Register free!
Search
 
     

The Green Industry's Resource Center


Click for Weather
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 05-31-2012, 10:15 AM
TriCountyLawn's Avatar
TriCountyLawn TriCountyLawn is offline
LawnSite Bronze Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 1,518
Quote:
Originally Posted by ProStreetCamaro View Post
You have an older ultracut deck and they are absolutely famous for the cut quality and stripping. I wouldn't dare touch it. They do clump some in the wet but other than that it is am awesome deck.
My thought exactly!
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05-31-2012, 10:37 AM
Mark Oomkes Mark Oomkes is offline
LawnSite Fanatic
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 6,594
As most have said already, why?
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05-31-2012, 04:38 PM
Fabric8r Fabric8r is offline
LawnSite Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: new berlin, wi
Posts: 11
Thats why i came to you guys for the question. My only thought was it was an older deck. and ive seen other companys with this new design.
From what i hear this deck is Great except some wet issues. witch i guess should be ecpected. So im Really happy and thankful for all your guys Input !! I will just leave it alone. Thats why i asked. i dont have much experience or knowledge about this deck or others. just asking.
Thanks Again, Scott
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05-31-2012, 06:14 PM
TriCountyLawn's Avatar
TriCountyLawn TriCountyLawn is offline
LawnSite Bronze Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 1,518
Hell even exmark should have left it alone....lmao
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump





Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1998 - 2012, LawnSite.comô - Moose River Media
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:04 AM.

Page generated in 0.07141 seconds with 9 queries