Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15
  1. #1
    Silver Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    147
    Location
    NE Oklahoma

    Default SX3100, anyone?

    The Mahindra dealership, which also sells NH and CCY, pointed me to the CCY SX3100 as being positioned between the Mahindra 2516 and 2816 in terms of size and weight, while being more powerful than the Mahindras. It's more like the 2516 where features are concerned (such as a 2-range HST), and it's about $1100 more than the 2516 and $700 more than the 2816.

    I've not had any experience with CCY other than not-so-fond memories of kicking the cr@p out of a junky CC riding mower I had to deal with as a kid. That thing spent more time parted out across the garage floor than it did on the lawn, so that experience has me wondering how the SX3100 really is. I know it's a new product, but I was wondering if anyone here has one and if so, how they like it? Any issues? Any regrets buying it?

  2. #2
    Platinum Member MFRED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    954
    Location
    Connecticut
    Tractor
    MF 5435, MF 165

    Default Re: SX3100, anyone?

    The Cub-Yanmar's are not the MTD made, low end, lawn mowers you can get at you local big box store.

    Yanmar has been around a long time and knows how to make equipment. It seems as though, around here, Cub tried to pick a level of dealership that could handle compact tractors, not everyone selling lawn tractors got the Yanmar stuff.

    The tractors have been holding up very well. I think they offer an excellent value for your dollar. With the new 5-year warranty offered, and the 0% for 60mo going on, free first service, they seem like a real deal.

    If your local dealer seems to have their crap together, most cub dealers do, it will make you a fine tractor.

  3. #3
    Gold Member pdp11's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    266
    Location
    Pittsboro, NC
    Tractor
    John Deere 2520 CT

    Default

    The SX3100 is essentially a John Deere 2720. Yanmar has built the CUTs for John Deere for many years. Although this tractor has only recently emerged as a Cub tractor, it's predecessors in the John Deere line go back many years.
    John Deere 2520 - 200CX, 62D, RB2060
    John Deere 316 - 38" Deck, 3pt Hitch

  4. #4
    New Member rt1tractor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    13
    Location
    hampton
    Tractor
    51 farmall m ,

    Default Re: SX3100, anyone?

    the cub sx 3100 is a nice tractor , dont be afraid of its 2 range transmission as its power makes up for a mid range , the main problem with a two range unit is its gear ratio's tend to be higher to compensate for the lack of power resulting in a slow moving tractor, sometimes painfully slow in reverse which results in the constant shifting of ranges .
    this is not the case here ,this is a very peppy tractor package with forward/reverse speeds and backed by a five year warranty and 100 years of yanmar experiance ! SX3100, anyone?-picture-623-jpg

  5. #5
    Silver Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    147
    Location
    NE Oklahoma

    Default Re: SX3100, anyone?

    Thanks for the input, folks. Since the dealer offered a nice deal on a 2010 model, I decided to go with the SX3100 with 54" FEL and 72" Woods PRD7200 finish mower. It was delivered the other day, and already I've used it to mow the yard, move some dirt, and relocate a brush pile. I'm still getting used to operating the FEL, but already I'm really liking the tractor! You're right, the 2-range transmission isn't an issue due to the 30 horses and the relative light weight of the tractor. I haven't noticed the lack of a 3rd range, especially since my property is pretty much flat with very little in the way of slopes. I have however noticed that the FEL unloads the rear tires considerably, so even a slight incline while mowing slowly around objects with the heavy Woods causes the rear R4 tires to break loose, necessitating the use of 4x4. I'll be parking the FEL to shift weight to the rear, since this time of year most of my tractor work will be with the mower. I don't want to add any weight to the tractor (i.e., filled tires or wheel weights) because I'd like to minimize turf damage, so removing the FEL seems to be the best way to go. The quick-detach design ought to make the process pretty painless.

    I'm really pleased with my selection

  6. #6
    Gold Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    332
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Tractor
    Yanmar sc2400 TLD, 1989 Ford 2120 with loader

    Default Re: SX3100, anyone?

    What is with all the dealers that have no problem selling FEL's without any balllast? NONE of the local dealers in my area will do that. It's worked into the price. Granted I live in a very hilly area, but the advantage of having ballast just for lifting heavy loads alone makes it worth while, let alone the safety aspects.

  7. #7
    New Member rt1tractor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    13
    Location
    hampton
    Tractor
    51 farmall m ,

    Default Re: SX3100, anyone?

    Quote Originally Posted by Perplexed View Post
    Thanks for the input, folks. Since the dealer offered a nice deal on a 2010 model, I decided to go with the SX3100 with 54" FEL and 72" Woods PRD7200 finish mower. It was delivered the other day, and already I've used it to mow the yard, move some dirt, and relocate a brush pile. I'm still getting used to operating the FEL, but already I'm really liking the tractor! You're right, the 2-range transmission isn't an issue due to the 30 horses and the relative light weight of the tractor. I haven't noticed the lack of a 3rd range, especially since my property is pretty much flat with very little in the way of slopes. I have however noticed that the FEL unloads the rear tires considerably, so even a slight incline while mowing slowly around objects with the heavy Woods causes the rear R4 tires to break loose, necessitating the use of 4x4. I'll be parking the FEL to shift weight to the rear, since this time of year most of my tractor work will be with the mower. I don't want to add any weight to the tractor (i.e., filled tires or wheel weights) because I'd like to minimize turf damage, so removing the FEL seems to be the best way to go. The quick-detach design ought to make the process pretty painless.

    I'm really pleased with my selection
    your cub dealer should be able to sell you a 3 point hitch weight box that is easy to remove ,just three clips, and will take care of your wheel slip , the best part is if you fill the bottom with weight then the remaining area will work as an excellent tool carrier for chains , saws , pins etc .
    The weight boxes are pretty reasonable in price ,and you have the option of instant removal for minimum weight impact

  8. #8
    Silver Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    147
    Location
    NE Oklahoma

    Default Re: SX3100, anyone?

    Quote Originally Posted by rt1tractor View Post
    your cub dealer should be able to sell you a 3 point hitch weight box that is easy to remove ,just three clips, and will take care of your wheel slip , the best part is if you fill the bottom with weight then the remaining area will work as an excellent tool carrier for chains , saws , pins etc .
    The weight boxes are pretty reasonable in price ,and you have the option of instant removal for minimum weight impact
    The weight box would require the removal of the finish mower though, right? I'm experiencing tire slip while mowing with the finish mower on the ground and the FEL positioned a foot or two up. That's why I figured on detaching the FEL so the weight is shifted back over the rear tires.

  9. #9
    Silver Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    147
    Location
    NE Oklahoma

    Default Re: SX3100, anyone?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gods Country View Post
    What is with all the dealers that have no problem selling FEL's without any balllast? NONE of the local dealers in my area will do that. It's worked into the price. Granted I live in a very hilly area, but the advantage of having ballast just for lifting heavy loads alone makes it worth while, let alone the safety aspects.
    I asked several local dealers about that. The response? "Most people will have a box blade or brush hog or other rear implement in place, so ballast isn't needed." Not really the answer you (or I) would be looking for, but there you have it

  10. #10
    New Member rt1tractor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    13
    Location
    hampton
    Tractor
    51 farmall m ,

    Default Re: SX3100, anyone?

    Quote Originally Posted by Perplexed View Post
    The weight box would require the removal of the finish mower though, right? I'm experiencing tire slip while mowing with the finish mower on the ground and the FEL positioned a foot or two up. That's why I figured on detaching the FEL so the weight is shifted back over the rear tires.
    sorry, i assumed you had a mid mount mower , my fault , loading your tires would be your option , you do not need to completely fill the rear tires , just fill 1/4 to 1/2 , that should help with any slippage while keeping the weight down . Unless you have a soft lawn ,you probably are not going to see any impact with totally filled tires . just my thoughts

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Cub Yanmar SX3100 rear remote?
    By WITM in forum Yanmar (New)
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-11-2010, 12:11 PM
  2. New 2010 SX3100 Cub Cadet Yanmar Compact Tractor
    By EmerichSales in forum Yanmar (New)
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 02-21-2010, 10:47 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
© 2016 TractorByNet.com. TractorByNet is a registered trademark of IMC Digital Universe, Inc. Other trademarks on this page are the property of their respective owners.