$4000 to spend on lawn/light duty garden tractor

[oakford4]

LBrown,

The ground speed is important to me as about 1/2 of my property is a nice, smooth centipede grassy area. The balance is a cultivated, hydroseeded bumpy terrain. I'm really looking for the best of both (or three) worlds:
(1) ruggedness able to hold up to the above ground
(2) relatively good ground speed (and with a larger deck),
(3) ability to pull loads of stuff (dirt, stone, firewood) maybe adding up to around 500 lbs.

 

[LBrown59]

1* The best DEAL is the 3000 series Cub Cadet, 2* I personally would stretch my budget to get it.3* but you most recently asked what tractor offered the features you need without extra unneeded stuff,4* I'd have to say the 2500 series Cub probably fits your requirements the best.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

1*None of the other deals he has listed even come close. They can't touch it.
2*I'd hardly call $4100 for the 3100 stretching a $4000 budget.
3*N/C
4* The 2554 is $3900 the 3100 is $4100. This still makes the 3100 his best choice.
The $200 difference between the 2 tractors is about like 20 cents difference between 2 cans of beans at the supermarket.


http://www.hubcapcafe.com/i/2001/storycty/chev6001.JPG

http://chevy.tocmp.com/chevyscrapbook/files/kamp50.jpg

 

[Mike5252]

This may not happen terribly often, but I am in complete agreement with LBrown. 3150 all the way.

 

[Hard]

This may not happen terribly often, but I am in complete agreement with LBrown. 3150 all the way.

"complete agreement with LBrown" Good God Mike, are you feeling OK???? Maybe a visit to the doctor is in order. You may just need a little vacation..take care of yourself man.

 

[oakford4]

LBrown,

Hey, I'm new here, but I get the impression you kind of have a 'reputation' around these parts....

 

[AndyM]

LBrown,

Hey, I'm new here, but I get the impression you kind of have a 'reputation' around these parts....

Certainly not a bad reputation... just different.

 

[Fordlords]

I know I have said this before on other threads, but at risk of repeating myself, I'll go again, and here again only humble opinion. But if one is spending upwards of $3000 for a lawn/garden tractor, it should include shaft drive. If it is not considered a durability feature, then why do the high end Cubs and JD X700 series use it? There is quite a bit of engineering that goes in to a shaft drive system, and both the transaxle and deck on the CC3000's are shaft driven. The drive shaft on my old CC682 is indeed only about a half inch in diameter- yet when seen at plow days or pulling competitions, they are the favorite. There are also some small advantages to horizontal crankshaft engines that are used on tractors with shaft drive, along with having the shaft drive advantage. There are some good machines utilizing belt drive such as the Simplicity, but I can rest assure anyone that no tractor manufacturer is going to bother with utilizing shaft drive simply as a marketing ploy- there is just too much to it. -Fordlords-

 

[VA_Joe]

I know I have said this before on other threads, but at risk of repeating myself, I'll go again, and here again only humble opinion. But if one is spending upwards of $3000 for a lawn/garden tractor, it should include shaft drive. If it is not considered a durability feature, then why do the high end Cubs and JD X700 series use it? There is quite a bit of engineering that goes in to a shaft drive system, and both the transaxle and deck on the CC3000's are shaft driven. The drive shaft on my old CC682 is indeed only about a half inch in diameter- yet when seen at plow days or pulling competitions, they are the favorite. There are also some small advantages to horizontal crankshaft engines that are used on tractors with shaft drive, along with having the shaft drive advantage. There are some good machines utilizing belt drive such as the Simplicity, but I can rest assure anyone that no tractor manufacturer is going to bother with utilizing shaft drive simply as a marketing ploy- there is just too much to it. -Fordlords-

I don't really disagree with you on the fact that a shaft drive is more durable than a belt drive and it should be used on the higher end tractors. It represents, at the very least, a belt that never needs to be replaced (and they all need to be - sooner or later). What I am saying is that although the shaft is a nice to have - it should not be a deciding factor in favor of the 25xx. For the HP and torques being worked by these small gas engines the advantage of shaft vs. belt is minimal (mostly due to belt slip/stretch). This is especially true if the shaft is only used to drive an HST (as with the Cub 25xx) that is likely limited by max PSI and GPM to a horsepower and torque rating somewhat lower than the max output of the engine.

As far as marketing - the shaft drive is used by Cub as a differentiator in that particular class of small garden tractors and they go through great pains to point it out (including a rather large hump for such a small drive shaft). There is nothing wrong with this type of marketing - each of the manufacturers have their own ways of grabbing the consumers attention.

In my case - I think the Cub 2544 is a good mower and was a significantly better value (both performance and price) than the JD GT235 that it replaced. It neither chokes on heavy grass (like when I forget to mow for a week or two) nor does the chute plug up when vacuuming leaves. For that I am happy.

BTW - I saw the pictures of your restored CC682 - very nice work.

Joe

 

[Fordlords]

Here are the specs for the Tuff Torq transaxle on the Simplicity. It is aluminum and they refer to it as a, "Light duty garden tractor transaxle." (View the PDF)
Tuff Torq

IMHO it in no way compares to the cast iron bodied fully maintainable shaft drive transaxles on the Cub 2500-3000 tractors that are classed as heavy duty. The transaxle truly is the heart of a tractor, like a lot of others have stated most of the engines are very equal nowadays.

I've seen some belt drives give every bit as much go as shafts, especially on older John Deere 110, 112, and 200 series tractors. I just consider the shaft drive the, "step up." I guess CC touts it a lot in their marketing because they are the only manufacturer to use it on what are still moderately priced machines like the 2500's. To get the feature on a JD today, you are in to spending $10k+ for an X700. Years back it was a commonplace feature on midrange JD GT's such as the model 300. How times have changed

-Fordlords-

 

[VA_Joe]

Here are the specs for the Tuff Torq transaxle on the Simplicity. It is aluminum and they refer to it as a, "Light duty garden tractor transaxle." (View the PDF)
Tuff Torq

IMHO it in no way compares to the cast iron bodied fully maintainable shaft drive transaxles on the Cub 2500-3000 tractors that are classed as heavy duty. The transaxle truly is the heart of a tractor, like a lot of others have stated most of the engines are very equal nowadays.

I've seen some belt drives give every bit as much go as shafts, especially on older John Deere 110, 112, and 200 series tractors. I just consider the shaft drive the, "step up." I guess CC touts it a lot in their marketing because they are the only manufacturer to use it on what are still moderately priced machines like the 2500's. To get the feature on a JD today, you are in to spending $10k+ for an X700. Years back it was a commonplace feature on midrange JD GT's such as the model 300. How times have changed

-Fordlords-

Fordlords,

Thanks for the link - I did not realize that the tuff torq is designed to run off 10W30 motor oil. I had been buying the JD fluid (at significant mark-up) for my GT235 (which also used the tuff torq). I will need to check to see if this is true for the older models. Live and learn

BTW - It always amazes me how much output torque these small transmissions are capable of (of course considering the max forward speed is only 5 mph ...).


Joe