Looking at used 1850's - its Charlie's fault!

[wasabi]

That used 2005 1850 seems like a good deal for the hours and what you get.
.

1850 package in Vermont has been sold. price not disclosed...

 

[Charlie_Iliff]

Aside from retrieving wayward trucks and tractors, have you found power of 1845 wanting?

Quite a number of times I've wished for more pulling power, but that isn't the PT's real function anyway. The 1845 has enough power to handle the steepest hills I have the courage to mow. Going straight up with the mower running must be done very slowly on the steepest parts, and it bogs if it is really steep and the grass heavy. With single tires, it is a tossup whether I run out of power or traction first. It depends on the surface. Turning off the mower, of course, gives me a bit more climbing ability without bogging, and I can mow on the way back down. I've never had to abandon a job because of lack of power. (Except lifting, of course, where I sometimes need a little more that a 1460. ) The rational part of me dictates that I don't need a machine that will go somewhere that the 1845 can't.

That being said, I'd prefer an 1850. Around my place, I'd probably find a lot of functions where the bigger machine would be clumsier, but I'd adapt. I drove to Tazewell to buy a 1430. Terry just stood and watched as I rationalized the step up to the 1845. Had I realized that it really was too big for my lawn and I needed to buy a separate lawnmower, I would probably still not have bought the 1850 because of the higher price. But for mowing pastures it certainly would be better. If my 1845 were beyond repair, I'd look for an 1850, particularly since my collection of attachments would fit.

 

[woodlandfarms]

I do love my 1850... But I wonder, with all the hydraulic loss, what is the true difference between the 45 and 50 when you break it down (JJ?). I guess even broken down it might be a 12 HP difference so justifiable.

The only thing that gets me about the 1850 is that the engine is probably too strong for the front lift. I do a lot of digging, and pushing, and I tend to be hard on the gear. The top link on my 1850 fails regularly and I am looking to upgrade it when I get home. Eventually, when the arms fail, I will re-jigger them into something more custom... A little more stout, a bit higher lifting weight, and a longer arm for higher lift.

Carl

 

[J_J]

Carl.

The 20 HP difference might be the difference in climbing ability. It also means you can run a bigger hyd motor. More hyd pump/GPM mean faster cylinder activation. Increase torque, depends on how flat the torque curve is.

As far as that top link extension, that is a bad design. Need thicker steel, and better geometry in the roll over/tilt. As far as the power, you should only use what you need. If what ever you lift, causes the back end to go up, there is your safe limit, but you could cheat by putting some weight on the back. Those cylinders can probably lift about 4 times what you load limit is.

 

[woodlandfarms]

I need to hear from other 1850 owners, but I can only attain very minor PT Pucker, actually seldom if ever.... One day I am going to do your barrel of water trick... See what I my PT can lift...

 

[Bob999]

My recollection is that Charlie has larger diameter tires (26" vs 23" on the dual wheel 1845) and I suspect that is a primary factor in the hill climbing capability he reports.

My reasoning is that the difference in slope capability between the 1845 and 1850 (40 vs 45 degrees) is a rating about cross slope capability--not the ability to climb up a 40 or 45 degree slope. I think the 1850 gets the greater slope capability because it is much wider (90" vs 72") and basically the same height. Put another way I think the difference in slope ratings has to do with tipping--not straight up climbing.

The mower on the 1850 is 90" compared to 72" on the 1845. The 1850 weighs more that the 1845. I think the extra 20 hp on the 1850 is needed to move the greater weight straight up a 45 degree slope while also powering the 90" mower under load.

For my situation the 72" width of the 1845 works much better than the 90" width of the 1850. Even with a 72" deck I found I needed to go an articulated deck to avoid scalping in some of the areas I mow.

 

[wasabi]

that's the tail wagging the dog.

 

[wasabi]

I do love my 1850... But I wonder, with all the hydraulic loss, what is the true difference between the 45 and 50 when you break it down (JJ?). I guess even broken down it might be a 12 HP difference so justifiable.

The only thing that gets me about the 1850 is that the engine is probably too strong for the front lift. I do a lot of digging, and pushing, and I tend to be hard on the gear. The top link on my 1850 fails regularly and I am looking to upgrade it when I get home. Eventually, when the arms fail, I will re-jigger them into something more custom... A little more stout, a bit higher lifting weight, and a longer arm for higher lift.

Carl

real time, real value experience at work. A defining comment. Danke!

 

[wasabi]

Even with a 72" deck I found I needed to go an articulated deck to avoid scalping in some of the areas I mow.

sounds logical but can you elaborate?

 

[woodlandfarms]

sounds logical but can you elaborate?

I do only rough cutting with the 90" deck so I have no scalping issues. It is a wide deck for fine cutting without some center articulation like a landscape mower that Bob mentioned...