Traction bx2200 traction

TresCrows · Apr 2, 2001

Well, I guess I will stay on my rock I picked. Opinion of the dealer is always important to a purchase--I know that I relied heavily on mine. My problem is there is no formula for determining productivity or " ____times the tractor" comparisons. If there is a formula I would like to see it. I have used a 7500 with the very same boxblade I have on my BX--performance for all practical purposes was the same. The 7500 weighs 67 lbs more than a BX, mostly from larger wheels and tires and slightly heavier engine so it cannot be--cannot be-- built more heavily than a BX because old man Gravity does not lie. There are two nurseries here with a BX. For mowing in tight areas and on hills the BX is 2.5 times the 7500 and 1.2 times the 2410 and for loader work the BX is .75 times a 7500 and .5 a 2410 and for boxblade work it is a factor of 1.0 compared to the 7500, okay, maybe 97.99. Now when JD intros their little sub tractor/giant GT/ small utility tractor/w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif / subcompact we can really get into dividing and multiplying. I suspect green paint is worth (2X) alone /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif. Oh well, I have beat up on this enough--opinons are opinions and everyone has a right to theirs. I am just a mean ol'BX guy always pickin' on people--I am ashamed. J

fishman · Apr 2, 2001

Trescrows,

You make a good point re: "built heavier". When you have similar weight with a smaller engine and smaller tires, where is the weight coming from if it isn't from structural components? I would find it hard to believe that Kubota would add weight without it materially increasing strength.

Steve Carver,

I appreciate your input a lot, and by the way the new website is great. Would you address the issue of structural integrity vs. weight? Perhaps you were referring to FEL or box blade construction? Your recent post at first seems to indicate that the BX is very well built and the equal of other Kubota tractors in terms of quality and durability, but the end of your post seems to contradict that. I know that the BX series hasn't been around long, but I'm going to put you on the spot. What is your professional opinion of the structural integrity of the BX series as compared to the B series? Try to forget that there are a lot of BX owners out there who are going to look at this thread. /w3tcompact/icons/wink.gif

TresCrows · Apr 3, 2001

If the BX had bigger wheels and tires we would not be having this discussion or many of the others but then guess what--all we would have then is a 22 horsepower version of a 7500. I am like a junk yard dog with a new bone and just cannot quit chewing on this till all the gristle is gone. To put it bluntly there ain't squat difference in the structural integrety of a BX and a 7500 for practicle purposes or a 7400 which weighs a tad less than a BX. I think Kubota made a tractor with small tires to provide a choice--stability and manuverability vs smoother ride in the rough and slight advantage in tire contact area. I like having choices and I also like facts, not opinion which is so personal it has little relavence. J

70boss · Apr 5, 2001

I just test drove 3 new Kubota tractors. Finally found someone with all models in stock. I drove the BX2200, B7500, and a left over B7300. I didn't bother driving the 2410,2710, or 2910 since from the intial appearance I ruled them out as too big for my situation. The perfect blend of size and clearance for my situation was the B7300, but I think I have settled on the B7500. The BX is a nice little tractor, but I have fears of getting stuck in the snow, mud, or getting stuck in woods with the low ground clearance. It seems that the front axle where the MFWD parts are could be succeptible to rock damage as well. As far as being built similar, the frame rails are the same it appears, but the engine and trans casings are used differently in the BX2200. On the BX, the steel frame is full length, on the B7500 and up, the heavy iron castings are used on the middle section of the tractor. I think some of the controls looked cheaper on the BX. I also did not care for the single hydro pedal. My guess is the new JD, and NH will improve upon the already terrific BX2200. Has anyone actually weighed the different machines?? Like loader weights the brochure info is sometimes different between different products. As far as being " no different than a 7500" as was stated earlier, I think you should crawl around and look a little closer.

TresCrows · Apr 5, 2001

Great 70boss that you have a new toy. I hope it works out well for you. Yes, the use of the castings in the center section appear to be needed to prevent frame buckling with the larger loaders. I figure the engineers accounted for such things as intended use and sized things accordingly putting the "beef" where they thought it was needed. With the 2410 I notice that with the loader it appears needed to use a cross over bar and also tie into the grill guard (maybe wrong about that) The grill guard is also very heavy duty. I would not count to heavy on JD improving on the BX as their 455 already sells for more than a BX in some areas. That company has real problems with marketing and product delievery on the low end stuff. Now that Fiat owns New Holland or whoever bought them (is that just a rumor ??--hope so) if that is the case things will not get better for them, hope I am incorrect in that. Good luck with the new tractor, hope it gives you much satisfaction as my BX has me for years to come. Now, go move some dirt. J

70boss · Apr 5, 2001

Tres,
I am still deciding. I have owned my 63 acres for almost a year now, and I still have not bought the right tractor. I have studied, researched, read all of TBN and Jplan posts, and am finally going to get something this month. The only reason I think I have ruled out the BX series is the clearance issue. Getting out of my steep 750 foot nightmare of a driveway is priority #1. The clearance is my biggest concern. As for value for the BX still seems to be high on my list as I put together quotes. It comes out $2-3000 less!. I wanted to give an unbiased, non-kubota owners opinion on the subject. My gut feeling is that if I buy the BX, I will want a larger machine in a couple years, where the B7500 will fill the need for a longer term.

GlueGuy · Apr 5, 2001

70boss,

I think if you check with Kubota you will find that the weights of the tractors is w/o wheels (for sure the B7500; not so sure about the BX). So the 65# difference between the BX and B7500 does not count the wheels.

I know for a fact that my B7500 (filled tires) + FEL (LA302) + Woods Box scraper comes in at ~~3200 pounds. When I engage the box scraper it pulls an enormous amount of material, and it literally "boils" over the top if I get too aggressive. However, like you, I was concerned about clearance; our "yard" (and that is a figurative term if ever there was one) has holes in it that are deeper than the clearance on the BX. The BX "might" be better on the hill, but I don't think I would try either the BX or the B7500 on parts of it./w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif

Sometime I will post pictures to give you all an idea.... Our property is about 40 acres with an elevation delta of about 1000' from the top to the bottom. Go 30' south from our living room, and you won't stop until you've rolled down 800' (vertical), and 600' (horizontal). The only "tractor" that might be able to negotiate the "hill" is something with tracks...

The GlueGuy

TresCrows · Apr 6, 2001

70boss, I thought you had already bought it. Oh, with 63 acres I agree you might need something more like a 2410 or 2710--as stated before I am no expert on such things.
Glue guy---I think the weight of the BX is calculated the same way it is for other Kubota tractors. The soil/dirt etc also boils over in my boxblade when I get to aggressive and the BX pulls it easily in 4WD but I am sure it is smaller and lighter than your Woods. Anyway, I did ask the dealer way back and he did not know how the weight was figured--looking at the brochure for the B series it lists standard tires as the ag type and weight with ROPS as 1367. This is exactly how weight is listed for the BX except for turf tires standard I think and that is 1300. Anyway it seems regardless of visual differences the majority of the weight of a 7500 with the 302 FEL and the Woods boxblade are from those implements, my BX weighs about 2210 lbs dry with box blade and FEL. The torque as shown in a chart from another poster is very close to that of the 7500 and the PTO horsepower is 16.7 also close to the 7500. Still I say they are very close in power and traction with a slight edge to the 7500 especially when equipped with the heavier FEL and etc. I also think and it is opinion--that any tractor much larger than a BX is going to damage a lawn and to some of us that is important.
70boss, good luck then with your decision. J

huckflynn · Apr 6, 2001

I have a steep 420' driveway -- and just came through my first winter season with the BX2200 handling the snow removal. I'm in upstate NY and it was a relatively snowy winter here. The BX2200 with snowblower performed like a champ. No traction problems -- and no snow removal problems. I actually began to looked forward to snowstorms this past winter.

My only complaint with the BX is the stiff ride when mowing. I have 5 acres on a hillside and some stretches of lawn (pasture) get rutted from spring runoff. I need to find a better seat. The tractor handles the '60 deck at full speed -- but my back doesn't handle the ride.

Huck

jsace · Apr 6, 2001

70boss,

I started out looking at the Bx series. I just took delivery of a B7500. I thought Bx felt a little shorter in the operator area and the taller B7500 would be better for fel operations. So far the B7500 seems to be a great machine! I also bought a few more attachments. 52" tiller, box blade, FEL, front mount snow blower & a curtis cab with heater.

Jim