Hey there Sourdough, in most cases if anyone told me that the Perkins was cheaper than the Kubota I probably wouldn't believe them, having said that, I would definitely go with the Perkins over a Kubota given the option. In both cases, lifespan and economy I would say that the Perkins ARE more economical and more likely to outlive the Kubota. I used to mechanic for a number of years in the agricultural arena, the dealer I worked for handled both Massey Ferguson(perkins powered) and Kubota. They were both great pieces of machinery, yet I feel the Perkins packed a bit more horsepower, was a bit more frugel with the fuel, and in most cases outlasted the Kubota. I might get a firestorm for making that statement, but that's my $.02 worth. Regards, aevald

Sourdough: I would expect Your Ranger to last 1/2 as many load hours as the Classic 3. Reason? it is running at 3600 RPM Vs 1800 on the Classic. Those SA 200s turn even slower, so even the gas engines can last 10,000 hours. For fuel consumption You need to be compairing apples to apples so to speak, not an 1800 rpm machine against a 3600 rpm. In diesel engines a MODERN direct injection engine will have an advantage over a prechamber engine for economy, but when comparing the same type and displacement engine fuel consumption wil not be much different between manufacturers at the same power output. Hopefully any of You have better luck with the Perkins engine than We had with the one on the Bandit 250 brush chipper, but You could get a crappy unit from anybody just by bad luck I guess.