Thanks Matt! Ya, I do like the looks of the Deere too. I'm burning about 5-5.7 gal/hr when I'm working due to the fact I spend all the time with the engine cranked all the way up pushing out all the hydraulic flow the machine has. I haven't had a chance really to see what the fuel burn would be with a non-horsepower intensive attachment, but I can't say I'm displeased with the fuel burn I get right now. I can go almost 2 days on one 80 gal tank of fuel so I'm happy with that.
I have 454 hrs on the machine as of yesterday, and so far I don't have any gripes about it. It is doing and behaving exactly as we expected and in some instances it is exceeding our performance expectations. I looked at the 180G, but the increase in undercarriage width without a noticeable increase in reach didn't really do anything for me. I spend so much time in tight areas or traveling down bog dikes that are just wide enough for an 8'6" machine or truck, that anything wider wouldn't really work for us. So to gain an extra 4" or so of reach, without any horsepower or hydraulic flow increases and an increase in overall width, wouldn't be something that would make me want to get a 180 over a 160. I didn't honestly look at the lifting capacity of the 180, but for me, the 160 has plenty of balls for what we need it to do in the lifiting category.
Now if they came out with a zero turn 160 though, that would be a different matter