The problem here is that we're trying to establish why your target market of someone who farms 500 acres would want to buy your hypothetical tractor. I thought

The problem here is that we're trying to establish why your target market of someone who farms 500 acres would want to buy your hypothetical tractor. I thought your market was already small to begin with, and as we get more details of what you feel is necessary, I'm left feeling like the market is even smaller than I originally thought. As cool as 500HP is, there are consequences to that much power. It uses more fuel, it requires more material (metal, rubber, etc.) to handle the load, it requires more shed space to store, larger implements to do something with that power, etc. all of which just piles on the costs. Even ignoring electronics completely, a 500HP tractor is going to cost more to own than a 100HP tractor. While I recognize that everyone farms differently, in my experience 100-200HP is sufficient and price-optimal to get the job done on a 500 acre farm. That's why I was surprised to see you suggesting this hypothetical tractor be so far away from that, especially when you claimed that price cutting was the primary driver here. If you truly can buy a 300HP tractor without electronics for the same price as a 150HP tractor with (along with the implements sized for that additional power) allowing you to get the job done faster so you can get back to another job that pays the bills, maybe there is something there. But then that doesn't solve the capital cost problem of new farmers that you felt was important. In short, I'm struggling to find the coherency in your comments. Perhaps you can go back and tie all the tangents together?