Glenn,
I'm not going to get into the name calling and inuendos but the one question I would have liked answered was why you made the following statements a few months ago:
The premise of this thread is that, by the clear weight of objective functional capabilities and measurements, the JD 4300-4700's are notably superior to the Kubota 3010-4610's and the TC33-TC45's
if my arguments stand unrebutted, all future readers of this forum will forevermore have no rational objective reason to purchase anything but a Deere in the 32 to 46 HP range.
OK. So here are my arguments for the objective superiority of JD. They are based on my reading of materials, visiting dealerships, asking dealers lots of questions, reading this and other tractor forums religiously for over a year, and inspecting and driving most of the tractors. (My hands-on experience is most with Orange and least with Blue.) If any of my conclusions are incorrect, that is purely mistake on my part.
1. Tractor hydraulics. The JD tractors have the largest hydraulic pump capacities.
2. Loader lift capacity. The JD loaders have the highest lift capacities and breakout forces.
3. Loader attach/detach. The JD's are the easiest and fastest. All three brands require the same quick-coupling/uncoupling of hydraulic lines. Aside from that, you can do it all the rest of the process from the seat of the Deere. On the Kubota you must get off to latch/unlatch the support legs and again to pull/insert the loader arm pivot pins.
4. Backhoe strength. The JD hoes have significantly more hydraulic strength than the K or NH offerings, at least until you get to the models at the upper end of the HP range we are discussing. In other words, with JD you can get a significantly more powerful hoe on the lower and mid models of this range.
5. Backhoe attach/detach. JD has by far the best attachment system in the industry. The JD rockshaft process can be performed in 5 minutes, which is at least one half to one quarter the time for a 3ph or subframe attachment. The JD hoes mount tight to the back of the tractor, unlike a 3ph mount. They do not reduce clearance under the tractor, like subframe mounts. They do not interfere with a belly mower, like a subframe mount.
6. Belly mower mounting. The JD 60" and 72" mowers are suspended mowers, which should give a better cut than the K and NH mowers, which are ground contact mowers. Ground contact mowers can leave gauge wheel ruts or at least compress the grass under the gauge wheels. The gear box on the JD 72" mower is mounted to one side rather than in the middle. This means the drive shaft attaches to the tractor pto from the side (at an angle) rather than from the middle of the mower deck. This results in an easier and more natural angle for your arm when you are trying to attach the mower shaft to the pto, which is typically the most frustrating part of a belly mower attachment.
7. Belly mower raising/lowering. The belly mowers on K and NH are connected to, and hence raised and lowered by, the 3ph hydraulics. The JD mowers have their own valve and can be operated completely independently of the 3ph. This means you can, on a JD, have a midmower and a rear implement (such as a brush mower) that can be raised and lowered independently of one another.
8. Attachment non-interference. Already mentioned, the JD is the only one designed so that a loader, belly mower, and backhoe can all be attached and fully operational at the same time.
9. Leg room. The leg room from the furthest-back position of the seat to the pedals is generally the greatest on the JD's. Worst on Kubotas.
10. Seat. The JD has the springiest, most comfortable seat. But NH has a side-pivoting seat with armrests, which is better for rear twisting/viewing. Kubota is worst.
11. Bucket detach. The JD bucket detaches from the loader arms in a 10 second operation. To get this capability on Kubota, you must spend about $250-$300 for a quick-attach coupler. Dont know if NH has this feature.
12. Control layout. While much of this issue falls into the forbidden subjective category, I do think JD is objectively the worst here on the 4200-4400's. On these tractors, JD avoids putting controls on the fenders and tries to fit everything in the space between the seat and fender. However, unlike the 4500-4700's, there is no space there. The controls are very close to each other. The pto engage lever can interfere with the 3ph lever (in the sense that they can almost rub together). The labels for the controls are often hidden around corners or under bulges. The labels often bear no relation to the position of the control being labeled. For example, because there is no space available for a label at the base of the hydro range lever or the 3ph position control lever, you cannot tell visually what range you are in or what position the 3ph is in. Finally, the JD labels are not painted on; they are cheap paste-on labels that are frequently curling off on the new tractors sitting in the dealership. The JD position control stop knob is hard to reach, due to the squeezed space, and is not correlated to a numbered label. The JD 4100 (which uses the fenders for controls) and the 4500-4700 (which have platform space next to the seat) do not have these spacing and labeling issues. The K and NH controls are all clearly labeled next to the appropriate levers. Which of these arrangments you like better is a subjective decision.
13. Options and model configurations. JD offers the most model configurations and optional features. If you dont want a mid pto you dont have to get it. If you want an armor kit, you can.
14. Expert opinion. M. Chishti, the world's leading author on compact tractors and webmaster of the world's largest tractor forum, has awarded the JD 4300 the 2000 "Tractor of the Year" award based on objective evalations including those discussed above. It is my opinion that his arguments for the 4300 generally apply in JD's favor across the HP range we are discussing. Since none of the Green, Orange or Blue models have changed this year, the expert opinion on the relative objective merits of the three lines of tractors should not change.
Now a couple months later you say the following:
I like the comment that JD has evolved into little more than a marketing organization. That hits the nail. Deere is no longer what it was for its first 100 years--a Yankee-ingenuity company that designs, builds and promptly services a leading-edge, tough-as-nails product. Like LL Bean and the old IBM, there was a tradition, almost a mystique, of solidity, quality, service and righteous honesty.
Now, Deere is just a name, a trademark, an internet-like illusion. Its all about marketing its past reputation and clever fibs about the present. And their marketing approach is poor, as people all over the country comment about. Do they train their salemen to be arrogant?
John Deere, the man, would not today want to own John Deere, the company. John Deere's past is Kubota's present. Kubota is now Deere.
