Register free!
Search
 
     

The Green Industry's Resource Center


Click for Weather
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 11-22-2013, 11:51 AM
Ridin' Green Ridin' Green is offline
LawnSite Fanatic
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Michigan
Posts: 8,665
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnyb01 View Post
don't believe I will have the option to demo either model, as there isnt a dealership within a few hours of me large enough to justify having demo models
see thats the thing, the BobCat is only $600 cheaper than the SCAG, $600 is negligible when you are talking a 10k mower IMO...now granted the Scag comes with the 850FX kaw "standard" and the bobcat comes with the 921FX "standard", but the people I have talked with are telling me that the only difference they notice between the two motors is fuel consumption, the 921 isnt noticibly more powerful...
They are both nice machines, but I have been checking the PP model out lately at a local dealer, and the deck is much more tightly baffled than the V+. I have to believe that it will be a clumper in wet grass. It is every bit as tightly baffled as the Ultra Cut, maybe more so. take a good look at the new double wave baffle and you'll see exactly what I am saying. for dry grass it should do an excellent job, but you are going to have to go some to outdo a V+ overall. Plus, the Scag will ride better. JMO
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-22-2013, 01:27 PM
ztman ztman is offline
LawnSite Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: mountain pa
Posts: 787
Prior to purchase I tested the Cheetah with the 850 and the 921 at the property I cut. The 850 was sluggish on grades where the 921 did fine. For the few extra bucks, the 921 is well worth it IMO. Fuel consumption is about 1.8gph
__________________
I don't mind spending money, I mind wasting money!
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-22-2013, 02:56 PM
johnnyb01 johnnyb01 is offline
LawnSite Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Myrtle Beach, SC
Posts: 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by ztman View Post
Prior to purchase I tested the Cheetah with the 850 and the 921 at the property I cut. The 850 was sluggish on grades where the 921 did fine. For the few extra bucks, the 921 is well worth it IMO. Fuel consumption is about 1.8gph
lol, all flat around here! I'll keep it in mind tho, I was prob gonna opt for the bigger engine anyway, MORE POWER!!!
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-22-2013, 04:10 PM
puppypaws's Avatar
puppypaws puppypaws is offline
LawnSite Fanatic
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Marshville,NC 28103
Posts: 7,769
Wink

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnyb01 View Post
lol, all flat around here! I'll keep it in mind tho, I was prob gonna opt for the bigger engine anyway, MORE POWER!!!
The 921 is a considerably more powerful engine than the 850, it's 999 cc's versus 852 cc's, that in itself tells the story. I can't believe anyone would say they could not feel a great deal more power with the 921 over the 850. Basically what that says to me is they were not cutting anything that required additional power. You will fine the 921 loves fuel, 2 gph in reasonably heavy cutting will be the norm.
__________________
Farm Mower
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-22-2013, 04:18 PM
Ridin' Green Ridin' Green is offline
LawnSite Fanatic
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Michigan
Posts: 8,665
Quote:
Originally Posted by puppypaws
The 921 is a considerably more powerful engine than the 850, it's 999 cc's versus 852 cc's, that in itself tells the story. I can't believe anyone would say they could not feel a great deal more power with the 921 over the 850. Basically what that says to me is they were not cutting anything that required additional power. You will fine the 921 loves fuel, 2 gph in reasonably heavy cutting will be the norm.
You obviously don't have a lot (if any) of time on two identical machines, one with the FX850 and one with the FX921. On two different models of one line, or different brands I can see some feeling that there's a bigger difference than there really is.

I have run both on the same exact machine with everything other than the model number and engine being identical for an entire fall season on both, doing both mowing and then heavy fall leaves with the deck in mulching mode. There is a difference, but it isn't that great. The 921 I used was averaging 1.8 gph in mulch mode doing heavy oak leaves which surprised me a little after everything i had read about how bad it would be.

Last edited by Ridin' Green; 11-22-2013 at 04:23 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11-22-2013, 08:14 PM
puppypaws's Avatar
puppypaws puppypaws is offline
LawnSite Fanatic
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Marshville,NC 28103
Posts: 7,769
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ridin' Green View Post
You obviously don't have a lot (if any) of time on two identical machines, one with the FX850 and one with the FX921. On two different models of one line, or different brands I can see some feeling that there's a bigger difference than there really is.

I have run both on the same exact machine with everything other than the model number and engine being identical for an entire fall season on both, doing both mowing and then heavy fall leaves with the deck in mulching mode. There is a difference, but it isn't that great. The 921 I used was averaging 1.8 gph in mulch mode doing heavy oak leaves which surprised me a little after everything i had read about how bad it would be.
That's great, maybe we can get a few more to chime in on power difference and fuel usage between these two engines.
__________________
Farm Mower
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11-22-2013, 08:30 PM
Dave Dave is offline
LawnSite Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: RI
Posts: 312
If I read it right on the scag site. they use hydrogear 5400 transaxels. the bobcat pred pro uses bulletproof 16cc wheel motors and pumps. 4.5 quart trans tank with a cooler sitting on top of the engine. both have isomounts . I have been told that there is no better cut on wet lawns than the scag ,but the bobcat will cut a dry lawn better . i would look at the 37dfi, instead of the gas eater 34 carb
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 11-22-2013, 08:42 PM
puppypaws's Avatar
puppypaws puppypaws is offline
LawnSite Fanatic
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Marshville,NC 28103
Posts: 7,769
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave View Post
If I read it right on the scag site. they use hydrogear 5400 transaxels. the bobcat pred pro uses bulletproof 16cc wheel motors and pumps. 4.5 quart trans tank with a cooler sitting on top of the engine. both have isomounts . I have been told that there is no better cut on wet lawns than the scag ,but the bobcat will cut a dry lawn better . i would look at the 37dfi, instead of the gas eater 34 carb
We have been running fuel usage test with the 37 DFI on a Ferris 3100 and it is using the same amount of fuel as the FX1000V, which is labeled as their 35 hp carbureted engine. I've been dealing directly with Kawasaki on this higher than would be expected fuel usage with their fuel injected engine, and they honestly don't have a good answer. They keep talking about the tremendous power offered, and it takes fuel to produce power.

I've told them when people buy a fuel injected engine, they expect to get better fuel economy, as does the Kohler closed loop fuel injected engine. They just can't seem to give a good answer as to why their DFI is showing no improvement in fuel economy.
__________________
Farm Mower
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 11-22-2013, 09:24 PM
MRCo. MRCo. is offline
LawnSite Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Franklin, NC
Posts: 195
Scag are awesome mowers, period. But I keep hearing lots about Bobcat, great build, great cut. I would say another user had the biggest point you need to consider earlier- the dealer. A good, trust worthy local dealer is a huge consideration.
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 08:08 AM.

Page generated in 0.08312 seconds with 9 queries