View Single Post
Old 07-25-2013, 11:02 PM
JimsLocalLawn's Avatar
JimsLocalLawn JimsLocalLawn is offline
LawnSite Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 512
I cannot comment on the 32" model because I bought the 36" model and they are very different machines. Mine has a peerless 5 speed transmission no different than any other brand of belt drive walk behinds. Also the belts are considered routine maintenance and if you manage to destroy the blade engagement assembly and it is the same as must of hit it with a sledge hammer??? Again we can be using VERY different machines as the blade engagement one mine is extremely heavy duty steel and very idea how you could break it even intentionally. I do know that Bradley actually modifies these machines before production to their liking. That may be a very big difference as these machines come with very different specs.

However I can say it depends on your expectations and what you do with the machine. For $1200 for a commercial walk behind you could say it's not as good as say a scag, but not far behind either. These machines were modeled on older "brand name" walk behinds from the mid 90's. No different than buying a brand new older machine.

If I had a big fleet company I would never consider switching to these machines. Altho it would be an exceptional return on investment than say buying a brand new $3000 walk behind. Dealer support is far more important!

I think these are great machines for someone new getting into the business or part timers. I run mine hard on the sulky and I am a big guy - it's holding up well. The quality of cut is exceptional and the stripes are best in class. There is a high cost of low price tho, and that's lack of dealer support and setup. These machines come to you just as a dealer would receive them. You have to go over every aspect of the machine and configure it properly. Belts, brakes, grease everything, cutting height, tire PSI..... everything needs adjusted properly before using.
Reply With Quote
Page generated in 0.03915 seconds with 8 queries