View Single Post
Old 03-06-2013, 12:30 PM
joemower joemower is offline
LawnSite Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Lothian, Maryland
Posts: 212
Originally Posted by johnaandp View Post
So joemower, why do the 32 wb's stay on the the trailer? Are they not an effective replacement for the 21's? I only ask because I have been debating 30" Toro/Exmark vs 32 Ferris. I was leaning toward Ferris because of larger engine , fuel tank, spindles and heavier transmission. Plus, my thought is that the Ferris would do better on the 25-30 lawns per day ( we use 21's and 36ztr sometimes) than the toro/exmark. Am I incorrect in my assumption and why?
John- The 32'' would stay on the trailer because of several reasons. First and foremost they are just more cumbersome to use in the small areas compared to the 21". Our guys seemed to have to fight the machines and it just simply wore them out quicker. Secondly the larger and heavier machine seem to damage the turf in smaller areas and on hills. Thirdly the 21" mowers always mulched and and bagged better than the 32". Overall the productivity was better for us when we used a quality 21" mower in small area situations. Save the room on your trailer for a 48" WB or bigger. I've just found that a WB is only truly productive when you can use a 48" or bigger. I know there are fans of 32" & 36" WB out there and I'm not knocking them, but for us our sweet spot for a WB is a 48" or 52". Although we have gotten away from the traditional WB's all together and now use the Toro Grandstands. Just remember when your making your decision that heavier and bigger is not always better. Chose what will be the most productive for the majority of your situations. Any decent quality of machine will last if properly operated and taken care of. We would traditionally get 6 years or more out of our Toro 21" Commercial push mowers. The same would go for our larger WB's. It would be our hope to replace a 21" push with the a 30" push instead of adding a 32" WB and still needing a 21".
Reply With Quote
Page generated in 0.04612 seconds with 8 queries