Consumer Reports: Deere Tractor over Gravely ZTR?

[AFCBlink]

I have a rather challenging 1/2 acre lot--17 trees, front and rear driveways, two fenced areas, and hilly, with several retaining walls. My lovely wife is buying me a riding mower after 10 years of watching me spend 3-4 hours mowing it with a 21-inch walk-behind.

I'd wanted a ZTR for a long time, and my interest was piqued by a Cub Cadet RZT I saw at the local Tractor Supply. After educating myself by reading the great information this forum, I concluded that there were better choices out there. I short listed what I wanted--welded tubular frame, IZT trans, 38'-44" fabricated deck, something other than a Briggs engine, and a brand with a competent local dealer nearby.

The Gravely/Ariens 1640 (16 HP Kohler Courage, 40" 3-blade deck) met all my requirements, so I went by my local dealer last night after work. The dealer has it priced at $2999, which is three bills under the MSRP. I was pretty much sold at that point.

Upon returning home and checking the mailbox, however, I found my new edition of Consumer Reports with their review of riding mowers, of all things. They rated the Cub Cadet only a point or two higher than the Gravely, but also noted that the CC is one of the most trouble-prone brands, along with its MTD brethren. They really liked the Toro Timecutters, but they're well over a grand more--out of my price range--and still have EZT transmissions and stamped frames. So I'm still comfortable with my choice of the Gravely among ZTRs.

CR's recommendation, though, is to skip a ZTR and get a conventional mower. They said that the ZTR feature is not worth the extra money. They felt that the JD 125 is a better buy, easier to use, and cuts more cleanly. However, the 125 uses a stamped frame and deck, Briggs engine (granted, it IS a 20 HP V-twin), and given the complexity of my yard, I can't imagine that my mowing time would be anywhere close to what'd I'd save with a ZTR. On the other hand, the 125 is about half the price. What do you all think? Is it worth taking a closer look at a conventional Deere tractor, or should I stick with my choice of the Gravely ZTR?

 

[rockyridgefarm]

Forget Consumers Reports.

Find a good real dealer, and let them show you the machines. You may get to demo something at your yard. If it seems cheaply made, it probably is and won't hold up. Deere's 1-- series is meant to compete with the bargain brands, you aren't going to get a real heavy duty workhorse. But you do get a real dealer network with parts availability.

 

[MessickFarmEqu]

I'd sure question the intelligence of the person who wrote that article. If they recomended a tractor they clearly don't know what the point of a ZTR is.

 

[aesanders]

I would not put much merrit into the Consumer Reports reviews of lawn and garden equipment. Ask away here and other tractor sites and you will get much deeper understanding and knowledge of what is good and what is not.

Anyway, Briggs makes a fine engine. Their Vanguard line is equal to any top line engine. They are reliable and trouble free. You probably won't get a vanguard, but their other lines are fine as well.

I would rate the Gravley and Ariens machines at the top of the list for this range of ZTR's. They are well made machines. I would compare them to a similar priced tractor though. Something like a Simplicity Regent or Broadmore or John Deere 300x. Versatilty wise, you get more with the tractor. They will handle slopes better for the most part as well.
You could probably spend less and get a 100 series John Deere or something like a Husqvarna and have a good tractor for your yard though. I have a similar sized yard with some pretty good slopes and tons of trees and like a slightly larger tractor.

I've never understood why people will spend 3-4 k on a ztr and then want to compare them to a 1-2k tractor. Compare them at the same price level and see how you like he features of each.

 

[Dargo]

Many people want to dismiss the writings of Consumer Reports for various reasons, however, the frequency of repair ratings are derived directly from actual customers reporting problems with their machines. From several relatives I have who swear by Cub Cadet (because they always used to be good) have found that they are indeed one of the poorest quality machines available. I've mentioned before that one of my relatives has borrowed my trailer so many times to take his junk CC back to the dealer that he pretty well just gave it away and bought a more reliable brand. That terrible repair frequency is based on fact, not opinion.

What is based on opinion is Consumer Report's advice that they think that a conventional tractor will do the job for less money than a zero turn radius mower. If time means nothing to you, perhaps that is true. Otherwise, a ZTR may cut hours off of each mowing. I know it saves me about 2 1/2 hours each mowing by using ZTR mowers.

In general, if someone tells you that Consumer Reports is bogus because it reports the brand they are selling as being repair prone, I'd find a different dealer because that dealer is flay lying to you. Consumer Reports does not dream up their own repair history for each brand. That is directly from what actual owners of those brands report to Consumer Reports. Buy what you want, obviously, but if someone trying to sell you a Cub Cadet tells you that Consumer Reports lies about how poorly the Cub Cadet products hold up, I'd leave immediately. Besides reading it for years, I've had the unfortunate job of hauling several Cubs to and from dealers for relatives who bought them because they liked the looks of them and because they heard that the Cub Cadets used to be great machines.

 

[Bird]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( if someone tells you that Consumer Reports is bogus because it reports the brand they are selling as being repair prone, I'd find a different dealer because that dealer is flay lying to you )</font>

Maybe, but not necessarily so, unless you know more details. Suppose I buy a car that goes back to dealer 5 times for repairs or recalls, such as my Windstar did. Everything worked fine, but they (1) added an additional ground strap for the rear air-conditioner, (2) checked the trailer wiring for corrosion and put an anti-corrosive coating on it (I don't have a trailer hitch), (3) replaced the cover over the windshield wiper motor (don't know why since it worked fine), (4) replaced the front floor mats (looked just like the originals to me), and (5) replaced a seat belt buckle (I don't know what the difference was from the original). Now suppose you buy a different brand and blow the engine, stranded on the freeway, etc. Now mine has a repair frequency of 5 and yours only has one. Who got the better car? Well Consumer Reports will probably say you did, and will for sure say you did if yours was a Toyota. /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

I subscribed to Consumer Reports for awhile and dropped my subscription over 20 years ago when I realized what a waste of time it was. Well, recently they sent me an offer in the mail; one sample monthly magazine and two books and when you receive the bill, if you don't think it's worth it, to write "CANCEL" on the bill, return it, and keep the free books. I got the one magazine and the bill on the same day, and a note that the books were enroute. After reading last month's issue, I wrote "CANCEL" on the bill and returned it. Now a few days ago, I received the issue mentioned in this thread; still no sign of the books. And although I've read through the two issues, I don't even consider them worthwhile for recreational reading; much less to make a purchasing decision.

 

[Bob_Skurka]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">(
CR's recommendation, though, is to skip a ZTR and get a conventional mower. They said that the ZTR feature is not worth the extra money.)</font>

While I am not one to dismiss Consumer Reports as bunk, I will suggest that a tractor to a ZTR is an Apples-to-Oranges comparision.

How much is your time worth? A ZTR will mow substantially faster than a tractor. Some do good jobs, some average, some crummy jobs of mowing . . . but the same is true of small tractors.

There is no question that a ZTR costs more than a lawn tractor. There is no question they are more complicated. There is no question they are dedicated machines that do one job, but do it well.

But you pay for time savings. If you have all the time in the world and place no value on it, then by all means go buy the little lawn tractor. But if you don't want to live in your tractor seat, and if your goal is to mow your yard in LESS THAN 1/3 the time you currently spend, then buy the ZTR.

 

[Dargo]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( I don't even consider them worthwhile for recreational reading; much less to make a purchasing decision. )</font>

When old wives tales and irrational BS is more important than quantitative and reproducable facts, I'd have to agree. Myself, I'm more interested in true hard facts that are easily reproduced in lab results and real world results everytime. I suppose that is where we differ. It is human nature to try to say what a bargain you got on a cheap piece of junk and not admit that what you did was actually waste your money. When I have facts, proven over and over and over again that point to just the opposite of what you seem to want to believe, I just don't see things they way you want to see them. In my business, if I try to pass a turd off as something nice because I wasted my money on it, I would quickly be out of business. I base my decisions on facts that are able to be reproduced and are founded in facts that are easy to see. I'm not one to sit around drinking Bush beer and bragging what a great deal I got on my $98 Murray push mower and laugh at the guy across the street who has a quality Honda mower that cost him a little more. Life is too short for me to go along with the BS and to have to constantly work on junk.

Maybe you ought to buy Consumer Digest. They take advertising dollars and will say anything is the best thing on the market if you pay them enough. Personally, I don't care for that sort of stuff, but that's just me.

 

[5030]

Bird:

Is "recreational reading" referring to the periodicals on the tank of the water closet?? That's where the Consumer Reports, Northern Tool and Harbor Freight belong. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[Bird]

Who said that anyone considered "old wives tales and irrational" anything? And if you really believe that they are publishing "quantitative and reproducable facts", then I'd say you should go by their recommendations, and I certainly have no problem with that. I happen to believe what they are publishing is nothing more than certain individuals' opinions. And they are certainly entitled to their opinions. My problem (if you want to call it that) with them is for them to claim to know what's best for me. Obviously the rest of the populace doesn't necessarily agree with them, because if they did, those products they rate low in their opinion would not long exist. We all "evaluate" what we intend to buy, but what I consider to be important factors may not be what you consider important, and factors that Consumer Reports consider important may or may not correspond to either of our opinions.

I sometimes have my own opinion about what is best based on factors that I consider important to me. But I try to not pass off my opinions as fact.

You mention the fact that Consumer Reports bases their repair frequency ratings on actual consumer surveys. But what percentage of the owners of those products did they survey? I'm not sure, but wasn't it just their subscribers? Are those always statistically valid surveys? Now I'll admit that I don't know, but I doubt it.