Santiago
New member
I'm trying to decide between a 2015 and a 2615. Which is more bang for the buck? I see lots of 2015s out there but not too many 2615s.
Mahindra 2015 v 2615
- Thread starter Santiago
- Start date
- Views: 7512
-
- Tags
- mahindra 2015
Charlie_in_TX
Gold Member
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2002
- Messages
- 480
More details. How do you plan to use? How much land?
imported_MiserblOF
New member
From what I've seen, the 2615 offers a lot more bang for the buck. In the gear versions, the 2615 has a continuous live PTO, which the 2015 doesn't. It has more power and weight, for more traction. The one thing the 2015 has to its advantage (for me) is that it is more compact, that and the lower weight would be plus factors for mowing. I think the 2615 can run a 72 inch mower, which I don't believe the 2015 can do, at least not optimally. The 2615 also can handle a wider range of PTO implements, if the minimum pto horsepower recommended on them is for real.
In the Hydro versions, the 2615 offers a serious increase in PTO horsepower.
For my own purposes, I've decided on the 2615 gear, if I go with Mahindra, though Deere and Kubota still are in the running. I think these dealers are going to get very tired of seeing me next spring when I will really go to work on the decision, which I have put off for yet another winter LOL.
In the Hydro versions, the 2615 offers a serious increase in PTO horsepower.
For my own purposes, I've decided on the 2615 gear, if I go with Mahindra, though Deere and Kubota still are in the running. I think these dealers are going to get very tired of seeing me next spring when I will really go to work on the decision, which I have put off for yet another winter LOL.
Bob_Skurka
Super Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2003
- Messages
- 7,615
For what it is worth, I would never consider running a 72" mower deck on a 26hp tractor. Nor would I consider running a 60" mower deck on a 20hp tractor. Depending on your grass, the general rules of thumb that get bantered about are that you want between 3 & 5 PTO hp per 12" of mower deck. I say that depends on your grass because in arrid desert conditions grass is pretty sparce, in the midwest grass can get really thick and lush so if you are on the thick side, you need more PTO hp per foot of mower deck. So, for a 60" deck you would need at least 15 PTO hp and up to 25 PTO hp, while on a 72" finish mower you'd be looking for 18 PTO hp up to 30 PTO hp. I think realistically, something about 18 to 19 PTO hp is going to be adequate for a 60" deck in MOST conditions, and something in the area of 23/24 PTO hp is going to be adequate for a 72" deck. Bogging down a diesel engine is much harder on the engine than running it for long periods at full speed. I dismiss the lower range as not powerful enough in even semi-lush conditions. So for me, I want adequate power to run my implements without bogging down the engine and causing damage and premature death of the power plant.
I would much rather error on the consevative side than replace a tractor years before it is due. I think people often buy tillers that are too large for their machines, but realistically you use a tiller for a couple hours a year and you use a mower deck a couple hours a week, so the potential for bogging down the engine with a mower deck is much greater than with some other implements.
I would much rather error on the consevative side than replace a tractor years before it is due. I think people often buy tillers that are too large for their machines, but realistically you use a tiller for a couple hours a year and you use a mower deck a couple hours a week, so the potential for bogging down the engine with a mower deck is much greater than with some other implements.
johnsonauto
Silver Member, Approved Advertiser
<font color="blue"> So, for a 60" deck you would need at least 15 PTO hp and up to 25 PTO hp, while on a 72" finish mower you'd be looking for 18 PTO hp up to 30 PTO hp. </font>
Well then a 60" mower on a 2015 should be ok being it has 16 pto hp and a 2615 with a 72" at 21.1 hp both in HST.
- The 2015 will handle a 60" without any issues, i have used it on tall thick grass with no bogging.
- As far as dollar for dollar, you cant campare the 2015 to the 2615 as they are different size chasis. if you need a smaller tractor the 2015 is the way to go. If a little larger( wider, heaveir, more lift capacity) is needed the 2615 is a nice tractor, as well is the 3015 also, which is about the same size as the 2615.
- Good luck with your purchase, either is a great choice.
Well then a 60" mower on a 2015 should be ok being it has 16 pto hp and a 2615 with a 72" at 21.1 hp both in HST.
- The 2015 will handle a 60" without any issues, i have used it on tall thick grass with no bogging.
- As far as dollar for dollar, you cant campare the 2015 to the 2615 as they are different size chasis. if you need a smaller tractor the 2015 is the way to go. If a little larger( wider, heaveir, more lift capacity) is needed the 2615 is a nice tractor, as well is the 3015 also, which is about the same size as the 2615.
- Good luck with your purchase, either is a great choice.
Bob_Skurka
Super Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2003
- Messages
- 7,615
Again, the numbers I threw out there are numbers that have been repeated on this site, but I have yet to find a manufacturer that advocates 3 hp per 12" of deck.
Most of the major tractor manufacturers are recommending nothing larger than a 60" deck for a tractor with 18 to 19 PTO hp. And they are recommending 72" decks on tractor that have roughly 25 PTO hp. Perhaps they are being too cautious, but PERSONALLY I'd rather not subject my tractors to loads like that on a regular basis. Maybe I'm just a wimp about it, but I'm not willing to exceed the manufacturers recommendations for implement sizes. Again, that is just my opinion.
Most of the major tractor manufacturers are recommending nothing larger than a 60" deck for a tractor with 18 to 19 PTO hp. And they are recommending 72" decks on tractor that have roughly 25 PTO hp. Perhaps they are being too cautious, but PERSONALLY I'd rather not subject my tractors to loads like that on a regular basis. Maybe I'm just a wimp about it, but I'm not willing to exceed the manufacturers recommendations for implement sizes. Again, that is just my opinion.
magnethead
New member
My 2615HST was delivered yesterday with FEL and industrial tires. Cost $14,400 before taxes. Did some bush hogging this morning with a 5 footer from KK. Some of the stuff was over 5ft tall, tractor never missed a beat. Also, moved some rocks in the 500-600 lb range - no problem. Previous tractor 8N.
Charlie_in_TX
Gold Member
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2002
- Messages
- 480
Bob, I have heard the same 5hp per ft rule of thumb. I have always heard it applied to hogs. Finish mowers can usually be a foot larger. Further, with HST, the operator can keep the optimum speed to just not bog the motor.
Look at it this way, lets say we are talking about a 20hp @ pto tractor with HST. In one cofiguration it has a 4ft finish mower. Going thru a particular type of grass the max speed before bogging is 10ft/sec. The work the machine will do is 40sq ft/sec. Now you take the same tractor and put a 8ft finish mower on it. It will now only go 5ft/sec for 40sq ft/sec. In short, the measure of work that a tractor can perform is defined by the 20hp. The measure of work done by the tractor is the sq footage cut in a period of time. Sence the hp of the tractor doesn't change with cutter width, neither will the sq footage it will cut.
This only works for a hst tractor. I had a Ford 8N. I believe it was rated at 25hp at the pto. I currently have a 2615 rated at 21hp. With a 6ft finish mower on each, the 2615 does the same job (mow my near 7 acres) in 30-50% less time. The gear tractor can not be kept just short of bogging. The hst can easily.
Look at it this way, lets say we are talking about a 20hp @ pto tractor with HST. In one cofiguration it has a 4ft finish mower. Going thru a particular type of grass the max speed before bogging is 10ft/sec. The work the machine will do is 40sq ft/sec. Now you take the same tractor and put a 8ft finish mower on it. It will now only go 5ft/sec for 40sq ft/sec. In short, the measure of work that a tractor can perform is defined by the 20hp. The measure of work done by the tractor is the sq footage cut in a period of time. Sence the hp of the tractor doesn't change with cutter width, neither will the sq footage it will cut.
This only works for a hst tractor. I had a Ford 8N. I believe it was rated at 25hp at the pto. I currently have a 2615 rated at 21hp. With a 6ft finish mower on each, the 2615 does the same job (mow my near 7 acres) in 30-50% less time. The gear tractor can not be kept just short of bogging. The hst can easily.
Bob_Skurka
Super Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2003
- Messages
- 7,615
Charlie, to some extent I will agree with you and what you wrote. HST is really the ticket for mowing quickly compared to gear, and you can keep the tractor from bogging down by slowing down.
HOWEVER, the one place I will depart is that we all have our own turf conditions, and that said, someone with thick turf may end up driving so slow in areas that they could actually mow faster with a smaller (more correctly sized) mower deck. The square footage arguement you state makes some sense, but a smaller sized deck will have less initial blade tip contact and therefore will be able to run faster through more of the lawn (or all of the lawn) and while the width may be narrower, the net effect may actually be less overall cutting time, and far more importantly virutally nill possibility of bogging down the engine and causing engine damage. Further, a properly sized deck will require less basic hp to run becuase it is running slightly less mass and the tractor is hauling less mass as well, so more useable hp is available to the blade tips of the properly sized deck which allows the tip speed to be kept up to optimal speed with less load on the engine.
I have areas of my property where the lawn is reclaimed pasture, the soil is clay and even when it gets tall, it never gets thick. No chance of bogging my tractors down on that area. I have other areas where the grass is very thick, lush and mixed with clover, I bog down my 60" deck (19pto hp) if I let it get too long (about 6 or 7").
Properly sizing ANY implement is important to the longevity of the engine. Using your arguement, which again I agree with IN THEORY but not in practice, I could easily hook up a 10' Bat Wing mower deck and simply run the tractor in creeper speed. I can't say that would be a practical thing to do.
HOWEVER, the one place I will depart is that we all have our own turf conditions, and that said, someone with thick turf may end up driving so slow in areas that they could actually mow faster with a smaller (more correctly sized) mower deck. The square footage arguement you state makes some sense, but a smaller sized deck will have less initial blade tip contact and therefore will be able to run faster through more of the lawn (or all of the lawn) and while the width may be narrower, the net effect may actually be less overall cutting time, and far more importantly virutally nill possibility of bogging down the engine and causing engine damage. Further, a properly sized deck will require less basic hp to run becuase it is running slightly less mass and the tractor is hauling less mass as well, so more useable hp is available to the blade tips of the properly sized deck which allows the tip speed to be kept up to optimal speed with less load on the engine.
I have areas of my property where the lawn is reclaimed pasture, the soil is clay and even when it gets tall, it never gets thick. No chance of bogging my tractors down on that area. I have other areas where the grass is very thick, lush and mixed with clover, I bog down my 60" deck (19pto hp) if I let it get too long (about 6 or 7").
Properly sizing ANY implement is important to the longevity of the engine. Using your arguement, which again I agree with IN THEORY but not in practice, I could easily hook up a 10' Bat Wing mower deck and simply run the tractor in creeper speed. I can't say that would be a practical thing to do.
TBrown
Silver Member
I'm not going to argue theory with either of you, but...
I have a 2015 HST with a 60" RFM. It doesn't seem to matter if the grass is 3" high or 6" high, the tractor does not bog down when mowing. Due to rainy days and my schedule, I had to wait two and a half weeks between mowings last time and my lawn was looking pretty shaggy, it made no difference whatsoever. The limiting factor on how fast I can mow seems to be whether or not I can stay in the seat. The tractor and mower suit each other to a 'T'. I cannot believe anyone would suggest its too large for the tractor.
Now if you're talking about 20hp gasoline powered L&G tractors, I'd agree wholeheartedly, a 60" deck is too big.
I seem to recall that someone in the Kioti forum ran a 60" hog behind their CK20HST. I would think that would asking a bit too much.
Santiago, I waffled between the 2015 and the 2615 as well, ultimately I chose the smaller tractor because I would be finish mowing. For the tasks you've mentioned, I think I'd want the larger tractor. IMO, for a little more money you get alot more tractor with the 2615.
Of course, for just a little bit more than that you can move up to the 3015, and for a little more than that....
/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
I have a 2015 HST with a 60" RFM. It doesn't seem to matter if the grass is 3" high or 6" high, the tractor does not bog down when mowing. Due to rainy days and my schedule, I had to wait two and a half weeks between mowings last time and my lawn was looking pretty shaggy, it made no difference whatsoever. The limiting factor on how fast I can mow seems to be whether or not I can stay in the seat. The tractor and mower suit each other to a 'T'. I cannot believe anyone would suggest its too large for the tractor.
Now if you're talking about 20hp gasoline powered L&G tractors, I'd agree wholeheartedly, a 60" deck is too big.
I seem to recall that someone in the Kioti forum ran a 60" hog behind their CK20HST. I would think that would asking a bit too much.
Santiago, I waffled between the 2015 and the 2615 as well, ultimately I chose the smaller tractor because I would be finish mowing. For the tasks you've mentioned, I think I'd want the larger tractor. IMO, for a little more money you get alot more tractor with the 2615.
Of course, for just a little bit more than that you can move up to the 3015, and for a little more than that....
/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
Charlie_in_TX
Gold Member
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2002
- Messages
- 480
I would also say the 2615. Have you looked at the xx10 series? They are heavier and more utilitarian machine. The 2310 may be just what you need.
imported_MiserblOF
New member
Bob, I don't pretend to be an expert, not even owning a tractor myself, but the sizes of mowers I mentioned were the ones that the local dealers seem to advocate with the particular machines mentioned. Also, since I lean toward gear machines rather than the hydros, the PTO hp ranges are not far from those you mention.
The only ballpark I can use as a guestimate is the 12 horsepower Wheelhorse we currently use. It has a 42 inch deck. Now, I ballpark the pto horsepower at the belts of this machine to be about 8, with the other four being used to move the 600 pound machine and the 200 pound me, and some lost to the belt drives. This is a ratio of better than 5 to 1, and this machine has NEVER bogged down in my experience, not even in 18 inch high, thick grass. The limiting factor on this machine has always been the sheer volume of stuff that the deck can process at any time, which results in the need to use a lower gear in the real heavy stuff. This wouldn't even be an issue if it were a rear discharge deck. Of course, I don't go through the really thick three foot stuff in sixth gear with this machine, but when I do, I realize that it isn't really even supposed to be cutting this stuff, which it somehow does with a couple extra passes to get the ones that bridged the deck completely the first time over. When cutting really out-of-control (but still lawn type grass) of the kind that one gets in summer places where you can't get there every week, and weather doesn't even allow cutting every two or three weeks sometimes, the larger deck would be a big advantage because, the 14 inch blades and housing, while capable of cutting just about any grass, are not wide enough to let some of the tall stuff pop up into the mower.. thus a 72 inch deck would be a big boost, allowing anything (roughly) 18 or 20 inches tall to easily get sucked up into the thing.
Kubota sells their 22 HP machines with 60 inch decks, and I believe the 2015 gear has more PTO hp than those machines. Likewise, the Deere machines in the 26 horsepower range tend to be sold with 72 inch decks here.
In all honesty, when you start going to 30 HP tractors, the weight of the tractor itself would seem to make finish mowing kind of chancey, and defeat the purpose of buying one for using with the 72 inch deck.
Anyway, it's good to hear different ideas here. Certainly will help me in my decision.
The Woods Equipment site recommends tractors of 16 to 35 hp. for both its 60 and 72 inch rear finish mowers. (I am assuming that means PTO, but it doesn't say.)
The only ballpark I can use as a guestimate is the 12 horsepower Wheelhorse we currently use. It has a 42 inch deck. Now, I ballpark the pto horsepower at the belts of this machine to be about 8, with the other four being used to move the 600 pound machine and the 200 pound me, and some lost to the belt drives. This is a ratio of better than 5 to 1, and this machine has NEVER bogged down in my experience, not even in 18 inch high, thick grass. The limiting factor on this machine has always been the sheer volume of stuff that the deck can process at any time, which results in the need to use a lower gear in the real heavy stuff. This wouldn't even be an issue if it were a rear discharge deck. Of course, I don't go through the really thick three foot stuff in sixth gear with this machine, but when I do, I realize that it isn't really even supposed to be cutting this stuff, which it somehow does with a couple extra passes to get the ones that bridged the deck completely the first time over. When cutting really out-of-control (but still lawn type grass) of the kind that one gets in summer places where you can't get there every week, and weather doesn't even allow cutting every two or three weeks sometimes, the larger deck would be a big advantage because, the 14 inch blades and housing, while capable of cutting just about any grass, are not wide enough to let some of the tall stuff pop up into the mower.. thus a 72 inch deck would be a big boost, allowing anything (roughly) 18 or 20 inches tall to easily get sucked up into the thing.
Kubota sells their 22 HP machines with 60 inch decks, and I believe the 2015 gear has more PTO hp than those machines. Likewise, the Deere machines in the 26 horsepower range tend to be sold with 72 inch decks here.
In all honesty, when you start going to 30 HP tractors, the weight of the tractor itself would seem to make finish mowing kind of chancey, and defeat the purpose of buying one for using with the 72 inch deck.
Anyway, it's good to hear different ideas here. Certainly will help me in my decision.
The Woods Equipment site recommends tractors of 16 to 35 hp. for both its 60 and 72 inch rear finish mowers. (I am assuming that means PTO, but it doesn't say.)
Bob_Skurka
Super Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2003
- Messages
- 7,615
<font color="green"> Bob, I don't pretend to be an expert </font>
I don't either, but I do play one on TV /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif But seriously, the reason that people like me ask people like you to fill out your profiles is so that we can learn where you are, what conditions you face in terms of soil, climate, etc. I always try to error on the side of caution, and I always stick with the recommendations of the manufacturers (both tractor & implement) because while both are "safe" both also recommend things that will allow their equipment to last a very long time.
As for some other things, let me see if I can help (and all this is coming from a city boy who moved out here about a decade ago and just loves to play with tractors). Gear machines typically will have about 1/2 to 1 more hp available at the PTO than a Hydro transmission will offer (in the size ranges we are discussing here). There is very little advantage to a gear machine for most "homeowner" applications other than the negligable bump in PTO hp and the cost savings when buying the machine. For both loader work and mowing (the 2 jobs typically that eat up most homeowner hours on a tractor and probably make up 80%+ of the total hours) are both accomplished faster with a HST transmission.
Do not ever make any comparisons between a garden tractor and a CUT. You will confuse yourself as they are mechanically so different that any comparison is futile. Sort of like comparing a Cat 3116 175hp diesel in a GMC 25,995 GVW commercial delivery truck to the 305 HO engine in my Avanti Convertible. By making a direct HP comparison, my Avanti should be able to pull one of my loaded trucks around backwards! The reality is quite different.
As for using a 30hp machine to mow, it is very common here! But I will say it is most common on a tractor like a Kubota B2910 or B7800. Those are fairly light machine and make great mowers, especially with a 72" mid mount mower deck. Those two Kubotas weigh only about 300# more than my 24hp New Holland TC24, if I recall the specs correctly.
<font color="blue"> In all honesty, when you start going to 30 HP tractors, the weight of the tractor itself would seem to make finish mowing kind of chancey, and defeat the purpose of buying one for using with the 72 inch deck. </font> There is often an issue of WEIGHT that comes up. I think it is fair to say that weight is only good if you need it, otherwise it is bad. And if that isn't confusing enough, then the real question is when do you need weight? Dealers (and even some manufacturer websites) say that heavy tractors are stronger, simply put there is no basis in fact for that statement on two similar size tractors. Further, some dealers/manufacturers condem tractors made on frames as being prone to breaking (again no basis in fact). If you are plowing a field then weight is good. Weight does equal traction. But if you are using a FEL, then BALLAST is good, but ballast is not weight. Ballast is counter-weight, or weight in the correct place. A heavy tractor is not a better tractor for FEL use IF the weight is in the front axel, engine, etc because that weight is forward of the "center of effort" of the FEL, therefore that weight simply does no good. Now if you shift that weight to the rear of the tractor, then that weight is good, but it simply is not enough. To safely operate any FEL on any brand of tractor of any size you need wheel weights, loaded rear wheels or a ballast box. Think of a schoolyard toy called a "see saw" or "teeter tauter" with 2 kids on it. If one kid is 50# and the other is 100# then the toy is unsafe. If both kids are the same weight, the toy is safe, that is how ballast works. Now, if you want to add weight to that the way some people argue that weight is good and light is bad, I suggest you have a 100# kid sit at the pivot point of that toy, and put one 50# kid on each end. . . the toy still works, while the overall weight is much greater, the added weight doesn't really make it work better or worse, it just exists. For doing some heavy digging into dirt piles, there is some advantage to added overall weight (remember physics class with the discussions on momentum & kenetic energy), but for 98% of the homeowner applications, that advantage is a minor one.
I don't either, but I do play one on TV /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif But seriously, the reason that people like me ask people like you to fill out your profiles is so that we can learn where you are, what conditions you face in terms of soil, climate, etc. I always try to error on the side of caution, and I always stick with the recommendations of the manufacturers (both tractor & implement) because while both are "safe" both also recommend things that will allow their equipment to last a very long time.
As for some other things, let me see if I can help (and all this is coming from a city boy who moved out here about a decade ago and just loves to play with tractors). Gear machines typically will have about 1/2 to 1 more hp available at the PTO than a Hydro transmission will offer (in the size ranges we are discussing here). There is very little advantage to a gear machine for most "homeowner" applications other than the negligable bump in PTO hp and the cost savings when buying the machine. For both loader work and mowing (the 2 jobs typically that eat up most homeowner hours on a tractor and probably make up 80%+ of the total hours) are both accomplished faster with a HST transmission.
Do not ever make any comparisons between a garden tractor and a CUT. You will confuse yourself as they are mechanically so different that any comparison is futile. Sort of like comparing a Cat 3116 175hp diesel in a GMC 25,995 GVW commercial delivery truck to the 305 HO engine in my Avanti Convertible. By making a direct HP comparison, my Avanti should be able to pull one of my loaded trucks around backwards! The reality is quite different.
As for using a 30hp machine to mow, it is very common here! But I will say it is most common on a tractor like a Kubota B2910 or B7800. Those are fairly light machine and make great mowers, especially with a 72" mid mount mower deck. Those two Kubotas weigh only about 300# more than my 24hp New Holland TC24, if I recall the specs correctly.
<font color="blue"> In all honesty, when you start going to 30 HP tractors, the weight of the tractor itself would seem to make finish mowing kind of chancey, and defeat the purpose of buying one for using with the 72 inch deck. </font> There is often an issue of WEIGHT that comes up. I think it is fair to say that weight is only good if you need it, otherwise it is bad. And if that isn't confusing enough, then the real question is when do you need weight? Dealers (and even some manufacturer websites) say that heavy tractors are stronger, simply put there is no basis in fact for that statement on two similar size tractors. Further, some dealers/manufacturers condem tractors made on frames as being prone to breaking (again no basis in fact). If you are plowing a field then weight is good. Weight does equal traction. But if you are using a FEL, then BALLAST is good, but ballast is not weight. Ballast is counter-weight, or weight in the correct place. A heavy tractor is not a better tractor for FEL use IF the weight is in the front axel, engine, etc because that weight is forward of the "center of effort" of the FEL, therefore that weight simply does no good. Now if you shift that weight to the rear of the tractor, then that weight is good, but it simply is not enough. To safely operate any FEL on any brand of tractor of any size you need wheel weights, loaded rear wheels or a ballast box. Think of a schoolyard toy called a "see saw" or "teeter tauter" with 2 kids on it. If one kid is 50# and the other is 100# then the toy is unsafe. If both kids are the same weight, the toy is safe, that is how ballast works. Now, if you want to add weight to that the way some people argue that weight is good and light is bad, I suggest you have a 100# kid sit at the pivot point of that toy, and put one 50# kid on each end. . . the toy still works, while the overall weight is much greater, the added weight doesn't really make it work better or worse, it just exists. For doing some heavy digging into dirt piles, there is some advantage to added overall weight (remember physics class with the discussions on momentum & kenetic energy), but for 98% of the homeowner applications, that advantage is a minor one.
To20Chris
Platinum Member
<font color="blue"> "A heavy tractor is not a better tractor for FEL use IF the weight is in the front axel, engine, etc because that weight is forward of the "center of effort" of the FEL, therefore that weight simply does no good." </font>
Nonsense - you need weight when using a FEL for two purposes:
1. To stabilize a load, and here is is best towards the rear.
2. To get a bite when digging into the earth. Here it is best in the front, right over the blade. It does not matter that the FEL pivots are in the middle of the tractor, the hydraulic pistons make it into a rigid assembly. Weight up front is exactly where you need it for this use.
The main difference between the heavier conventional construction tractors and lighter units with sheet steel constrution is the gear cases. These are located toward the rear anyway. While a ballast box is a great counterweight, and located right where it should be for that purpose, it is also an inconvenience. I often work with the box blade on the back when moving soil - it is not the heaviest thing, but I can use it to smooth the area in fron of the pile now and then, which makes for a more level working area. I can get away with this because the tractor is heavy enough, and the tires are filled.
Nonsense - you need weight when using a FEL for two purposes:
1. To stabilize a load, and here is is best towards the rear.
2. To get a bite when digging into the earth. Here it is best in the front, right over the blade. It does not matter that the FEL pivots are in the middle of the tractor, the hydraulic pistons make it into a rigid assembly. Weight up front is exactly where you need it for this use.
The main difference between the heavier conventional construction tractors and lighter units with sheet steel constrution is the gear cases. These are located toward the rear anyway. While a ballast box is a great counterweight, and located right where it should be for that purpose, it is also an inconvenience. I often work with the box blade on the back when moving soil - it is not the heaviest thing, but I can use it to smooth the area in fron of the pile now and then, which makes for a more level working area. I can get away with this because the tractor is heavy enough, and the tires are filled.
Bob_Skurka
Super Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2003
- Messages
- 7,615
Obviously Chris and I disagree on this issue??? Or do we???
To point #1 Chris makes, he is obviously agreeing with me. To stabilize a load you need ballast.
As for point #2 made by Chris, I did point out that mass/kenetic energy does favor a heavier tractor when digging into a pile, so again we agree, but I placed the caveat on my statement that most homeowner would never really benefit from excess weight in most instances.
I would also suggest, that most homeowners probably won't notice much functional difference between any brand of tractor regardless of the price provided that person compares similar size and similarly equiped tractors. So the difference between a lightweight orange, a midweight blue, a heavy red or anything else is really something that most homeowners really will never notice, especially since most CUT owners have 1 tractor and they keep it for 5 to 20 years. They rarely have an opportunity to compare 2 different machines, let alone 2 different brands, side-by-side on their own property. Commercial users may gain a lot of benefit from one feature or another. Homeowners with CUTS typically spend more time mowing their lawn than all other tasks combined. Homeowners with a tiller typically use their tillers for about 1 to 2 hours per year. The majority of CUTs get less than 50 hours per year of use. Homeowners who put 100+ hours each year on their machines are actually fairly rare in the real world, but on TBN are fairly common. So taken from the perspective of the typical user, I think my answers are both safe and accurate.
To point #1 Chris makes, he is obviously agreeing with me. To stabilize a load you need ballast.
As for point #2 made by Chris, I did point out that mass/kenetic energy does favor a heavier tractor when digging into a pile, so again we agree, but I placed the caveat on my statement that most homeowner would never really benefit from excess weight in most instances.
I would also suggest, that most homeowners probably won't notice much functional difference between any brand of tractor regardless of the price provided that person compares similar size and similarly equiped tractors. So the difference between a lightweight orange, a midweight blue, a heavy red or anything else is really something that most homeowners really will never notice, especially since most CUT owners have 1 tractor and they keep it for 5 to 20 years. They rarely have an opportunity to compare 2 different machines, let alone 2 different brands, side-by-side on their own property. Commercial users may gain a lot of benefit from one feature or another. Homeowners with CUTS typically spend more time mowing their lawn than all other tasks combined. Homeowners with a tiller typically use their tillers for about 1 to 2 hours per year. The majority of CUTs get less than 50 hours per year of use. Homeowners who put 100+ hours each year on their machines are actually fairly rare in the real world, but on TBN are fairly common. So taken from the perspective of the typical user, I think my answers are both safe and accurate.
To20Chris
Platinum Member
<font color="blue"> "Homeowners with CUTS typically spend more time mowing their lawn than all other tasks combined." </font>
Bob, as I have said before, I think this is the reason for our difference of opinion. I really don't know what most people use their CUTs for. I know 4 people with CUTs - 1 is a landscaper with an L35, he has better machines for mowing. 1 has a TC24 (I think), he does some mowing, and is involved with finishing up his house construction. 1 has a Kubota B something or other, he mostly uses it for mowing. 1 has a horse farm and never mows with it. Mine might drag the brush hog now and then, mostly it is digging and dragging a box blade.
The assumption that most CUTs are for mowing may or may not be true, but what is important is that people recognize what they will be doing with it, and what type (not brand) of CUT will be best suited for that use. Then they can have a reasonable expectaion of getting CUT that will last, and be useful, for many years to come. As for the people who buy CUTs and don't read TBN /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif - well, I can't help them much!
Bob, as I have said before, I think this is the reason for our difference of opinion. I really don't know what most people use their CUTs for. I know 4 people with CUTs - 1 is a landscaper with an L35, he has better machines for mowing. 1 has a TC24 (I think), he does some mowing, and is involved with finishing up his house construction. 1 has a Kubota B something or other, he mostly uses it for mowing. 1 has a horse farm and never mows with it. Mine might drag the brush hog now and then, mostly it is digging and dragging a box blade.
The assumption that most CUTs are for mowing may or may not be true, but what is important is that people recognize what they will be doing with it, and what type (not brand) of CUT will be best suited for that use. Then they can have a reasonable expectaion of getting CUT that will last, and be useful, for many years to come. As for the people who buy CUTs and don't read TBN /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif - well, I can't help them much!
DavesTractor
Elite Member
Bob and Chris,
I think I am starting to get the proper perspective on the weight issue between you guys. It comes down to intended use. Do we mow our lawns with these or not? Do we have acres of lawn? In our area, you either pour the irragation to it or it is brown. To keep a couple acres green would cost several hundred per month in electrical fees to run the pump. Most lawns are less than an acre, generally much less.
We sell a lot of tractors here in northern California, probably around 250 or so this year, of those we sell just a handful of finish or MMM models. Everyone buys a loader and a box scraper and often a brush hog type mower and a post hole digger. Seldom are people looking for a CUT to mow their lawns. Now when I talk to Wayne at LMTC in Ohio, he sells bunches of finish mowers (good prices by the way...) and people like to buy tractors with turf tires from him. I've got turf tires on pallets that will probably rot before I sell them. I hardly ever sell a 2-wheel drive. 98% of the tractors are sold with FELs.
If the major use is the loader and scraper, more weight is better. If the primary use is mowing, lets have a light but powerful machine. As for me, I mow my lawns with a ZTR, and when I want to scrape or load I want a tractor that is not prone to spinning the tires or doing back-wheelies.
So can we say you guys or both right, given your focus?
I think I am starting to get the proper perspective on the weight issue between you guys. It comes down to intended use. Do we mow our lawns with these or not? Do we have acres of lawn? In our area, you either pour the irragation to it or it is brown. To keep a couple acres green would cost several hundred per month in electrical fees to run the pump. Most lawns are less than an acre, generally much less.
We sell a lot of tractors here in northern California, probably around 250 or so this year, of those we sell just a handful of finish or MMM models. Everyone buys a loader and a box scraper and often a brush hog type mower and a post hole digger. Seldom are people looking for a CUT to mow their lawns. Now when I talk to Wayne at LMTC in Ohio, he sells bunches of finish mowers (good prices by the way...) and people like to buy tractors with turf tires from him. I've got turf tires on pallets that will probably rot before I sell them. I hardly ever sell a 2-wheel drive. 98% of the tractors are sold with FELs.
If the major use is the loader and scraper, more weight is better. If the primary use is mowing, lets have a light but powerful machine. As for me, I mow my lawns with a ZTR, and when I want to scrape or load I want a tractor that is not prone to spinning the tires or doing back-wheelies.
So can we say you guys or both right, given your focus?
Bob_Skurka
Super Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2003
- Messages
- 7,615
Chris, the numbers of what % of time with a CUT is spent mowing came from dealers who post on TBN. Same with the statistic about how many hours a year are spent tilling.
As for people with CUTS and what they do with them, that is going to vary from person to person. There are about a dozen CUTS in my neighborhood, only 1 is NOT used for mowing. At least 3 don't have FELs on them at all.
As for people with CUTS and what they do with them, that is going to vary from person to person. There are about a dozen CUTS in my neighborhood, only 1 is NOT used for mowing. At least 3 don't have FELs on them at all.
Ledgemere Farm
Veteran Member
I had a Cub Cadet 7200, which is the same as a 2015. I liked it very much and wished I could have kept it as second tractor. I upgraded to the Cub CAdet 7260, which is the same as the 2615 because I needed, er wanted something heavier. I like the 26 HP a little better, because in the gear version, it had syncro gears and stronger hydraulics (same as the the 30HP model). Go take both of them for a ride and see which you prefer.
Here are some similar links:
3-Point Hitch
Mahindra tiller parts
