Used Value vs Age

[Hay Dude]

Anecdotal, I know but I have a 06 Triumph Bonneville. It is carbed. Like other carbed Bonnevilles it gets between 38 and 45 mpg.


In 08 they went to EFI, for emissions.

The rule for those bikes is they get around 50mpg+.

Another anecdote.

Look at pickup truck fuel economy and capability in 1985 vs today.

Strangely we are both in the golden age of power and the age of the cleanest vehicles ever produced.

But definitely NOT in the golden age of reliability and repair costs. More components to fail and that adds costs

 

[rScotty]

I am very thankful to have purchased what will likely be the last new tractor I will ever need, back in 2005. I was able to get a 43 hp, made in America tractor with an American diesel power plant back then to boot, and cheaper than some of the Asian powered models that the competition offered.

Nice tractor. What model JD is that? Are you sure that one doesn't have a Yanmar motor? Lots of the older JDs since about 1990 did.

 

[espacef1fan]

Can you be more specific?

How can you say it doesn't store the soot if it catches it and waits for something to happen?

What's an EGT? Some sort of chemical?

What kind of less harmful gas can soot be converted to? I thought soot was mostly carbon.

Soot is the result of incomplete combustion so you end up with with larger black particles and also some ash content from things like burned lube oil etc.

The DPF captures and holds them until the EGTs(exhaust gas temps) get high enough to cause oxygen to react with the compounds trapped within the mesh.

Nearly all of it is is turned into a multitude of gasses that are less harmful than the soot to inhale. A very small amount of ash remains and is removed periodically in the (manual) dpf clean out procedure.

 

[espacef1fan]

Oh no!
Now I am seriously worried!
I did not realize that the 2006 251 hour Kubota L48 TLB I bought 25 months ago, was actually "someone else's neglect/problems".
The L48 TLB is 2006 pre emissions, so I therefore suffer from the most dreaded tractor scenario of no warranty.
From current comparables, it appears that I could sell my L48 TLB today, for at least $12K more than I paid.
What am I missing in this picture?

You likely found an exception to the rule, atleast it is around me. None of these jackwagons around here even know what a grease gun is but damnit if they aren’t proud of their tractors when they also a price sticker on it, assuming you can find a decent used tractor that is.

 

[espacef1fan]

But definitely NOT in the golden age of reliability and repair costs. More components to fail and that adds costs

I don’t know, cars seem to be lasting longer and longer.

It wasn’t long ago 100k on the clock meant the car was toast.

That’s like the new 25 or 50k now.

 

[Hay Dude]

I don’t know, cars seem to be lasting longer and longer.

It wasn’t long ago 100k on the clock meant the car was toast.

That’s like the new 25 or 50k now.

So yes, some components last longer, but the topic you introduced is efficiency in equipment (not vehicles) so I’m having a bit of trouble following.
But if we are veering over into cars and equipment lasting longer, Id venture to say the older equipment was built heavier and stronger than the newer plastic stuff. But the plastic doesn’t rust.
Look at older (like 20-50 year old) tractors. They were built when engineers were in charge.
Seen more than my share of million mile Chevy 350 engines and million mile 5.9L Cummins diesels. Anti rust has improved with the introduction of aluminum and plastic. Hardly hi-tech breakthroughs.
Now it’s bean counters and enviromentalists in charge of cars and equipment

 

[fried1765]

I was beyond happy when I bought my well used Case-IH MX-270.
Built in USA, extremely efficient and easy to repair. Reliable and very clean running. American made Cummins 8.3L diesel @ 270 PTO HP.
Built in Wisconsin by American UAW employees at a Case-IH factory.

Sorry to see those days are over, as America declines into debt and kicks all manufacturing off shore, but hey, we have more “efficiency“, right?

View attachment 705453

That is a mighty fine looking BRUTE !!!

 

[espacef1fan]

So yes, some components last longer, but the topic you introduced is efficiency in equipment (not vehicles) so I’m having a bit of trouble following.
But if we are veering over into cars and equipment lasting longer, Id venture to say the older equipment was built heavier and stronger than the newer plastic stuff. But the plastic doesn’t rust.
Look at older (like 20-50 year old) tractors. They were built when engineers were in charge.
Now it’s bean counters and enviromentalists

You brought up reliability and repair costs, so I addressed it.

And going back to efficiency, cars and trucks are more capable/efficient than they were 20-50 years ago, what makes them able to benefit from modern designs but tractors can’t benefit?

I get it you don’t like new stuff.

That’s ok.

 

[espacef1fan]

That is a mighty fine looking BRUTE !!!

It is. I’ve always liked Case red.

No dealers close enough for my needs though

 

[Hay Dude]

You brought up reliability and repair costs, so I addressed it.

And going back to efficiency, cars and trucks are more capable/efficient than they were 20-50 years ago, what makes them able to benefit from modern designs but tractors can’t benefit?

I get it you don’t like new stuff.

That’s ok.

No, I don’t like new stuff, I LOVE new stuff.
Problem is, I don’t have a faculty lounge salary to afford it, so I buy used.
Benefits: affordable, simpler, more reliable
Drawbacks: less operator comfort, new car smell, bragging rights.

 

[ptsg]

You brought up reliability and repair costs, so I addressed it.

And going back to efficiency, cars and trucks are more capable/efficient than they were 20-50 years ago, what makes them able to benefit from modern designs but tractors can’t benefit?

I get it you don’t like new stuff.

That’s ok.

Current engines could be even more efficient if they weren't being choked at the exhaust with all these emissions stuff.

I'm all for cleaner air but do it in an efficient and reliable way. Don't use us, the little guys, as test rats for their expensive experiences.

 

[espacef1fan]

No, I don’t like new stuff, I LOVE new stuff.
Problem is, I don’t have a faculty lounge salary to afford it, so I buy used.
Benefits: affordable, simpler, more reliable
Drawbacks: less operator comfort, new car smell, bragging rights.

Thanks to recent global events the new and used prices are getting closer to each other by the hour.

 

[espacef1fan]

Current engines could be even more efficient if they weren't being choked at the exhaust with all these emissions stuff.

I'm all for cleaner air but do it in an efficient and reliable way. Don't use us, the little guys, as test rats for their expensive experiences.

Truth be told you would pay for it either way, the company ALWAYS passes r&d cost off to the customer, if they want to stay in the black that is.

 

[Jchonline]

"We need to do all we can to slow climate change and cut emissions"

Do the Chinese, Indians, Russians, etc. feel this way too, or if just "we" do it, the problem will be solved?
The others don't give a hoot about what "we" do!

Correct, but that isn't an excuse for us not doing what is right and setting an example for others. I know it feels futile but since when do we give up because something is hard?

That said I am not really sure emissions in tractors is going to save the planet...but perhaps if every home had solar, we had a decent way to store the excess energy (there would be TONS of excess in a collective grid...but today sorry Li batteries just aren't scalable enough), and most commuter vehicles were electric being powered by said solar/stored energy we would be in a better place.

We don't have the technology to accomplish this yet, but we should absolutely be spending billions to come up with a new power grid. If we don't, we will destroy this planet. No not in 12 years like some people think, but 200....probably.

To think that we are still using the same technology from the 1930s to power our society is just ridiculous.

 

[espacef1fan]

Correct, but that isn't an excuse for us not doing what is right and setting an example for others. I know it feels futile but since when do we give up because something is hard?

That said I am not really sure emissions in tractors is going to save the planet...but perhaps if every home had solar, we had a decent way to store the excess energy (there would be TONS of excess in a collective grid...but today sorry Li batteries just aren't scalable enough), and most commuter vehicles were electric being powered by said solar/stored energy we would be in a better place.

We don't have the technology to accomplish this yet, but we should absolutely be spending billions to come up with a new power grid.

Better take.

Whether you believe in climate change or whatever we all know smog/etc is real.

This emissions equipment has more to do with preventing that than reducing green house emissions.

Also I don’t think electric replacements for ICE engine are viable unless we go nuclear with our power generation.

 

[Jchonline]

Better take.

Whether you believe in climate change or whatever we all know smog/etc is real.

This emissions equipment has more to do with preventing that than reducing green house emissions.

Also I don’t think electric replacements for ICE engine are viable unless we go nuclear with our power generation.

Nuclear is a great option power wise, but the issue is the time it takes to create a viable plant. No one wants to do it because it is way more expensive than currently available NG plants. The ROI is bad. That said, perhaps taxpayers should fund it...but I really hate letting the government manage anything. They just suck at it.

 

[espacef1fan]

Nuclear is a great option power wise, but the issue is the time it takes to create a viable plant. No one wants to do it because it is way more expensive than currently available NG plants. The ROI is bad. That said, perhaps taxpayers should fund it...but I really hate letting the government manage anything. They just suck at it.

There are a lot of newer designs that are much safer that would allow them to be built in smaller plants/greater numbers which should reduce cost.

That said you’d have to convince the same people that are driving this change that nuclear is the only viable green energy we have with today’s technology.

If the climate was in much crisis as they say, I think they would be open to that.

That brings me to a whole other discussion inappropriate for this forum.

 

[Jchonline]

There are a lot of newer designs that are much safer that would allow them to be built in smaller plants/greater numbers which should reduce cost.

That said you’d have to convince the same people that are driving this change that nuclear is the only viable green energy we have with today’s technology.

If the climate was in much crisis as they say, I think they would be open to that.

That brings me to a whole other discussion inappropriate for this forum.

Do you have any info on those smaller design options? I am interested in reading.

 

[espacef1fan]

Check out MSRs(Molten Salt Reactors)

They aren’t unique in that they can be made small.

All reactors can be made reasonably small.(see ships and submarines)

The increased safety of a MSR might allow people to feel better having on nearer to where they live like a coal or gas fired plant which means you can build more of them in a smaller size to take advantage of economy of scale.

 

[Hay Dude]

Nuclear is a great option power wise, but the issue is the time it takes to create a viable plant. No one wants to do it because it is way more expensive than currently available NG plants. The ROI is bad. That said, perhaps taxpayers should fund it...but I really hate letting the government manage anything. They just suck at it.

NO!
NO!
NO!
You MUST have competition to insure costs and quality are controlled