Exmark Tracer HP vs Metro Hp

[dmk395]

I am thinking of upgrading my Metro Hp 48" 15 hp to the Tracer Hp 48" with 17hp with some sort of sulkey. Will it be much quicker? Heck if I can cut just one more lawn a day it will pay for itself in a few months. What does everyone think

[joshua]

yea it would be worth it, but why sink 5k in a w/b if you can spend another 1k on a lazer and 2 or 3 more lawns a day. think about that one if you already haven't

[dmk395]

Good thought. Nonetheless I have been told that most of my residentials being only 10,000ft force alot of turf tears. Have been quoted 7400 for Lazer. My thought is that with a sulkey I should be able to cut at similar speeds for a small yard. I don't know though, what do u think?

[Premo Services]

If your lawns are 1/4 acre, then your best bet would be to use the walkbehind. I think the metro is belt drive. The turf tracer is a hydro, and a bigger engine. You will do better with the hydro. Also, you could never do as good with a walkbehind than you could do with a ztr. :D If you are planning to build your business and get larger lawns, then a ztr would fit the bill, and you would be a lot less beat up at the end of the day. I have a turf tracer 17 48 inch, and a lazer 52 inch cut.

[LAWNGODFATHER]

Both WB go the same speed.

6.2mph

You are not gaining a thing but manuverablity and be able to mow when it is wet.

[dmk395]

Lawngodfather,

What about the bigger engine, wouldnt I get more torque for mulching? How about taking into effect a sulkey?

[slplow]

I would go to a 52" to save time or fit more work in(4"makes a big difference). If you do think about a ztr a walker is your best bet for those small. In 1 neighberhood of 12 lawns I save 1/2 to 45 min with my walker over my 52''wb hydro with velky.( all lawn are 7000 sq ft)

[TOSLC]

I own a 48" Turf Tracer HP and love it. I disagree with some of the other guys (No, I'm not trying to start an argument, just my opinion), I feel the WB is easier to get around in smaller yards with a lot of obstacles (sp?). So to contradict myself if the smaller yards are all open, go for the rider. If the yards are full of obstacles like mine (trees, fences, landscaping, swing sets, mailboxes, water meters, light poles, street signs. . . .AHHH!! anyway) you'd be better off with a WB. Just my $.02 worth.

[LAWNGODFATHER]

Originally posted by dmk395
Lawngodfather,

What about the bigger engine, wouldnt I get more torque for mulching? How about taking into effect a sulkey?

Well there will be no difference since the hydro will eat up the extra 2hp.

Same as what I wrote in my first post.

Velke will be the same behind either mower.

If you want the little bit extra go with the hydro.

slplow, from a 48" to a 52". In order to save 1/2 hour, he must cut for 5 hours non stop to get 5.5 hours worth of cutting in, in 5 hours.

[TJLC]

I own both an Exmark Viking hydro 48" and a Lazer HP 52". I agree if the yard is full of obstacles I use my w/b, for me it's easier to move around with no turf damage. If the area is open, there is no question, I use the Lazer. The w/b and ztr seem to be a very good combo for the different conditions I encounter. I think my next machine will be a Turf Tracer, probally a 48". As far as hydro vs belt, I have owned and used both. One word:hydro!

[LAWNGODFATHER]

If you would have been looking at a 52" Turf Tracer with a 23hp Kohler, not the HP.

I would say that's a mower.

All you're doing is going from belt drive to a hydro drive. Not much of a difference to go sell a mower for another one.

[65hoss]

Spend a few extra bucks and get the 52" HP. You may not be much faster on smaller lawns, but you will be less fatigued at the end of the day. That in itself will help you be a little faster. On larger lawns you will already be setup to go after them with confidence.

[slplow]

Longgodfather, my first mower was a 1990 scag 48''. Two years after traded it on a 52'' hydro and saved 1/2hr in a 8 hr day with no sulky. Also most of my lawns have lots of beds and trees .

[LAWNGODFATHER]

You just backed up my 1/2 hour from a 48" to a 52".

The hydro did not make the difference as you were walking.

[dmk395]

maybe i should just save my money, buy a lazer....would for sure if i knew i wouldnt ruin turf for sure

[LAWNGODFATHER]

Originally posted by dmk395
maybe i should just save my money, buy a lazer....would for sure if i knew i wouldnt ruin turf for sure

Good thinking. It wont ruin the turf.

If hydro was a suggnifigant gain, I would say go for it, but it's not.

[lamblawnscaping]

If you plan on using a sulky then a hydro will not require you to get off and pull to make the machine go backwards. Also if you are trying for really nice lines, you may need to get off the sulky with a belt drive at the end of your line and pull one side backwards while you bring the other side around to start your next line in the right spot and not tear the turf. This can be done with a hydro without ever getting off the sulky. I have a metro 48 and a scag hydro 48. Even though the exmark cuts nicer it gets used much less, and thats not just because I am lazy, the hydro is much quicker getting around things. In a wide open lawn I would probably use the exmark, as the speed advantage of the hydro would be minimized.

Joshua has a really good point though if you already have a 48 then can you really justify spending almost 5 grand on another 48 when you could have a 60" lazer for 6750.