Product improvement or planned obsolescense?

[mjncad]

I'm curious if others feel the same as I do concerning tractor model turnover.

I bought my JD 4200 in 2001, and since then JD has issued the 402x series and now the 200x series, and for all I know I may have missed a series or two in the HP range similar to my rig.

My question is; are the manufacturers doing actual product improvement, or is it planned obsolescence? It seems to me that the 4000 series tractors from the 2001 era are fine units and would have benefited from product improvement and evolution instead of product replacement. My rig is a fine unit; but it could use product refinement with time, not product replacement.

After all, tractors, even CUT's are utility vehicles and tools, and not cars trying to capitalize on the latest fads and styling trends. It seems to me the manufacturers could and should exploit a product line before replacing it with another new line. Look at Peterbilt, Kenworth, International and others in that they are still using the same basic cabs as they did in the 1970's; but have refined them over the years to include new technologies worth incorporating. Granted I'm not including the new aerodynamic rigs in my comparison; but the traditional styled trucks.

Roy Jackson will say the JD 790 is a tractor for the owner who wants a 1950's style of JD. I'm sure he is right and there will always be a place for simple value priced units such as the 790; but more modern units should have a longer model lifespan than 2 to 4 years.

It appears the tractor manufacturers have taken a cue from the high tech computer industry in that frequent product model turnover is considered a good thing.

I'm looking forward to hearing what other people think.

 

[Farmwithjunk]

It's all in how you look at things. Myself, I still do 90% of my tractorin' with equipment that is older than a good many of the TBN members. Argueably, you can do things faster, easier, and more comfortably, but push comes to shove, probably no better with new stuff than my oldies. How much faster, easier, or more comfortable does it need to be to justify the expense? As far as I'm concerned, a vast majority of what changes manufacturers do make nowdays is simply "marketing". Some will argue the merits of modern fuel efficient tractors. At what investment is a 5% fuel savings practical to the typical owner? In so far as my years of plodding along indicate to me, a tractor is a tractor is a tractor. New is nice. Old is paid for. Unless I need something BIGGER, (or different) why swap for the sake of keeping up with the Jones?

My $.02 worth.

 

[BTDT]

I think the technology should be used to create the tractor at a lower cost, and those savings should be passed on to the consumer. But, as we all know, those savings just create more money for the company.

 

[AndyMA]

I think mjncad made some interesting points. A 4 year old tractor is not obsolete. Most of the changes made are just refinements. Just look at the makeup of this board. Many users will wait for the latest models, the latest fads, the latest trinkets. Do they need these, of course not. Many of our users didn't even think of owning a tractor 10 years ago. When they get them, they wax them, worry about if changing the oil at 51 hours vrs 50 hours is a problem, etc. etc. They worry about a new tractor that has 30 hours on it yet they insist that a dealer give them a loaner. To them a 2 year old tractor is not the same as one just manufactured.
I have several tractors ranging from an almost new 6 year old TN75D , a 20 year old Ford 2120 and some much older iron. When I do a job do I care which one I use. No, I use the one that takes the least amount of time to set up. I think changs are made these days because the typical consumer being marketed to today is much closer to a suburban yuppie than a farmer. I read an interesting article in Popular Mechanics a number of years back about the evolution of the surbanite, from push reel mower, to push rotary, to self propelled rotary, to small riding tractor,and now on to diesel CUT's. It concluded these were the same customer base.

Just my thoughts

Andy

 

[j845125]

Intersting topic. I bought a new CUT 2 years ago. The only improvement it has over the Ford 601(vintage 1954) that I used before is the power steering/loader and a cushioned seat. In alot of ways the old Ford is superior and alot of times I use it instead. I won't give up my new tractor, but the old Ford does a **** fine job.

 

[dsgsr]

I think AndyMA hit it on the nail head. I would add one thing, The companies are also trying to make these modern tractors more complicated for the regular joe to work on forcing us to come to them for service as the Auto makers have done.


David

 

[Mickey_Fx]

Not sure "improvements" are the reason. Do think the Co's have to work harder to stay in place and today there are more offering from more Co's. Gov regulations keep changing and they have to pay attention to the customers desires for features and what they are willing to pay.

Using lawn and garden tractors as an example. The biggest segment of the market is at the lower end and people are wanting models that cost less than I paid for my old Bolens in 1970.

 

[jeffinsgf]

Like Mickey just said, it isn't as much about improving the product as it is tweaking it to match customer whims. I wouldn't trade my JD 455 garden tractor for anything that has been made since it was discontinued about 5 years ago, and I would think long and hard about trading my 4410 for a newer CUT.

 

[civesnedfield]

I think mjncad made some interesting points. A 4 year old tractor is not obsolete. Most of the changes made are just refinements. Just look at the makeup of this board. Many users will wait for the latest models, the latest fads, the latest trinkets. Do they need these, of course not. Many of our users didn't even think of owning a tractor 10 years ago. When they get them, they wax them, worry about if changing the oil at 51 hours vrs 50 hours is a problem, etc. etc. They worry about a new tractor that has 30 hours on it yet they insist that a dealer give them a loaner. To them a 2 year old tractor is not the same as one just manufactured.
I have several tractors ranging from an almost new 6 year old TN75D , a 20 year old Ford 2120 and some much older iron. When I do a job do I care which one I use. No, I use the one that takes the least amount of time to set up. I think changs are made these days because the typical consumer being marketed to today is much closer to a suburban yuppie than a farmer. I read an interesting article in Popular Mechanics a number of years back about the evolution of the surbanite, from push reel mower, to push rotary, to self propelled rotary, to small riding tractor,and now on to diesel CUT's. It concluded these were the same customer base.

Just my thoughts

Andy

I think Andy has hit the nail on the head. The only thing I would add is that alot of the "Refinements" are cost savings refinements to increase profits. Remember metal fenders, well plastic fenders are cheaper to manufacture.

 

[ccsial]

Like Mickey just said, it isn't as much about improving the product as it is tweaking it to match customer whims.

It's called one upsmanship. It is a marketing game and if a company doesn't play it loses sales. More this and more that. Reliability is not always improved however.

 

[Robert_in_NY]

A lot of the model number changes come as a result of updating tractors. The OEM's have been updating their ag tractors to meet the new engine requirements. When they have a major change or enough minor changes it makes sense to change the model number so people have an easier time at the parts counter. If they didn't you would go to the parts counter needing your model number and serial number so they can hopefully get you the right part.

 

[mjncad]

Ah yes, the Marketing department...the bane of Dilbert's existence. I always get concerned when Marketing and/or Accounting are the bosses in an engineering environment, and my wife is an accountant.

 

[ccsial]

Ah yes, the Marketing department...the bane of Dilbert's existence. I always get concerned when Marketing and/or Accounting are the bosses in an engineering environment, and my wife is an accountant.

Marketing, "Can't live with em, Can't live without em"

 

[dbear]

I think sometimes, depending upon brand, model numbers change as a result of changing the unit's manufacturer from one to another, rather than any actual "improvements." Ah outsourcing, ain't it great...

Also, I got thinking about these said "improvements" and I kept wondering just what the heck they are. I'm not talking erogonmics here for that's alreadly been beat to death and is still mostly a personal preference thing. I'm strictly thinking mechanicals.

I mean, aside from possibly shuttle shift or hydro transmissions, 4wd, and more comfortable seats (those steel pans could be a killer), what are manufacturers improving that the end user really cares about. Tractors today, just as they did years ago, still basically consist of an engine, trans, tires, hydraulics, pto, 3pt, foot pedals, hand controls, steering wheel, and a seat.

Power steering has been around for decades so you really can't include it. And I suppose even 4wd, hydro and SS trannies have too. So maybe I'm missing something, but just how does adding computerized gizmos to meet emission standards, electric solenoids instead of tried-and-true mechanical linkages for hydraulics, and a plethora of idiot lights instead of gauges, add anything in the eyes of the end user? Granted the emission stuff is mandated by the government, but who cares how the hydraulics or pto work, only that they do?

 

[ccsial]

The companies need to offer features that make people want to trade up to get some new thing they "gotta have". They also have to meet ever tighening EPA regulations.

The Big farm tractors are getting very sophisticated with electronics. More and more of that will eventaully filter down to CUTS. If they can make a tractor easier to use, more comfotable, more efficient, some people will want to trade up.

Using electronics instead of mechanical designs can also reduce cost of manufacturing. And while I'm in the automation business, I prefer simple things on my tractor because there is less to go wrong. I have enough electronic problems at work. I'm glad that there are economy (simple) tractors available.

This is the way things work though. Keep looking for more and more features.

 

[rback33]

As a person who gets to see first hand why some of these changes occur, I feel compelled to jump in. You would be shocked how many changes occur from year to year. Remember, these companies don't necessarily make all their own parts. They are sourced from all over. Tranny's, pumps, axles, even engines. You change any one of those items and you will likely need to make frame changes. If you have to make frame changes, you have to make loader changes. It's no longer the same loader, so you had better change the model number to differentiate. Now someone has to figure the specifics of the tractor to get the right loader, so you may as well change the tractor model to make it idiot proof. Now obviously not ALL changes occur this way, but this is one example. If one supplier gets stupid about pricing, then it can through every thing into a dither. I know someone said something about cost cutting earlier too, and the savings not getting passed on. I can tell you first hand that you cannot be more wrong about that most of the time. You see the savings alright... by not paying an even HIGHER price for your equipment. With steel and fuel continuing to rise it is a serious challenge for manufacturing companies to try and hold prices.

 

[SnowRidge]

To add to what rback33 said, consider Power Trac. Power Trac changes stuff on their models all the time. Engines, pumps, pump locations, fuel tanks, fuel tank location, wheel motors, and more have all been changed on the PT-425 since I bought mine in 2003, yet Power Trac has added not even an asterisk to the model number.

Discussing Power Trac issues with others and even ordering parts from the factory can be difficult and involves describing exactly what you have in your Power Trac and when it was built, if you know. It would be a whole lot simpler if we could just quote something like PT-425-03 or PT-425 production number xxx765 or the like.

 

[machmeter62]

I have more than one weakness, the first one is I get mentally attached to my rolling stock, and would have trouble parting with it; unless it was "manufactured junk" to begin with! The second one is the "KISS RULE," keep-it-simple-stupid; I have enough electronic nightmares in this "21st CENTURY!!"

 

[RedRiver]

A lot of the model number changes come as a result of updating tractors. The OEM's have been updating their ag tractors to meet the new engine requirements. When they have a major change or enough minor changes it makes sense to change the model number so people have an easier time at the parts counter. If they didn't you would go to the parts counter needing your model number and serial number so they can hopefully get you the right part.

Agreed, this is a problem I often run into on cutters and other implements. They change the parts and/or design a little yet still keep the same model number and it's a pain in the tail because you have to ask the customer a million questions just to figure out the exact unit they have. You don't realize how many changes there are til you get on the other side of the parts counter.

 

[mjncad]

Agreed, this is a problem I often run into on cutters and other implements. They change the parts and/or design a little yet still keep the same model number and it's a pain in the tail because you have to ask the customer a million questions just to figure out the exact unit they have. You don't realize how many changes there are til you get on the other side of the parts counter.

It's a pain in the butt for the engineering and design staff too. Some suppliers are good at supplying accurate tear sheets of their components and some aren't, leaving the engineering department to call the supplier or winging it depending on the customer service attitude of the supplier company when designing upgrades. Been there, done that in a past life.

What are two major changes I would have liked to have seen in my 4200's design? First is a cab option; the European version had a cab as an option. The second would be the fuel tank located at the rear somehow to make fueling easier. Could the tank have been relocated to the rear without changing the current design much? Maybe, maybe not; but JD has far greater resources than I do to have plastic fuel tanks made in whatever shape is required to fit a space.

Other things I'd like to have seen improved on the 4200 are minor, and would be considered refinements in my opinion.