BX - Buyer's Remorse? Loader remorse, anyway.

[94BULLITT]

Well whats left after his editting is these quotes he made:
" can definitely say that the BX is just a hair better than useless when it comes to loader work"

"the BX tractor simply isn't enough machine to adequately perform with one, (a bucket) even as little as the bucket is."

"when you see a loader on a garden tractor, you can tell at a glance that it is primarily for looks, and that it is incapable of doing any real loader tasks. This is pretty much the case for the BX too"

"I fully expected it to be half as efficient as my big loader, as the bucket is roughly half the volume, but it is nowhere close to half as efficient - more like 1/5th."

"having to completely reconfigure your tractor to allow it to be even marginally effective is acceptable to you? It isn't to me"

And from another thread Jay stated : "threads like this always bring out the BX fans who think a BX is a real tractor...it isn't. It's a dandy lawn mower, and that is precisely why I bought one, but for doing any kind of real tractor work, you're p*ssing in the wind with a BX. I got a loader on mine, which is nice for carrying around bags of seed or a snowblower, but it is virtually useless for doing REAL loader work. I played with mine in a dirt pile for about 20 minutes then grabbed my 'L' - I had more work done with the first bucket load than the BX did in those 20 minutes" End of Jay quote

Then we have Jay boasts like:
"it would take me all of an hour to move 58 tons of material with my L4200, maybe two at the most"

"chuckling because I dug and moved more dirt in one day this past weekend with my loader than most of these "pros" have done in their lifetimes."

"then moved and graded 35 tri-axles of material - 20 for the drive (almost 500 tons) and 15 into the grounds (360 tons) - all with my loader. I actually wore out a bucket "

What I comes to is this , many of us on this tractor site come to share experiences learn tricks , and share our passion. But we also realise that our tractor is an investment and its value trade in or otherwise is determined by its reputation . Except when ignorant folks with little respect for what its capabilities are, diss it by comparing his 2002 BX to a tractor twice its size....a L model? ....it shows a lack of respect for his fellow tractor owners and perhaps even a lack of skill because he requires brute force instead of finesse. I know this much I am confident he could not do all the jobs I have completed with my tractor bucket in half time even with his L bucket almost twice the size?. Let alone his boast that he could do it in 1/5th the time?.. and I would do it on much much less fuel cost !!!

I don't have a loader on my BX but I could see were one would be handy at times. I wouldn't call one useless either.

I disagree about the BX being a garden tractor. The BX bridges the gap between a garden tractor and a compact.

I agree about the BX being somewhere around a 1/5 efficient as his L. My BX with a 5' blade will not come close to doing the as much work as the 4240 with a 7' blade in the same amount of time. The BX is slower than the 8N or Bobcat CT235 with a 6' blade by a long shot. I still really like the BX but you would think with the 5' blade it would be a maybe 50% slower than a larger tractor with a 7' blade but it is a lot slower. I'm not knocking the BX any SCUT would be the same, I'm just agreeing with Jay on the efficiency. I am amazed how much the little BX will push with the rear blade, it is just slow going.

I think what Jay was saying if you have some big jobs to do you need a big tractor. Now if a BX is all that fits in your budget and you have plenty of time it will do the job.

58 tons in a hour is stretching it.

He probably is right that he moved more material than what some people have in their lifetime. There are plenty of keyboard jockeys here.

I still don't see the bragging. He is just saying what he did.

I agree with your last statement up to the part about him comparing the BX to his L. What is wrong about that? You can compare my 4240 to a M135GX if you want. It won't hurt my feelings. My BX uses .5 gal a hour. The 4240 use .70-.75 GPH. If I can plow the snow off my driveway in 30 min with the 4240 and it takes 2 hours with the BX which one used more fuel?

Once I again I really like the BX. I think it is the best SCUT on the market.

 

[TomSeller]

All this talk about a BX makes me want to get one.

 

[dragoneggs]

I don't have a loader on my BX but I could see were one would be handy at times. I wouldn't call one useless either.

I disagree about the BX being a garden tractor. The BX bridges the gap between a garden tractor and a compact.

I agree about the BX being somewhere around a 1/5 efficient as his L. My BX with a 5' blade will not come close to doing the as much work as the 4240 with a 7' blade in the same amount of time. The BX is slower than the 8N or Bobcat CT235 with a 6' blade by a long shot. I still really like the BX but you would think with the 5' blade it would be a maybe 50% slower than a larger tractor with a 7' blade but it is a lot slower. I'm not knocking the BX any SCUT would be the same, I'm just agreeing with Jay on the efficiency. I am amazed how much the little BX will push with the rear blade, it is just slow going.

I think what Jay was saying if you have some big jobs to do you need a big tractor. Now if a BX is all that fits in your budget and you have plenty of time it will do the job.

58 tons in a hour is stretching it.

He probably is right that he moved more material than what some people have in their lifetime. There are plenty of keyboard jockeys here.

I still don't see the bragging. He is just saying what he did.

I agree with your last statement up to the part about him comparing the BX to his L. What is wrong about that? You can compare my 4240 to a M135GX if you want. It won't hurt my feelings. My BX uses .5 gal a hour. The 4240 use .70-.75 GPH. If I can plow the snow off my driveway in 30 min with the 4240 and it takes 2 hours with the BX which one used more fuel?

Once I again I really like the BX. I think it is the best SCUT on the market.

I can't see having a BX without a loader! Efficiency? Of course you can do more work in the same amount of time with a bigger machine... duh! But a big machine sometimes can't do what a little machine can in some cases no matter what... and some of us need a little machine to get into tight spaces, not to mention being able to afford it, maintain it, park it, etc. A little machine can do most of what a bigger machine can do but yeah it might take 5 times as long... okay. Sure there are weight limitations so for some commercial work the BX just can't do it. Touché'

Today I attacked a huge debris pile on my modest property with my BX. My useless loader moved a half dozen stumps to the burn pile. I have to say to those that don't understand that a BX or other color SCUT isn't a useful tool... you are quite ignorant. Not saying a SCUT is or isn't for you but please don't dismiss them when obviously the sales numbers prove otherwise.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NG7G1G5-_Fw

 

[Deerherd]

So let's all just agree, it's a capable machine for it's size. And for those who need a small machine to fit in small places, get through a certain size gate, storage, Swiss army knife abilities etc it fill's the bill quite nicely.

For those of us looking to buy a smaller machine that don't have the space restrictions it has a couple of shortcomings.

Jay did bring up a good point when he asked about why the tires had to be so small. The one I had dropped off to try had really small front tires. Roger said that on the newer versions the wheels were smaller and I should try and lower the pressure.

The small tires give the machine a rough ride, especially if one of the main duties you have in mind is mowing. On my property that is very wet I easily got it stuck, twice. I think the ride quality and traction could be vastly improved with a better set of wheels/tires.

Again, for those of us who aren't restricted by actual physical size, the main sticking point for me was price. Add up the FEL, mower and backhoe and it's pretty pricy. I can buy a larger more capable machine for not much more money.

And sorry if I came off like the safety police. A friend of mine lost his 10 year old grandson who was driving his golf cart on his property. Got a little too close to a culvert and rolled the cart into the ditch. I have two grandsons and can't imagine the hurt he goes through every day. Enjoy your tractors and be safe.

 

[k0ua]

All this talk about a BX makes me want to get one.

I know, They look useful to me. I would like to have a BX25D. Mostly for little yard work. My big tractor works for this, but there are times when a little one would be handier. I would much rather have my Kioti for when I built these flat areas on my property, and placed hundreds of tons of fill. Yes I said hundreds of tons. I don't even want to add up all the money I have spend on fill in the last few years. When I had my tractor barn built, the pad cost a lot more than the building in the cost of the fill. Of course I racked up some hours pretty quick on the DK35se too. Of course I have no illusions that a BX would move fill rock at the rate my Kioti does, but I would not expect it too either. And a 928 Cat loader would make my Kioti look like a toy too. It is all relative. Proper tool for every job and all of that.

 

[GBOUTDOORS]

Jay4200 nice looking place you have there. I still think my trench looks better than yours though must be the two different tractors we used. The driveway is made of 10 trailer loads of Quahog shells and all put down with the BX. I know your right it would have been much faster with a bigger tractor but I do not need a bigger one to do what I do the BX2360 fits my needs to a tee. I am sorry you have had such a dismal experience with yours and it's good you are telling EVERYONE about it. But I can say for me it has worked out GREAT .

 

[dodge man]

You can't put bigger tires on them or they start hitting the mower deck. Sure you could design the tractor to have bigger tires but then it starts looking like a B sized tractor and they already make one of those.

 

[Jay4200]

Jay4200 nice looking place you have there. I still think my trench looks better than yours though must be the two different tractors we used. The driveway is made of 10 trailer loads of Quahog shells and all put down with the BX. I know your right it would have been much faster with a bigger tractor but I do not need a bigger one to do what I do the BX2360 fits my needs to a tee. I am sorry you have had such a dismal experience with yours and it's good you are telling EVERYONE about it. But I can say for me it has worked out GREAT .

Agree on the looks of the trench - you must've actually snapped a line or something - is it long or an optical illusion? Mine is about 120 feet in the picture. I could've used the teeny bucket for my drain though, as well as for a slew of buried pipes I'm planning on this coming summer - while my 9' hoe is perfect for ripping out the boulders I have everywhere, my 16" bucket is too wide for drain pipes - moving twice the material I need to. Nice place you have there though - I really like the look of the shell-drive from the air.

 

[GBOUTDOORS]

The trench is 110' from house to the shed/barn to carry 1-3" sch. 40 pipe and 1-1 1/2" sch. 40. I love the look of the driveway and so do all the neighbors as I get asked all the time about how to do it and what the upkeep is like. Cape Air pilots also seems to like it as well as the pilots from Otis Air base since we put all the shells over the gravel all the flights come straight over the house coming from the Cape and islands to New Bedford and back.

No line snapped for the digging of the trench just many many years on many jobs of all types of equipment. I hate to say it but none as FUN as the BX

 

[dodge man]

One thing this thread has done for me is make me feel I need a backhoe again.