Agrability Project (logo) Agrability Project

Home

State AgrAbility Projects

AgrAbility Quarterly

Assistive Technology Resources

Assistive Technology Database

Resources

National AgrAbility Workshop (2001 - 2008)

Archive

Contact Us

AgrAbility Site Search


Forgotten username or password,
contact us.

Get Acrobat Reader

Download PowerPoint Viewer
(Windows only)

Site Translation Help
(Ayuda para traducción de sitios)

2003 National Training Workshop, Thursday, November 11, 2003 Utility Vehicle Review with Test Drive:

This session was intended to explore the range of utility vehicles being used on farms and ranches. Representatives of each utility vehicle company spoke briefly about the advantages and disadvantages of each type of vehicle to accommodate different disabilities and agricultural operational needs.   Then the   participants (e.g., approximately 50 people consisting of AgrAbility project staff and Nebraska Tractor Test Lab students), had an opportunity to test drive each of the utility vehicles.    After finishing their test drives, everyone provided an opinion of each utility vehicle using the survey instrument shown below.  

Survey Instrument

  1 = Very Dissatisfied    >>    5 = Very Satisfied

Performance

1

2

3

4

5

  • Starting (acceleration, speed, etc.)
         
  • Stopping (braking)
         
  • Steering responsiveness
         
  • Noise level
         
  • Ride Quality
         

Operator Station

  • Location of User Control(s)
         
  • Usability of User Control(s)
         
  • Ease of Entry and Exit from Seat
         
  • Leg Room
         
  • Seat Support (back, lateral, etc.)
         
  • Overall Operator Comfort
         

Features

  • Stability
         
  • Perception of Safety
         
  • Perception of Durability
         

 

Compiled Survey Results:  

(1 = Very Dissatisfied    >>    5 = Very Satisfied).

Model

Mean Criteria-PERFORMANCE

 

Starting (Acceleration, Speed, Etc.)

Stopping (Braking)

Steering Responsiveness

Noise Level

Ride Quality

Cub Cadet 4x2

3.6

4.0

3.9

3.6

3.4

Cub Cadet 4x6

3.0

3.6

4.4

4.0

4.1

John Deere CS

3.6

4.1

3.9

4.1

2.6

Kawasaki Mule

3.3

4.4

3.5

4.1

3.9

Polaris 4x4

4.1

4.7

4.0

3.8

4.0

Polaris 4x6

4.4

4.7

2.8

3.2

4.4

Polaris Ranger

5.0

4.7

4.3

3.8

4.4

Raptor

3.0

4.0

5.0

3.8

3.5

 

Model

Mean Criteria-OPERATOR STATION

 

Location Of User Controls

Usability Of User Controls

Ease Of Entry And Exit From Seat

Leg Room

Seat Support (Back, Lateral, Etc.)

Overall Operator Comfort

Cub Cadet 4 x2

4.0

4.1

3.8

3.4

3.7

3.6

Cub Cadet 4 x 6

3.4

3.4

4.1

4.1

4.3

4.4

John Deere CS

3.5

3.8

3.8

2.8

3.8

2.9

Kawasaki Mule

4.1

3.4

3.9

3.3

4.0

3.9

Polaris 4x4

3.8

4.3

4.4

3.7

4.2

3.9

Polaris 4x6

3.8

3.9

4.0

3.8

3.7

3.9

Polaris Ranger

3.7

4.0

4.6

4.0

4.4

4.4

Raptor

4.8

3.8

5.0

4.8

4.0

4.3

 

Model

Mean Criteria- FEATURES

 

Stability

Perception Of Safety

Perception Of Durability

Cub Cadet 4x2

3.9

3.1

3.8

Cub Cadet 4x6

4.3

4.0

4.3

John Deere CS

3.1

2.8

2.9

Kawasaki Mule

3.9

4.2

4.1

Polaris 4x4

4.1

4.1

4.2

Polaris 4x6

4.6

4.2

4.1

Polaris Ranger

4.4

4.6

4.4

Raptor

4.5

3.8

4.5

 

The Utility Vehicle Companies :

John Deere, John Deere Compact Series (CS) Gator

John Deere, John Deere Compact Series (CS) Gator

 

Kawasaki, Kawasaki Mule 3000

Kawasaki, Kawasaki Mule 3000

 

Cub Cadet, Cub Cadet Big Country 4 x 6

Cub Cadet, Cub Cadet Big Country 4 x 6

 

Koyker Manufacturing Company, Raptor 2000H

Koyker Manufacturing Company, Raptor 2000H

 

Polaris, Polaris Professional Series 4 x 4

Polaris, Polaris Professional Series 4 x 4

 

*NOTE: Mention or display of a trademark, proprietary product, or firm in text or figures does not constitute an endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the University of Wisconsin, Easter Seals, or the AgrAbility Project, and does not imply approval to the exclusion of other suitable products or firms.