A BX just isn't a B. You have to try it to know the difference.

[LBrown59]

Man there's some dislike of the BX's out there.
1* I've had GT's and my BX isn't even close to a GT.
It's perfect for my needs. I also had an 8N. It did it's job, but ripped the yard apart.

This is not a 1/4 acre tractor as some imply. Some of us just buy what we need, nothing more. I maintain 3 acres along with a 600+ foot road and a 300 foot driveway with it. It is perfect for me. I moved over 100 ton of gravel with it this year alone. Is it as fast as an AG? No. But my off-work time is free. So I really don't care.
2* This little thing is far more capable than I thought when I bought it, and given what I paid for it new, I expected alot.
Stop trashing the BX's. Good grief, we all have the same interests

1* I have a CC GT2554 garden tractor and A Kubota BX 1500 Sub Compact .
There is just no way to compare them with each other.
2*Probably does more than it should for what it is ; not less.

 

[LBrown59]

X748:

wt.--1180 (3pt & pto would push this past 1200--couldn't find wts for these options)
3 pt lift--450 @ 12" behind balls
tires--(f) 18x8.50-10 (r) 26x12-12
G.C.--unavailable (checked Owners Manual--not listed in specs)
Hydraulic flow--N/A-at 1 time it was listed in the specs, I believe 4.5-5 gpm

BX2360

wt.--1322
3pt lift--670 @ 24" behind balls
tires--(f) 18x8.50-12 (r) 26x12-12
G.C.--8.7"
Hydraulic flow--6.3 gpm

B2320:

wt.--1433 (DT), 1477 (HSD)
3pt. lift--1058 @ 24" behind balls
tires--(f) 6-12 (r) 9.5-16
G.C.--12.0"
Hydraulic flow--8.3 gpm

The X748 is rated to lift approx 40% of its shipping wt on the 3 pt, BX2360 rated to lift 50% of its shipping wt on 3 pt, B2320 rated to lift 70% of its shipping wt on the 3pt, L3240 rated to lift 77% of its shipping wt on 3 pt. For its wt. the BX's 3 pt and hydraulic specs are much closer to those of the X748 than to those of the B2320.

1*What is the legal distinction between utility type tractors and GTs?

1*I don't understand why you're throwing in another class [utility type ]here when none of the tractors being discussed are utility tractors.
I E (X jd series B or BX)
don't fit in the utility class. )

 

[Baucom]

LB--I asked the question about the legal distinction between GTs and utility type tractors in response to the post on the previous page refering to the legal requirement for ROPS being a definate class distinction between GTs and SCUTs since utility type tractors are legally required to be equipped with ROPS. I wanted to know what legal spec a SCUT meets that requires it to have ROPS vs a GT.

 

[LBrown59]

If this refers to my statement about SCUTs being overgrown GTs, then it's way out of context. I looked at BXs before I bought my GT. When I looked at it and sat on it, it reminded me of a JD X748, but with ROPS.
1*The biggest differences were the hydraulics and the BX being a much better value.
I won't go so far as to say that SCUTs will kill the premium large GT market (X700s, Legacy XL), but
2* a significant # of buyers opt for a SCUT when they realize that a mower like a Legacy XL or JD X700 with awd, diesel, 3 pt, pto, fel, is thousands of dollars more than a comparable BX.
3*In fact, a basic BX w/ MMM is not too much higher priced than a JD X540 and is a much more capable machine if anything more than cutting grass is desired. SCUTs meet their market segment perfectly, and it's the same segment of "estate" owners, hobby farmers, and gardeners that was targeted by JD 420/430 GTs 20-25 yrs ago. They can also be very handy on larger operations when a machine is needed to routinely work in tight spaces--
4*there are others that may do it better, but few/none are available at the price that offer the same versatility.

1* as well as a more heavy duty unit.
2* - 3*I bought 2 BX1500 tractors 2 48'' MMMs
A 48'' tiller and a 60'' hyd lift /angle front blade 15600.
A JD x 749 so euipped about 20 to 21 thousand and you only got one tractor .
4*For the money nothing beats them because at that price point the competion don't offer anything.

 

[rdsaustintx]

If this is a GT, try picking it up, by hand, and putting it in a pickup????

 

[jas67]

I call PHOTOSHOP!

Funny, nevertheless.

 

[RayCo]

Not that it's a GT, but it's also not Photoshopped.

 

[rdsaustintx]

I call PHOTOSHOP!

...and you're wrong

Don't remember the uploader, but he was loading the GT in a pickup. There is a strap to hold it level.

 

[LBrown59]

LB--I asked the question about the legal distinction between GTs and utility type tractors in response to the post on the previous page refering to the legal requirement for ROPS being a definate class distinction between GTs and SCUTs since utility type tractors are legally required to be equipped with ROPS. I wanted to know what legal spec a SCUT meets that requires it to have ROPS vs a GT.

I've seen that asked before.
What I haven'r seen is the answer.

 

[Volfandt]

LB--I asked the question about the legal distinction between GTs and utility type tractors in response to the post on the previous page refering to the legal requirement for ROPS being a definate class distinction between GTs and SCUTs since utility type tractors are legally required to be equipped with ROPS. I wanted to know what legal spec a SCUT meets that requires it to have ROPS vs a GT.

I don't know the legal distinction, I'm interested in the answer myself. It could be a combination of type of construction, weight, the std equipped options and perhaps even the manuf's own classification.
It could be that making the rear PTO & 3PH as options on the X7XX has a much to do w/keeping a little used feature on a GT as an option hense keeping the price down as well as keeping them clasified as GT's and not requireing the ROPS. Could be that the ROPS is only a part of the safety equation thats required of a utility type tractor. There could also be a specific frame size and construction type that a SCUT/CUT/UT must certify to that a GT doesn't.

Fact is, a utility type tractor HAS to be equipped w/a ROPS, no matter if it's a SCUT, CUT or UT. Thats a distinction thats NOT required of a GT, any GT.....

Is JD pushing the envelope w/the X7XX series? I sure think so, but why?
Monetarily wise they are no great bargain and the heavy weight of the larger 7XX series is actually a drawback when finish mowing comes into the equation.
Then one has to wonder why JD released the 2210/2305 SCUT's when they could have just as easily marketed the X7XX against the SCUT competition. Has to be more to it than listed capacities......

It would be interesting for someone to breakdown the frame size and weight differences between the largest GT and smallest SCUT.