shop-talk
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Ride on mowers (was RE: weed trimmers)

To: <shop-talk@autox.team.net>, <keithka@Exchange.Microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: Ride on mowers (was RE: weed trimmers)
From: "Nolan Penney" <npenney@mde.state.md.us>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 06:40:01 -0400
Couple of points that I've learned the hard way. 

The larger the tires, the better.  Small tires get stuck easier.  If your yard 
is flat and smooth, it doesn't really matter, but if you've got slopes and less 
then perfect smoothness, it can really make a difference.  The small front 
tires like find chipmunk holes to fall into and get stuck.  With a larger tire, 
it at least takes a groundhog hole to fall into and get stuck.  With the rear 
tires, you also spin in a heartbeat with small rear tires, as you'll discover 
if you ever try to pull a wagon up a wet grass hill or push snow off the 
driveway.

Weight distribution makes all the world of difference for traction and turning. 
 With the engine up front, you've not no weight on the rear tires, and tend to 
spin going up a hill.  The less weight on the rear, the quicker they are to 
spin.  It will also not turn well on the slope that you're not getting traction 
on, because all the weight over the front, particularly with tiny tires, just 
plows sideways instead of turning.

Consider how the controls fall to hand and move.  A transmission that is balky 
about shuttling between forward and reverse will promptly drive you nuts.  

The more complex the belt system for the deck, the worse it will work when its 
a few years old.  All those pulleys and idlers and such, they get worn, bent, 
and out of line with age.  Then you start throwing belts regularly, having 
blades stall in the deck, and other general maintenance problems, like trying 
to fix the complex mess.

I agree about the suggestion to examine a Kubota, for the very reasons 
outlined.  And no, the Scott is not a Deere, not that a Deere is a Deere either 
(it's a Yanmar).

And now to confound you, I'll suggest looking at a Snapper, particularly a used 
one.  

I'm a cheap skate, at least when it comes to riding mowers.  Spending more on a 
riding mower then I usually do for a car just baffles me.  For well under $100 
you can get a whole lot of used riding mower. Used Snappers at farm auctions 
usually go for about $20-60, running well.

I personally like the Snappers because in my experience they are very tough 
machines, highly effective, and dirt cheap.  Yes, they are loose and sloppy 
when brand new, but they stay that way throughout their life, never getting any 
worse.  The friction drive us quite effective, easy to shift, reliable, and 
dirt cheap to maintain.  They have a tight turning radius, and are low slung, 
so you can manuever around and under shrubs and trees quite well.  With the 
engine in back, their traction is excellent.  

You'll never look impressive sitting on a Snapper; but you'll be relaxing on 
the lawn chair drinking expensive imported beers while your neighbor is still 
out there fighting his yuppie mower that he's making payments on.

>>> "Keith Kaplan" <keithka@Exchange.Microsoft.com> 06/20 7:10 PM >>>

Does anyone know about the Scotts ride on mowers sold at Home Depot?
They're made by Deere, but are they close enough to the real thing for
my (non-commercial) use?  In particular I'm eyeing the 16hp, 42"
hydrostatic unit that's about $1800 without a bagger.  This is my first
ride on, is there anything unobvious I should look for?

///
///  shop-talk@autox.team.net mailing list
///  To unsubscribe send a plain text message to majordomo@autox.team.net
///  with nothing in it but
///
///     unsubscribe shop-talk
///
///


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>