new or old

Just curious some opinions on the new tractor engineering vs. old. I've considered buying new or almost new, justifying that I would have the machine the rest of my life, but I'm wondering if today's machines will have that longevity. It is hard to beat the usabilty of 4x4, HST, etc. Im sure there is no doubt the demographic of people using tractors is what drives the market. More light duty lawn work, than ag. Just wondering if you guys who replaced old iron with new loved it or regretted it?

Old equipment was built to last. New equipment is engineered to last for the desired test life. Not sure if it's just corporate greed in today's environment, or they just didn't have the technology 50 years ago to design things on the edge of living.

Newer equipment has more bells and whistles.

I have both new and old, and I'm "torn"- New is certainly more user friendly, but I'm afraid of "planned obsolescene" in the computerization.

I had a 1981 Cadillac Eldorado "8-6-4"- the system that would disable 2 or 4 cylinders if cruising and they weren't needed for power. System worked OK, but no real advantage in mileage, and kind of compicated. So it only lasted for that one year.

The computer in my car went bad, and I could not find another. Nothing else would work, no aftermarket units, and I ended up junking an otherwise good car.

I'm afraid the same thing will happen with the modern computerized tractors. We've become a "throw-away society" on other electronic stuff, and what better way to encourage new tractor sales than discontinuing support of the old ones?

The new ones will not have the durability of the old and will certainly not last a lifetime. Just try diagnosing a problem on one just a year or two old after some mice chewed a few wires somewhere. They are logistical maintenance nightmares.

Companies used to make equipment as good as possible, now its made as cheaply as possible. For example, so many parts are made from plastic and we all know what happens when plastic gets old. It cracks and falls apart. Don't think plastic parts will be functional fifty years from now, of course I won't be functional then either.
Joe

Thanks for the replies, I kind of figured the same. I just wish there was a way to have newer features with old durability. My ford 650 would be cool with 4 wheel and a quick attach loader with high flow hyd. ....know what I mean?

I don't understand the phrase, "Corporate Greed". I think it's used by people that have never been in business themselves.

Corporations can't just charge whatever they want, prices are market driven.

I would bet you think Wal-Mart is some "Big Greedy Corporation" and they are just in it for money and profits? That's supposed to be an anti-business slam, but upon simple examination it reflects gross stupidity or misunderstanding. Wal-Mart owns 8,300 stores, of which 4,000 are in 44 different countries. It's 2010 revenues are expected to top $500 billion. Putting Wal-Mart's revenues in perspective, they exceed the 2009 GDP of all but 18 of the world's 181 countries. Why is Wal-Mart so successful? Millions of people voluntarily enter their stores and part with their money in exchange for Wal-Mart's products and services. In order for that to happen, Wal-Mart and millions of other profit-motivated businesses must please people.

Compare our level of satisfaction with the services of those "in it just for the money and profits" to those in it to serve the public as opposed to earning profits. A major non-profit service provider is the public education establishment that delivers primary and secondary education at nearly a trillion-dollar annual cost. Public education is a major source of complaints about poor services that in many cases constitute nothing less than gross fraud.

If Wal-Mart, or any of the millions of producers who are in it for money and profits, were to deliver the same low-quality services, they would be out of business, but not public schools. Why? People who produce public education get their pay, pay raises and perks whether customers are satisfied or not. They are not motivated by profits and therefore under considerably less pressure to please customers. They use government to take customer money, in the form of taxes.

In the market, when a firm fails to please its customers and fails to earn a profit, it goes bankrupt, making those resources available to another that might do better. That's unless government steps in to bail it out. Bailouts send the message to continue doing a poor job of pleasing customers and husbanding resources. Government-owned nonprofit entities are immune to the ruthless market discipline of being forced to please customers. The same can be said of businesses that receive government subsidies.

The ruthlessness of the market discipline, which forces firms to please customers and thereby earn profits, goes a long way toward explaining hostility toward free market capitalism.

Why don't you open a business of your own, and see how greedy the market allows you to be.

I'm an IH guy. You saw what happened to them when they failed to please their customers. That was the market at work. John Deere makes the tractors they think their customers want, and apparently they are right, as they sell more than anyone else.

A Farmall H listed for right around $900 in 1939. Adjusted for inflation that would be over $14,000 today. No plastic on a Farmall H, but would you buy one today for $14,000? I doubt it. Even if it is going to last longer than any of the modern tractors.

Deere and Case are responding to market forces. They build the best product they can for what their customers can afford to pay. If you want a tractor that will last for 50 years I hate to think what you would have to pay for it.

Massey ferguson is the number 1 seller, they have been for almost 50 years! Just thought I might throw that out there!

IndianaRed: Not sure about a comparison of companies that sell material products to government institutions that are employed to educate human beings. Defective products can be rejected by a company; employees of these companies may be fired for not producing. The same cannot be said of the 'product' of public schools... they can't be fired. Someone who shops at Wal-Mart only needs the input of their cash. A student at a public school must input some effort, something that the school does not necessarily have control over. Sorry all, I know this is supposed to be tractor related.

Thanks you sir. I must admit I did not know that. Always appreciate being corrected on the facts.

Seems strange. On my travels from OH to IA to KS and back to IN I sure don't sure that many Massey's in the corn belt. Some, but nothing like the other Reds, and Greens. MN and Canada sure must be selling a ton of them.

Hardly any Masseys in western ks or eastern co, that includes tractors and combines

Massey is only the number one seller in total units world wide. That includes a whole bunch of Massey name plated India tractors sold over in India and the mid-east.
In the United States numbers as follows, in the 50 horsepower up class: This number of units.
John Deere 45%
CIH/Ford 28%
Massey 11%
Kabota 9%
Misc brands 7%

These numbers are from the North America Equipment dealer association.

If you go on total dollar value then Massey does not rank number one world wide.

Bad mouth John Deere if you want to. It has not been sold to anyone else or gone broke because of poor management. Allis Chalmers and Oliver are example of that. Both companies had innovative equipment in the 1950s but poor management. Oliver went first then Allis Chalmers. Ferguson perfected the three point hitch could not compete with Ford. Merged with Massey Harris became Massey Ferguson, still never had much national market share.