John Deere employee responds to Right to Repair

❗Article Status Notice: This Article is a stub

Notice: This Article Requires Additional Expansion

---

This article is underdeveloped, and needs additional work to meet the wiki's Content Guidelines and be in line with our Mission Statement for comprehensive coverage of consumer protection issues. Issues may include:

• This article needs to be expanded to provide meaningful information
• This article requires additional verifiable evidence to demonstrate systemic impact
• More documentation is needed to establish how this reflects broader consumer protection concerns
• The connection between individual incidents and company-wide practices needs to be better established
• The article is simply too short, and lacks sufficient content

How You Can Help:

• Add documented examples with verifiable sources
• Provide evidence of similar incidents affecting other consumers
• Include relevant company policies or communications that demonstrate systemic practices
• Link to credible reporting that covers these issues
• Flesh out the article with relevant information

This notice will be removed once the article is sufficiently developed. Once you believe the article is ready to have its notice removed, visit the Discord (join here) and post to the #appeals channel, or mention its status on the article's talk page.

The video mostly reads out the letter that has been send by the John Deere employee.

The letter

Thank you for taking the time to educate yourself on matters you do not fully understand. I appreciate what you are doing fighting for right to repair and wish you luck. However I would also like for you to have accurate information in order to make yourself more credible. The video I would like to start with is the one published on Jan 26 titled “John Deere dealerships are lobbying AGAINST right to repair. Farmers, please help me out.” Much of your commentary in inaccurate and I will address your points one at a time and give proof as to why.

One of the things you talk about is farmers do not want to race their tractors. This is not entirely true. There are competitions farmers compete in with their tractors called “tractor pulls.” If you would like to see this google NTPA. Or go to ntpapull.com. This is the home page of the National Tractor Association. This is the highest level of the competition in the sport equivalent to Major League Baseball. YouTube some videos of “NTPA tractor pull” and you will see this is Formula One level competition. And just like baseball has major leagues, minor leagues, AAA, college games, high school, all the way down to neighborhood kids playing at the park, tractor pulling has the same structure. When I was younger I would compete in these at the county level with the same tractors we farmed with. Similar to how people might street race with production cars. And we did modify them to produce more power to compete better. I was doing this at 15 years old.

The tractors used in these professional pulling competitions are purpose built for that sole use. However farmers do modify current production tractors to produce more power in the field. This is usually referred to as “chipping.” The most common brand used by my customers is Steinbauer. www.steinbauer.cc. These devices change the fuel mapping to the engine generating more power. This would be very similar to overclocking a CPU. The reason they do this is very simple. While Deere makes higher powered tractors, they cost more. So instead of buying a bigger tractor they buy a small one and add a “chip” to it in order to increase horsepower. Deere does not want customers to do this for the same reason Intel will not let you overclock a low end i5 running at 3.4GHz and overclock it to 4.6GHz. They want you to buy the faster chip so they lock out the ability to overclock them. And just like CPU’s the more power the more heat they produce. On CPU’s you would upgrade the stock cooler to maybe a water cooled system. On tractors the cooing capacity is designed into the machine for a specific horsepower and not easily upgradeable. Also the transmissions, drive shafts, axles, etc are designed to withstand a certain amount of power.

Another point you mention is farmers are not trying to add to pollution by changing emission standards. This is also not entirely accurate. Google “Deere DPF delete kit” or go to allcartuning.com. These are kits used to change the engine software and components to remove emission devices. This often removes the EGR valve (exhaust gas recirculation), DPF (diesel particulate filter), DOC (diesel oxidation catalyst), SCR (selective catalytic reduction), AOC (ammonia oxidation catalyst), and DEF injection system (diesel exhaust fluid). This is done to save money. DEF is consumed by the engine at a rate of typically 3-6% of fuel consumption. So for every 100 gallons of fuel you will need 5 gallons of DEF. This system is on all modern diesel engines including pickup trucks and semi trucks. Owners remove this system because DEF does not increase performance of the engine. It is injected into the exhaust stream to aid the AOC in removing NOx (nitrous oxides) from the exhaust. This increase the operating cost of the machine but adds no financial benefit. Also the engine mapping can be changed without these emission devices to use less fuel at the same power, however it no longer meets EPA emission standards.

You discussed in your video certain repairs must be completed by software used by the dealership even if the repair is performed by the customer. This is accurate in very specific situations. The short answer to this is because of emissions. I will explain. A current production 8R series tractor can have around 45 on board controllers. The customer has access to the DTC’s (diagnostic trouble codes) of all 45 controllers through the touch screen display in the cab along with a short description of the fault. This is vastly superior to the ability of most cars. If your “check engine” light or “service engine” light comes on in your car you must use a scan tool to retrieve the code. This is not necessary in these tractors as this function is built In to the on board software. Of these 45 controllers the customer can erase the DTC’s themselves on 44 of them with the push of some buttons and the vast majority of the codes on the 45th, The 45th being for the engine. Of the ones the customer can erase it is usually not necessary to do so once the repair is made. When the controller detects the fault has been repaired the code is changed to “stored” instead of “active” and the machine will resume normal operations with no need to interact with the software. Now to achieve optimal performance again some sensors and devices do need to be recalibrated. Majority of the time this is accessible to the customer as well using the on board diagnostics. Now to address the times when it is not accessible to the OBD and dealership laptop must be used. These are called “latched DTC’s.” They are used when a sensor detects a problem with the engine causing it not to meet EPA emission standards. When a fault like this occurs it can physically damage the emissions devices (DOC, DPF, AOC, SCR.) These are very expensive as they are similar to the catalytic converters on your car. To date the most expensive system I have priced out was $18,000.00. If farmers had the ability they would clear this DTC every time it came up and continue to use the machine unaware it was destroying itself and causing excessive pollution. By creating these “latched” codes it does not allow the code to be cleared and keeps the machine in a de-rated condition forcing the problem to be addressed instead of ignored. Yes, my customers ignore the warning on the display and continue to use the machine until the timer in the software runs out “usually a few minutes” and puts the engine in a de-rate mode. When there power and speed are reduced to half that gets their attention. This de-rate mode also helps to protect the engine from any further damage.

I tell you this not to combat you on right to repair, but to educate you on the things you are unaware of. In most cases I am for right to repair and would like it expanded in the industry. I believe people advocating for right to repair need to have accurate information to seem credible when appearing in front of a legislative body, or on a YouTube video. I have greatly simplified many of these topics and focused primarily on Deere’s current production premium heavy ag equipment. I can expand or clarify on any of this more if you would like, or answer any questions you may have. There are also other more technical discussions being held in the industry relating to this topic regarding things like data management, third party access to CAN BUS, GPS steering system, and other situations that would be hard to explain without a background knowledge. Also please let me know how I did explaining this as I feel I will be doing it more in the future and would like to do a competent job of it.

Thank you for your time and I look forward to hearing from you again,

If you provide specific concerns, questions, and complaints you come across I will try my best to answer them directly. But here are some of the ones I come across.

Most of the complaints I feel stem from a lack of knowledge, lack of understanding, misinformation, misinterpretation, and a customer’s desire to complain when things don’t go right and they need somewhere to place the blame. Don’t get me wrong, there are real issues and we deal with them at the dealership level as well. Customers are not the only ones that struggle with it.

Here are some of the complaints that are legitimate and why I feel they are done the way they are. Customers, even with the customer version of the software, still do not have the ability to clear the previously mentioned latched codes even though they can clear any other code. Now why they do this is speculation on my part but I feel there is a good chance it is correct. I am aware of several other diesel engine manufacturers that have similar dealer only requirements when it comes to emissions. This mostly has to do with a function called active regeneration. To understand what active regeneration is you must know a little about how the system works. The filters in the exhaust only function when at full operating temperature. This is normally achieved with passive regeneration.

During passive regeneration the normal heat from the exhaust is enough to keep the system working properly. Under light engine loads and cold ambient air temperatures this is not enough to keep the system working properly. When the filters begin to choke up the system enters active regeneration engine is actively making changes to cause the exhaust gas to heat up to around 1000 F and "burn" the impurities out of the filters. This process generally takes 45 minutes for a complete cycle. During this time if something happens and the cycle is not allowed to complete the computer records that. This can be from a malfunction, the operator manually aborting the process, or shutting the engine off during the cycle. If this cycle happens to many times in a row the engine goes into a “service only mode” at which time I have to use the dealership software and do a “service regeneration” which typically last 3 hours. This is to recover the system from an excessively restricted state. This situation is most serious in semi trucks when they enter this mode along the interstate and must be repaired there causing delays, expense and risk to the driver and mechanic. This is a long explanation to get to my point. Since so many manufactures do this even in the trucking industry I feel that this is a mandate somehow by the EPA when these things are engineered. I am not sure why else so many manufactures would use a similar unpopular procedure. So I think this is more than likely caused by EPA regulation and not intentional design by Deere or other manufactures to upset their customers. They would go to great lengths to get rid off all of this if they could. If you would like proof google “Volvo diesel emission scandal.” They got in a lot of trouble for defeating the government emission testing. So the short answer is this complaint is caused by government regulation and can not be fixed by more government regulation. Once again, this is speculation on my part but feel it is a plausible scenario.

Another real complaint is customers are not able to program their own controllers once they purchase them. This is very true. Now to understand why this is you must know how it use to be done. When I first started we could not program controllers even at the dealership. Many of the controllers are serial number specific based on the options of the machine, tuning, and security measures. Because of this we had to order every one by serial number. Normally we get parts overnighted but because of the extra step of the factory having it program it first it could add a few days until we received it. This meant the customer was down for days. And if that wasn't the problem after all you just wasted all that time. To combat this problem the dealerships gained the ability to program controllers. This meant we could stock a blank one and program it for whatever machine needed it getting it running the same day greatly improving customer service. If it wasn't the problem you were out of hours instead of days. In the early days this happened often. The early on board diagnostics were poor to no existent. The procedure in the manuals would sometimes say try this part and if that doesn't fix it try this one. This is referred to as swapnostics. Now when this system of programmable controllers was put into place the database was created inside the dealer portal so the only way to gain access to it was with a dealer log in to the corporate website. At the time there really was no customer portal in existence like there is today. Now could this database be incorporated into a customer accessible database? I don't know. I am not a software engineer. Considering the time, resources, money, failings, and aggravation involved with other systems that were incorporated I don't know if it would be worth the expense and manpower involved to do it for how very little it would be utilized by customers. In 25 years of doing this I can not think of one time I've had a customer that would be willing to even attempt to diagnose replace and reprogram their own controller. The risk of damaging a new controller, the investment in hardware and software, and the training and knowledge required to do it just isn't feasible. I don't think the process would be utilized enough to make it worth while. Also currently the software is free for the dealership to download and my dealership does not charge anything but our standard hourly service rate to install it . So a customer would have to program many controllers to ever see a return on investment. To continue on with the software issue in another scenario: when we make a major mechanical change to the machine we have to update the software. This would be like if you decided to change out the manual transmission in your car for an automatic. When this happens the dealership has to contact Deere to have new software created. This has to be done at the engineering level. Exactly how this process is done I'm not sure. But for a customer to have this level of access to software I would imagine it being similar to Microsoft giving you the uncompiled source code for office. Its just not going to happen.

Another common complaint that is true is the lack of independent repair shops. To my knowledge there are no true legitimate businesses operating as independent repair shops in my area. This meaning they have some sort front, business cards, file taxes as a business, etc. Unlike cars where you have options besides the dealer like Pep Boys, Midas, Jiffy Lube, any thousands of other small independent repair shops this does not exist for agriculture. They like to blame this on the fact that these shops don't have access to the dealer level software. This is true but I'm not sure this is entirely the reason. This is because I was born in 1973 and grew up on a farm a decade before the first computer was put on a tractor and even then there was no independent repair shops for agriculture in my area. Or anywhere that I am aware of. Now maybe there is or was one somewhere but I feel like they have to be very rare. I am very curious to find out if one does or did exists that is specialized in agriculture repair. If you got your farm machine repaired then or even now outside the dealership it was done so by a shadetree mechanic or a moonlighter. If you are not familiar with the terms a shade tree mechanic is someone who works out of their home typically with little to no formal education or training. ind of like a hobbyist. A moonlighter is someone who works for a dealership during the day and works on their own time at night by the "moonlight" for cash. Now you might be able to get an automotive shop to do a simple repair like charge the air conditioning or a truck repair place to repair a hydraulic hose. But not many places outside the dealership have ever existed for major repair that I am aware of. This probably has a lot to do with demand. I would be surprised to find out there are not more Apple products in the state of New York than John Deere tractors with computers in the country. Not many people own a $300,000 tractor. Opening a tractor repair shop would be a very risky business even with availability to the software. Availability to hardware is not an issue. Most of the tools we use are purchase from tool dealers like Snap-On, Matco, Mac, Craftsman etc. The tools that are ...

See also

• John Deere
• John Deere dealerships are lobbying against right to repair