Summit Tractors - a new compact tractor

[hodge]

But you have "infinite" adjustment with a screw thread. Not as convenient for sure, but if taking as much movement out of the 3-point as possible is the objective it can be argued that turn buckle stabilizers are superior. I have no wish to swap out the stabilizers on the MX or M, but turn buckles have their place.

Not true, as I see it. Stabilizers are intended to keep an implement from swaying, not to keep it absolutely immobilized. The cycle of a rising or lowering 3 point goes through some different geometrics, especially depending on the profile of the lift arms. On the B7100 that I had, if I adjusted the turnbuckles snug when the arms were raised, they would be moderately loose when lowered all the way down. In the case of the B7100, if I had tightened the stabilizers to the point of zero sway, while down, and raised the implement, I would stretch the stabilizers. I build a LOT of stabilizers because of damaged and broken turnbuckles. I believe that, in many cases, the damage happens because the turnbuckles are used while too tight. For what it's worth, I believe that the balance is when an implement can move side to side an inch or two- well under control. My stabilizers are designed so that there is hole alignment every 3/16". I've seen factory telescoping stabilizers that adjust every 1/2". In the case of those factory designs, the implement would be allowed to sway 3 or 4 inches when pinned.
So, it's my supposition that the system is not designed to stop all sway, but to control the implement. As you understand, telescoping stabilizers will not stop an implement from all movement- because they aren't supposed to. Therefore, turnbuckles are only sufficient to do the job, but not superior. What they are is inexpensive. Telescoping stabilizers are not essential, but they are infinitely more convenient, they are typically stronger, they don't lock up when they rust.
This is my opinion, as stated. However, I believe that it is solid- high end models have (almost) always come with telescoping stabilizers, and more and more standard models now have them. If the goal was zero sway, this wouldn't be the case.

 

[Lil Foot]

Not true, as I see it. Stabilizers are intended to keep an implement from swaying, not to keep it absolutely immobilized. The cycle of a rising or lowering 3 point goes through some different geometrics, especially depending on the profile of the lift arms. On the B7100 that I had, if I adjusted the turnbuckles snug when the arms were raised, they would be moderately loose when lowered all the way down. In the case of the B7100, if I had tightened the stabilizers to the point of zero sway, while down, and raised the implement, I would stretch the stabilizers. I build a LOT of stabilizers because of damaged and broken turnbuckles. I believe that, in many cases, the damage happens because the turnbuckles are used while too tight. For what it's worth, I believe that the balance is when an implement can move side to side an inch or two- well under control. My stabilizers are designed so that there is hole alignment every 3/16". I've seen factory telescoping stabilizers that adjust every 1/2". In the case of those factory designs, the implement would be allowed to sway 3 or 4 inches when pinned.
So, it's my supposition that the system is not designed to stop all sway, but to control the implement. As you understand, telescoping stabilizers will not stop an implement from all movement- because they aren't supposed to. Therefore, turnbuckles are only sufficient to do the job, but not superior. What they are is inexpensive. Telescoping stabilizers are not essential, but they are infinitely more convenient, they are typically stronger, they don't lock up when they rust.
This is my opinion, as stated. However, I believe that it is solid- high end models have (almost) always come with telescoping stabilizers, and more and more standard models now have them. If the goal was zero sway, this wouldn't be the case.

The man knows of what he speaks.

 

[mcmxi]

Not true, as I see it. Stabilizers are intended to keep an implement from swaying, not to keep it absolutely immobilized.

As you understand, telescoping stabilizers will not stop an implement from all movement- because they aren't supposed to. Therefore, turnbuckles are only sufficient to do the job, but not superior. What they are is inexpensive. Telescoping stabilizers are not essential, but they are infinitely more convenient, they are typically stronger, they don't lock up when they rust.
This is my opinion, as stated. However, I believe that it is solid- high end models have (almost) always come with telescoping stabilizers, and more and more standard models now have them. If the goal was zero sway, this wouldn't be the case.

I didn't suggest that zero lateral movement was the intent, just removing all unnecessary movement, and turnbuckle stabilizers have finer control for that. As for corrosion, that's basic maintenance and I never had a problem over the five years that I owned a BX25 and I never once felt the need to upgrade them either.

Two things we can agree on. Turnbuckle stabilizers aren't as convenient to use, and they're cheaper.

 

[Crash277]

3 year or 2000 hour warranty but how often will the tractor actually be in your possession.

Offering rear remotes, 3rd function with a 3 year warranty will catch the eye of many New tractor buyers on a tight budget if the price is 2-3k lower than its competitors. I think that's what it will take to get attention.

Kubota makes it hard to beat their financing though!

the 0% was hard to beat.. for the package deal i got through kubota, there wasnt another dealer that could beat the price. Sure the price was better on paper, till you added the interest. But one of the main factors for me was dealer support, 20min from my place.