Just curious, we all know that the more units of something you build, the cheaper they get, since you can spread design, tooling, and other costs over more units. In automobiles, this can be big $$$$, since you don't make a dime until you hit that magic "breakeven" volume. Seems that if you added Toro and Exmark's combined sales, you'd have a spectacularly profitable mower design. I was wondering if Toro and Exmark have studied how much it's really costing them to put out two similar but different designs in ZTR's and other mowers? This doesn't even count the duplication in marketing, systems, inventory, and other selling costs. Many of the differences are cosmetic (tanks, paint, trim items, controls) or of questionable value (Toro 52" vs Exmark 52"). Seems like it'd be better to just pick whichever company's particular part design worked best and go with it. I notice other makes have "rebadged" versions of other otherwise unrelated companies' mowers out there, it seems to me like coming up with two designs of basically the same mower makes them cost more than they should. I don't see any compelling reason to buy a Toro because of anything better or different in terms of performance (some aspects are generally regarded to be inferior). The wb's are a little different, with two distinct types of steering available, but even then, it's a shame I can't buy a T bar mower with an Exmark deck, or a 44" deck Exmark, etc, etc. I understand the reason to keep the Toro and Exmark brands and not consolidate them, but not the reasoning behind the different minor design elements and corresponding costs that go with them.