Yet another CT235 thread....

[robertwhite]

Looking at a CT235.

Quote is $16,700 delivered.

Specs:
R4
Bobtach w/FEL
Ballast box
Standard trim
Adjustable seat.

Decent, high, low?

 

[wallace]

I take it that this is cash in lieu of financing?

 

[robertwhite]

I take it that this is cash in lieu of financing?

Yes, cash deal.

Only now in addition to that quote, I have seen the 335 and 440/445. MUCH more tractor and now have to add them to the equation.

 

[lilranch2001]

personally, I feel a ballast box is a waste, be better off taking the credit and buy a back box or something usefull

 

[robertwhite]

personally, I feel a ballast box is a waste, be better off taking the credit and buy a back box or something usefull

Back box?

Why would a ballast box be a waste? The whole idea of getting a ballast box is so I don't have to carry the extra 600-800 pounds of loaded tire weight across my lawn when mowing. When I need to use the FEL, I just hook it up, along with the loaded ballast box and go to it. I think it makes perfect sense.

 

[IslandTractor]

Yes, cash deal.

Only now in addition to that quote, I have seen the 335 and 440/445. MUCH more tractor and now have to add them to the equation.

All nice tractors but I agree there is a huge step up for not that much extra money from the 235 to the 335 or 440. I have the Kioti DK40se and it is way more tractor than the 235 (CK35). For just mowing it makes a difference via a more modern operator station and electrohydraulic controls. For loader work it literally doubles the lift capacity. It is physically a lot bigger so does take up more space and is somewhat less manuverable.

 

[IslandTractor]

Back box?

Why would a ballast box be a waste? The whole idea of getting a ballast box is so I don't have to carry the extra 600-800 pounds of loaded tire weight across my lawn when mowing. When I need to use the FEL, I just hook it up, along with the loaded ballast box and go to it. I think it makes perfect sense.

A different perspective is that instead of having a "dumb" ballast box you can just mount an implement for ballast. I always have either a flail, box blade, tiller or backhoe mounted so there is no advantage to having a 3PT attachment that serves only as ballast.

 

[lilranch2001]

agreed Island
Well said (unlike me) :thumbsup:

 

[robertwhite]

All nice tractors but I agree there is a huge step up for not that much extra money from the 235 to the 335 or 440. I have the Kioti DK40se and it is way more tractor than the 235 (CK35). For just mowing it makes a difference via a more modern operator station and electrohydraulic controls. For loader work it literally doubles the lift capacity. It is physically a lot bigger so does take up more space and is somewhat less manuverable.

Do you think that the extra 800lbs or so (235 vs. 440) will make a difference in leaving ruts while using the tractor for mowing? At this point I will only have a 5ft RFM, but the CT440 sure would pull a 7ft RFM like it's not even there. :thumbsup: I would most likely get the R4's as Turf tires kind of make the FEL work much harder, no?

A different perspective is that instead of having a "dumb" ballast box you can just mount an implement for ballast. I always have either a flail, box blade, tiller or backhoe mounted so there is no advantage to having a 3PT attachment that serves only as ballast.

I understand that thinking, but at this point I have no other implements.

In figuring out pricing, the CT440 is just under $4K more than the CT235 (CT335 is around $2K more than the 235). $4K sure buys a LOT more tractor. Only thing that concerns me is the extra weight.

Thoughts?

ETA: CT440 also adds a Mid Mounted PTO in the standard package which has other possible uses.

 

[DKXJ]

I have the CT230 with R4 tires and have to be mindful of driving on my lawn. During spring I pretty much used it as little as possible because it was very noticeable where I drove. Also, the R4s can tear up the lawn pretty good if you attempt to turn sharp or break traction at all.

If I had any intentions of mowing with it, I would of got the turf tires hands down. They are noticeably less damaging to the lawn.

I am in the camp that is against loading my tires for the basic reason of not wanting the extra wait unless its needed. I haven't got the ballast box yet, but plan on getting it soon. Its a lot smaller than a mower or box blade so maneuverability in my woods will more than make it worth while.

Most people base their arguments on their own needs. You just need to decide what you truly need and plan to use the tractor for.

 

[tornadowatchranch]

I have the 335 and love it! The way I read the comments is that for $500 you can get a ballast box that has no other use than ballast and for not much more you can get the leatherman of attachments--the box blade.

The 335 does not rut my well drained yard with r4's unless immediately after the rain

 

[IslandTractor]

Do you think that the extra 800lbs or so (235 vs. 440) will make a difference in leaving ruts while using the tractor for mowing? At this point I will only have a 5ft RFM, but the CT440 sure would pull a 7ft RFM like it's not even there. :thumbsup: I would most likely get the R4's as Turf tires kind of make the FEL work much harder, no?

My DK40se does more damage than my CK20 when the ground is soft. However, it doesn't cause any real problems just driving over the ground, what gets me into trouble is when I am pushing with the FEL. The 40 has enough power to spin all 4 R4s (unloaded at this point) and that is how I damage turf. :ashamed: Lots of little 4 part divots in areas where I was pushing on a tree or bush without paying attention to traction.

I believe the DK40se and therefore the equivalent CT440 are the sweet spot in the Daedong line up above 30hp. However, that is mostly because I highly value the KL401 loader and its 2700lb lift capacity. If I was really just mowing pastures and doing routine FEL work rather than clearing trees and using a grapple to uproot bushes whole, I would seriously consider the DK35se or CT335 and save a few bucks. The difference in horsepower is only 38 to 41 so really pretty insignificant. The frame size is pretty close though the DK35 has smaller axles/tires so appears smaller. The motors are different (3 vs 4 cylinder) but that should not be a big deal. Importantly, the operator station and electrohydraulic controls are identical and those are very nice features and a big upgrade over the CK35/CT235. As a pasture mower I'd think carefully about the CT335 if the price difference was $2K. Worth the upgrade from the CT235 IMO and rather than going all the way to the CT440, the savings of $2K will get you a very sweet 6ft Caroni flail mower.

 

[MESSMAKER]

I have the CT230 with R4 tires and have to be mindful of driving on my lawn. During spring I pretty much used it as little as possible because it was very noticeable where I drove. Also, the R4s can tear up the lawn pretty good if you attempt to turn sharp or break traction at all.

If I had any intentions of mowing with it, I would of got the turf tires hands down. They are noticeably less damaging to the lawn.

I am in the camp that is against loading my tires for the basic reason of not wanting the extra wait unless its needed. I haven't got the ballast box yet, but plan on getting it soon. Its a lot smaller than a mower or box blade so maneuverability in my woods will more than make it worth while.

Most people base their arguments on their own needs. You just need to decide what you truly need and plan to use the tractor for.

Just get a 3 point carry all or pallet mover if you don't want a box blade. A ballast box is a one trick pony. Fill a large Rubermaid or garbage can. with concrete. Run a piece of rebar through it. Drill the ends of the rebar for hitch pins and you have a ballast box for about $25. You can leave a piece of rebar sticking out the top for the top link if you want.