Register free!
Search
 
     

The Green Industry's Resource Center


Click for Weather


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-07-2010, 07:42 PM
mysteryman mysteryman is offline
LawnSite Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: central new york
Posts: 233
Grandstand specifications

Toro-

When will the 2010 Grandstand model specifications be made public? The website has not been updated, I have not received the 2010 literature in the mail. I know that you said it would be early January (which is now so it isn't really overdue), I am interested in whether or not it is on schedule. Thank you.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-08-2010, 11:04 AM
The Toro Company The Toro Company is offline
Sponsor
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 355
Mysteryman - Thanks for your inquiry. The 2010 GrandStand literature is on press right now and should be available to ship the middle of next week.

-The Toro Company
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-08-2010, 11:30 AM
mysteryman mysteryman is offline
LawnSite Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: central new york
Posts: 233
Terrific, thank you for the update.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-11-2010, 02:38 PM
LCPullman LCPullman is offline
LawnSite Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pullman, WA
Posts: 589
The specs are up on the website now. Thanks
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-11-2010, 03:40 PM
mysteryman mysteryman is offline
LawnSite Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: central new york
Posts: 233
Thanks, I actually stumbled on them this weekend. Oddly enough, depending on which GrandStand icon you select determines whether you get the full offering (2010) and compact photo or the original four model offering (2009) and the older photo of the 2009 machine. Also, there are a few inconsistencies on the spec sheet. They are small but make me suspicious of the accuracy. One error is a 'foot' indicator rather than an 'inch' indicator for the tires (not major but affects the credibility of the entire spec sheet if it was not proof-read). Then there's the dimensions for the length of machines with platform up. One compact length is longer than the midrange and is I believe the same as the 60" unit (61?). This does not seem right (but could be, I suppose). Also, has the fuel capacity increased by one gallon? I was waiting to receive the actual printed material before questioning. Did you catch any of these? Thanks again for the update.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-11-2010, 04:48 PM
LCPullman LCPullman is offline
LawnSite Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pullman, WA
Posts: 589
A few observations, the difference between platform up and platform down is the same on the compact models, 13". On the larger models, the difference is 15".
The 36" deck is a bulkier deck for its size because the 2 blade design, v.s. the 3 blade design, that is probably why the difference in length. The walk-behind mowers are the same way, the 36" is longer than the 48 or 52" mowers.
I assume the ' instead of " would be a typo. I am amazed how often there are typos in manufacturer spec sheets.
I don't know about the gallons, but considering how fast I use the gas on my Grandstand with a 23 hp engine, I would be glad to see a larger tank on it.
I see that they do need to update the link on the right side of the page.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-11-2010, 08:24 PM
mysteryman mysteryman is offline
LawnSite Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: central new york
Posts: 233
LCPULLMAN

What you state makes sense. That's probably why the dimensions are peculiar. I didn't notice that the difference (platform up and down) was the same. I suppose that after I saw the typo on the feet/inches everything else was tainted. I am anxious to see if the printed brochures are cleaned-up. Thanks again.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-14-2010, 10:28 AM
The Toro Company The Toro Company is offline
Sponsor
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 355
Mysterman -
We apologize for the spec error on our website. Unfortunately, the GrandStand information was mistakenly uploaded to the website while still in the draft / proof stage, which is also why the info was only accessible from one link.

The error you identified (' vs. ") had been caught for correction during the proofing stage, but again, the info went live prematurely. It has since been corrected and all info is accurate.

As for the question about the length of 36" and 40" being different when the platform in the stowed position, LC Pullman was exactly right. The difference is due to the 2-blade (36") vs. 3-blade (40") decks. The 2-blade design puts the castor forks further forward than the 3-blade, resulting in longer overall length. And yes, we have increased the fuel capacity by 1 gallon on ALL models for 2010, so 7.8 gallons is accurate.

Again, we apologize for the confusion. The new 2010 literature should be shipping any day.

-The Toro Company
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-14-2010, 11:54 AM
mysteryman mysteryman is offline
LawnSite Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: central new york
Posts: 233
I understand, and thanks for taking the time to explain.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-15-2010, 09:03 PM
brucec32's Avatar
brucec32 brucec32 is offline
LawnSite Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 4,405
I was happy to see the new 36 and 40" models on the website. Unfortunately, it looks like I can't use this machine in 40" form.

Toro seems to have gone with the concept of retaining a large "trim edge", which is great for northern turf, but on low cut grasses like Bermuda and to a lesser degree Zoysia, with their growth habit that is part stem, part leafy top, much more than a couple inches of trim edge means gouges and visable lines in the turf that are unacceptable. Even tiny variations in the level of the cut show on this type of turf.

To get this trim edge it looks like they narrowed the stance of the front wheels, so just like the 48"/52" models it can't handle severe undulations on Bermuda. All they should have done (for we southerners) was to slap a 40" deck on the same frame setup as the 48", leaving it with minimal deck overhang. That way the lack of true floating deck and antiscalps would not have been a problem.

The 36" mostly avoids this problem, but the deck is then so narrow that the machine isn't of much use on wide open areas, making it less versatile. Also sometimes the longer aspects of a 36" two blade deck lead to more scalping over crests. And unfortunately at $6,000 plus, it's too expensive for use on a few gated backyards, something most will just keep an old cheap wb around for. For this type of investment, I'd want a more versatile machine that gets full-time use.

Note the popularity of Walker mowers on southern turf. Also note that their 42" deck is probably the most popular size. That is because the 42" deck closely matches the width of the front tires. So it contours perfectly. I see a lot of companies hauling out 36" wb's to mow lawns that a bigger mower, designed right, would handle. What a shame.

I guess this is what happens when mowers are designed up north in areas where they don't even have grass like ours.
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 0.07453 seconds with 9 queries