tractors and trucks are different, and you know it.

So now it's tires size that defines the machine, not the actual length, height, and weight? :confused2:

LS, who makes the Boomer 25, tends to put one size larger tires on all their machines...that doesn't make my R4047H a Utility machine.

Further, the "rule" about tire size is nothing more than your opinion.

Yes, the 3pt is included in the length of the Boomer 25.

Honestly, it just sounds like the Kubota guys being defensive about the BX series more than anything else. Big deal, they're on the small side of the SCUT group. Some will be the same, some will be bigger, but that doesn't make a 1,500-1,700lb machine a CUT.

 

[TSO]

A 1/2 ton and 1 ton Chevy truck are the same width, length, height. Does that make them comparable?

that's a silly argument... I thought this was a serious conservation?

 

[94BULLITT]

Look at what Messicks has them listed as and what they are compared too.

http://www.messicks.com/newequip/SmallCompactTractors.aspx

 

[94BULLITT]

Honestly, it just sounds like the Kubota guys being defensive about the BX series more than anything else. Big deal, they're on the small side of the SCUT group. Some will be the same, some will be bigger, but that doesn't make a 1,500-1,700lb machine a CUT.

At least you agree that the Boomer 25 is larger than the BX and 1 series.

 

[GManBart]

At least you agree that the Boomer 25 is larger than the BX and 1 series.

It's not bigger than the 1 series...not by any amount that matters.

On the other hand, the 1 series is 7" longer than the BX. So 7" longer is okay, but 8" longer isn't?

 

[94BULLITT]

It's not bigger than the 1 series...not by any amount that matters.

On the other hand, the 1 series is 7" longer than the BX. So 7" longer is okay, but 8" longer isn't?

The LS brochure calls it a small compact. http://lstractorusa.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/J-Series-Brochure.pdf
So does the website. J-Series « LS Tractor USA

Why does Messicks compare it to a B series which is comparable to a 2000 series Deere?

 

[MinnesotaEric]

A true classic.....they don't / can't make them like that anymore.

Thanks, my uncle was the costume designer for that movie.

 

[GManBart]

The LS brochure calls it a small compact. http://lstractorusa.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/J-Series-Brochure.pdf
So does the website. J-Series « LS Tractor USA

Why does Messicks compare it to a B series which is comparable to a 2000 series?

Irrelevant questions. None of those change the fact that the 1 series is much larger than a BX, and essentially the same size as a Boomer 20/24/25.

Trying to suggest that a 1 series is a SCUT, and a Boomer 25 is a CUT is pretty silly, but go on beating the dead horse....it won't change what the tape measure reveals.

Since arbitrary decisions seem to agree with you, I think I'll make a counter; if it weighs under 1,800lbs, and has a two-range HST it's a SCUT.

 

[MinnesotaEric]

Irrelevant questions. None of those change the fact that the 1 series is much larger than a BX, and essentially the same size as a Boomer 20/24/25.

Trying to suggest that a 1 series is a SCUT, and a Boomer 25 is a CUT is pretty silly, but go on beating the dead horse....it won't change what the tape measure reveals.

Since arbitrary decisions seem to agree with you, I think I'll make a counter; if it weighs under 1,800lbs, and has a two-range HST it's a SCUT.

Suggestion:

No steps: it's a SCUT.
One step: it's a CUT.
Two or Three steps: it is a Utility tractor
Three or more steps: it is a crop row tractor.

 

[Cherokee140]

that's a silly argument... I thought this was a serious conservation?

Not really but it is fun.