Rotary Cutter Bush Hog quality???

[mousedoc]

Does anyone have any experience with the quality of Bush Hog products? I don't know anything about the brand. I'm considering a JD 855 with a Bush Hog 1845 QT loader, 48 rough cut mower and 60 rear blade. My biggest concern is the loader and how well it matches up to the JD 855
Thanks!

 

[Farmwithjunk]

Does anyone have any experience with the quality of Bush Hog products? I don't know anything about the brand. I'm considering a JD 855 with a Bush Hog 1845 QT loader, 48 rough cut mower and 60 rear blade. My biggest concern is the loader and how well it matches up to the JD 855
Thanks!

At one point, Bush Hog made some of Deere's OEM loaders. Bush Hog product quality is as good as anyone's and better than most.

 

[CumminsLuke]

I had a BushHog M346 loader, with a 72" quick tach bucket, and a quick tach bale fork on my old Kubota M4700. It was a heck of a good loader. Put 600 hrs on that tractor and loader and had no problems. That was my main feed tractor and I could pick up 5'x5' or 5'x6' bale up to 2,000lbs and set it any place I wanted it no problem. I have also run BushHog 3008 8' cutter, a 2615 15' cutter, and a 3615 15' cutter and they were also very good machines. So far as I am concerned, nobody makes a cutter besides BushHog.

 

[tcarter1]

I have the Bush Hog 2045 loader. No problems. It spec'd out a little stronger than the one Kubota matched to the L2800. I had a Bush Hog tiller. Great unit, tough as nails. Only reason I sold it was because it was too narrow for the new tractor.

 

[Gittyup]

I have a bush hog post hole digger. Very heavy. Works great. No problems. But, they do make one the next size down that uses shear pins that cost $9 each. Ouch! Mine uses a standard 35 cent bolt for the shear. Don't know why they chose to use a custom pin for the smaller one. I guess to make sure it is protected.

I also have a Bush Hog CS100-P (I think) shredder/chipper. That thing is awesome! Very well made. However, it is really made by Goossen. I think BH rebadges some products. Though it does appear that when they do, the products are still top-notch.

 

[Darren]

I use a 9' Bush Hog back blade on a 60hp tractor to bulldoze fill. The tractor gives up before the blade ever will. I've been impressed by how heavy the blade is built plus the options for adding hydraulics as needed.

 

[xlr82v2]

I'm sure there is someone out there who has had a problem (after all, they are human-designed, built with human hands machines, just like anything), but I think overall, if it says Bush Hog on it, you can sleep easy at night. Bush Hog doesn't make junk.

Probaby the worst thing about it is the paint probably doesn't match the tractor (which could be a deal breaker if you're like a couple of people I know )

 

[heymack]

I have a light duty BH shredder that I've put through **** shredding South Texas brush and it still works like new.

 

[JRobyn]

I have a piece of cr*p BH 286 cutter! The top deck on it is all gouged up from underneath and the only thing I did was mow a couple of big rocks! Plus, every time I use it, it gets incredibly FILTHY!! The front edge of the skids on the sides of it are worn too, and after only 4 years of use! Just can't find good quality stuff any more.

;-)

- Jay

 

[Doc_Bob]

FEL and Bush Hog, both work fine.
Bob

 

[Oleozz]

Have had a BH Squealer for 24 yrs and it works about as good as the day I bought it. I change the oil once a year and sharpen the blades now and then.

 

[N80]

Here's a slightly, but not completely off topic question. I hear people talk about getting 3rd party loaders that are spec'd higher than the OEM loader for that particular tractor.

I just assumed it was the hydraulics on the tractor that determined the spec's on a loader. I'm sure attachment geometry and arm/pin/pivot strength are important too, but I just assumed that the hydraulics were the limiting factor. Can you really get significantly better loader specs while using the same hydraulic system?

 

[john_bud]

Here's a slightly, but not completely off topic question. I hear people talk about getting 3rd party loaders that are spec'd higher than the OEM loader for that particular tractor.

I just assumed it was the hydraulics on the tractor that determined the spec's on a loader. I'm sure attachment geometry and arm/pin/pivot strength are important too, but I just assumed that the hydraulics were the limiting factor. Can you really get significantly better loader specs while using the same hydraulic system?

Yes, you can. The non-brand loaders will use slightly larger diameter cylinders. That gives a very noticable increase in force. Cylinder push force is ID area x psi.

Going from 2" ID to 2.25" ID doesn't seem like much, but at 2500 psi there is 2000# more force applied. Per cylinder. You don't get all that as increased load as only a fraction is in the lift direction.

 

[N80]

Interesting. Makes you wonder why the OEMs don't have larger cylinders if that is all it takes to take advantage of available psi? After all, the oems do compete with each other and if all it takes is a larger cylinder it seems odd that they don't push the cylinder size up.

But I'm also assuming (since I know nothing about hydraulics) that at some point enlarging the cylinder is going to result in diminishing returns (and maybe slower cycle times or decreased extension?). I just can't imagine why the oem wouldn't put the size cylinder that works best with the available psi.

 

[chh]

I've used a neighbors tractor with a bush hog loader and it seemed really well built and worked well moving round bales. You can eventually wear out one of their batwings if you run over enough 3" to 4" saplings and rocks with it.

 

[jdbower]

But I'm also assuming (since I know nothing about hydraulics) that at some point enlarging the cylinder is going to result in diminishing returns (and maybe slower cycle times or decreased extension?). I just can't imagine why the oem wouldn't put the size cylinder that works best with the available psi.

You're right that cycle times or extension (or both) may be impacted, the larger cylinder has a larger volume so it either takes longer to fill or they make it shorter to equalize the volume. Perhaps more importantly, I could put a loader on my little 2520 that can lift a small planet, but all that will happen is the loader will push my tractor around rather than the object.

It's my thought that the OEM loader specs are determined based on some equation that includes loader lift ratings, loader reach (no sense in a loader that can lift a lot but only 6" high), tractor mass, frame strength/longevity, and, of course, cost. You can tweak any of these parameters to be better, but you typically rob from one of the others to do so. How much extra loader power can you add by filling the tires and adding more ballast? I have no idea!

 

[3RRL]

.... I just can't imagine why the oem wouldn't put the size cylinder that works best with the available psi.

George,
I think they probably do.
I also think jdbower's explanation touches on it. I'm sure OEM's set up their loader recommendations taking those things into consideration. You wouldn't want the front end to collapse with too heavy a load for the tractor itself...or something like that.