Seriously.... Ask them to show you the numbers

In the forums I visit,  nothing irritates me more than warranty hearsay, and drawing conclusion from single or group of incidences---it makes no sense. Deere, and every other manufacturer has a database to track all warranty claims.  Once claim/failure trends have reached certain levels or concerning patterns, it prompts major revisions and recalls.  We could argue all day long about whether they do so in a timely matter - and whether they should be more aggressive with recalls - but in the end thats mostly corporate admin making those calls.  The worste thing to do -from a sales standpoint - is release unreliable equipment, and to many manufacturers credit i am rether impressed with their relatively low warrantly claim rate in ag equipment.

Unless the posters have actual warranty claim rate information - from the corporate level with verifiable source- dont trust anything that is posted regarding blanket statements on engine series.

 I certainly appreciate lemons and bad batches of parts, and poor engineering is hard to overestimate; but I refuse to believe the hot button issue of Tier 4 engine claims is factually based, no-one has ever presented factual information on the failure rate (let alone failure comparison statistics like MTBF).  I think this is driven by fear of technology that farmers will not likely be qualified to service (not that many have been able to service engines of the past 3 generations of engines.)  

 Every engine ever built blows up, and they blow up at a certain rates, that's what machines do.  Companies spend millions tracking these rates, and most design engineers are intimately involved in failure analysis.

For those curious on overall warranty claim trends , here is a link to get you started.

http://www.warrantyweek.com/

..but will also add that all engines fail (some catastophically, some related to surface wear), and they fail (IF all parts made exactly the same)  at fairly reproducable rates.  The term "blow up" may not be the best choice of words, but i used it to get my point across- your right in stating most failures are related to surface wear, as nearly all parts are designed below the fatigue limit, and ussually by an  order of magnitude.

These rates changes over time, and most lifetime curves include a inititial failure rate related to faulty parts batches and such.  These often are the one to get recalled, but in the long run have little impact on median expected engine life.

I like forums  because its like a "head up" on trends, but because of recall bias, they tend to over report failures, making normalization critical.  Its the problem of "the denominator".

I agree through - when there is a problem, just fix it  and quit trying to study it.  Its just we cannot assert there is a problem yet.   I am especially suspicios because EVERY engine maker takes heat with new engines, and now everyone states the EVERY tier 4 from EVERY supplier is junk- without ever even owning one.  I think there has been a mob mentallity brewin, I am highly skeptical they are acting on good information.

...is that engineers treat delivered components - like engines - pretty much equally - whether its from Deere , Cummins, etc... when your a combine engineer - or a tractor or loader or cotton picker engineer - your engine supplier is the enemy, because all of their problems get rolled into your machine - no matter how well you design the rest of it.   Everyone at Deere is frustrated at Engine works, simply because every engine issue becomes the larger machine's issue.  I bet they joke it would be easier to buy from cummins.

Even with your experience, you really have to look at the statistics.  Maybe your number was up, and you finally got the early failing machine.  I'm not saying I know the statitics for the modern engines, but I am saying that no one else one this forum does either - until I am proven wrong.  

Could we all be on to something? - absolutely, but until we keep the numbers, and compare it to older engines, our "wisdom" lay in the realm of hypothesis.