Need help: Should I go for a Compact or SubCompact

[Rick Jay]

Re: Need help: Should I go for a Compact or SubCom

Kent,

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( Moving parts of the tree, otherwise that's what chainsaws are for. And roots are definitely another issue. )</font> That's what backhoes are for! /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

~Rick

 

[Anonymous Poster]

<font color="blue"> Here's what I will use this tractor for:
1) Finishing Mowing (most of our property is grass but has a lots of trees)
2) Snow removal (30' x 160'). I live in estern Canada so we get a fair amount of snow.
3) Landscaping (Moving dirt arround, removing trees, etc.)
4) Gardening (30' x 100')
5) And of course riding! (Just kidding!)</font>

Woodbeef,
A subcut like a bx will perform all of these functions well with more than adequate power.
1) It can mow as well or better than some cut's. I cannot honestly say that the bx will provide a better finish than some cut's as I have not tried them, but some of the responses on the <font color="orange"> orange forum </font> about the quality of cut of the b7500 ground contact mower vs. the bx floaters seem to indicate that the bx is a better lawn machine.

2)The bx will handle a rear or front mount snowblower as well as having a 48" bucket fel and 3ph rear blade or front blade. With 4wd and bars it doesn't get stuck too easily (I've tried) and chains are always an option ($100 US).

3) The bx will move dirt, stone, etc. easily. Might not have as big a bucket volume, but it does the job. Note that it probably won't be able to uproot tree stumps without help but I doubt the smaller cuts without a bh would fare any better. It will also handle a 4' box blade, landscape rake, etc.

4) The bx will handle a tiller (I have a 40" Woods offset) up to 4' and many people run larger units. On a 3000 sq. ft. plot that size tiller is more than adequate.

5) Its always fun but the wife gets annoyed that I'm not accomplishing anything /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif. Besides I still have to do it later.

I am not bashing cuts' in any way. I almost bought a b7500. But I am simply trying to get across the fact that the bx and its cousins, as well as some of the other small units out there are very capable and can do what Turbo listed without problem. Its smaller, less expensive to purchase and maintain, not as tall, and very maneuverable.

If a cut is what you like, GO FOR IT. Just don't underestimate the subcuts' out there. They may surprise you.
DaveL

 

[Steelfan]

Re: Need help: Should I go for a Compact or SubCom

<font color="blue">That's what backhoes are for! </font>

OK you got me there. I sure wish I had one sometimes. /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Kent

 

[thcri]

DaveL,

Your exactly right. The SUB-CUT will do what the CUT will do. Horsepower for horsepower they can do about the same amount of work except for loader work and maybe some other tasks. Which there is nothing wrong with taking more time. Turbo does have in his budget plenty of monies for the CUT and still be able to get a bunch of attachments. Since he has the money in his budget it sure would be awful nice to have the extra size rig for the bigger tasks. I think Turbo has been given many options and ideas and now he has to make the final decision. I think he has to get them under his seat and try them out. And I'm even going to through in my case. I bought a TC21D and did not like it for stability. I have some pretty good side hills. But if I would have been shown a SUB-CUT it may have been the better tractor for me instead of going up to the TC29D. I believe the SUB to have a lower profile and probably would have handled the hills better as far as stability.


just a couple more pennies.

murph

 

[Anonymous Poster]

thcri,
The hills here was the deciding factor in my purchase of the bx. The b7500 is taller (16" rear wheels as against 12" for the bx) and only weighs 67 lbs. more per the kubota literature. The bx feels rock steady in places the old power king wouldn't even go. I think the only things I have against the bx2200 are the low set of the 3ph links and the lack of a 3ph backhoe. But its quick and as maneuverable as can be plus it does what I need it to do.

Somebody fix this weather; I want to go to work!!!!!! /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
DaveL

 

[TurboSonic]

Re: Need help: Should I go for a Compact or SubCom

Hello everyone!

Again thanks for all the great comments this is really helping me to find the right tractor!

Well today I went to the dealers to get some prices... The JD sales people were all gone to Nova Scotia for some reason! Anyways I'll go back this Saturday. I did look again and again at that 4010 hummm... I like it even more! Anyhow, I got some prices from Kubota dealer on a BX2200 and a B7500. The dealer seems to be pushing a little bit more the BX. I tried both and I find the B7500 to have a bit more room for the legs. On the BX my knees were almost hitting the steering wheel...

Here's the packages I'm looking at:
60" MM Mower
51" 3PH Snowblower
45" 3PH Tiller
Loader
Tractor

If I converted this correclty from Canadian money, the BX package would cost me around 15000$USD and the B package 16500$USD (+TAX of course, 15% here in NB). So this is this looking about right?

Thanks,
Sylvain

 

[robertm]

TurboSonic,
I have almost two acres (your size lot) and function exceptionally well with a compact tractor... the Kubota B7500. I faced the same issue, sub compact or compact, and went compact. I have never regretted it, and frankly, the small turning radius of my B7500 is 80% (yes-80%) smaller than my old Allis-Chalmers garden tractor! Maneuverability is no issue, the MMM provides an exceptional cut, and versatility with 3pt options is better than some sub-compacts... the BX2200 I have heard issues may exist due to the height restriction in the lowre arms (mostly when using a post hole auger). In addition, you'll always look "cooler" on a bigger tractor, and be the envy of the neighbors! /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif My $0.02.

 

[kofronj]

Re: Need help: Should I go for a Compact or SubCom

Turbo,

I've got 8 acres, and do much of what you want to do with your tractor (except I pay someone to plow my 800' driveway for $30/per). I went with the BX2200. I haven't been at all disappointed. It's very maneuverable (more so that the B series). The ROPS is lower, so I'm not whacking as many overhanging tree limbs. I've had no real issues with 3 point attachments (although I did just recently replace the lift arm adjuster turnbuckles with B series hardware). I'm 6'3", and although the seating position is close with knees, I find the set-up quite comfortable to use, especially with the boomerang hydro pedal. I've also bent back the "seat stop" so I can gain a couple more inches of rear travel.

I looked at Deere before I bought this tractor. The 2210 wasn't out. There were a couple issues with the 4010 that concerned me---and I can't remember what they were---but I would have gone a step up with the 4110. However, the cost and size were both too much for what I wanted.

If I had it to do again, I might look at the new hydro Kioti. But I'd probably be back at the Kubota machines. This time with a BX22 (which wasn't out when I bought)---I'd really like to have a backhoe around...

Any of these machines (B7xxx, BX, JD 4xxx) will do what you want. But if you're primarily going to use it as a mower (and you have trees on your property), my guess is that you'll be happier with the sub-compacts.

 

[Anonymous Poster]

TubroSonic: Respectfully suggest forget use of "compact", "subcompact" etc as these are not very objective, meanings can change and so forth.

Think about cubic inch engine size, pounds of material (tractor), gallons per minute hyrdraulic flow and so on. Everything being equal, a larger engine turning at lower rpm will last longer. In most uses, a heavier tractor will generally do the work easier. And so on. These "measurements" are real life, not marketing words whose meaning can "evolve".

It's the implements that do the work (using the tractor's power). The more implements (and ease of changing/using) the better. What you plan on doing today can change in the future.

Even horse power measurements are not all that objective. Example: I have a 6 hp mower and a 6.6 hp two wheel garden tractor (besides a TC40 with FEL & BH). The 6.6 hp will move 3/4 ton while cutting a 40" mowing path, push a 48" blade for snow removal, run a tiller, turn a rotary plow etc. The 6 hp mower will cut grass if its not too high. The modern 6 hp is a "make believe" theoretical measurement (like "compact" and "subcompact" words). The 6.6 hp is a real measurement, slower speed with far more torque. You will do better with a larger displacement 20 hp engine with a lot of torque turning at slower rpm than a hyped up smaller displacement 25 hp engine working a high rpm.

So . . . my advice is forget about all the suggestions on this model or that. Look at the power you need and what you might need in real numbers to do the work. Another consideration is how long you expect the thing to last. I don't really have any brand suggestion except that my personal preference is for at least a 2 liter (121 cubic inch engine size), base tractor weight of at least 2,500 - 3,000 pounds and 7 or 8 gallon per minute hydraulic flow.

JEH

 

[rockyridgefarm]

Great Post - should be framed!

Rewuired reading at Tractor U.