Register free!
Search
 
     

The Green Industry's Resource Center


Click for Weather
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #71  
Old 09-14-2012, 03:51 AM
GSO LAWNEN4CER GSO LAWNEN4CER is offline
LawnSite Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: GSO NC
Posts: 83
alotta Scag fanboys on this forum. They are not the end all,be all of mowers!
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 09-14-2012, 05:24 AM
LibertyFarmLandscaping's Avatar
LibertyFarmLandscaping LibertyFarmLandscaping is offline
LawnSite Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NE TX
Posts: 931
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ridin' Green View Post
My 950 MOD was $10,9K, the 950 std deck (which I wish I had bought instead) was $10,2K and the TT w/35 BB was $10,2K. The biggest problem is that the Scag dealer was a LOT farther away, but too, I liked the shorter overall length of the Deere, and while I hated the left front caster being straight out on the Deere Z's when I first started using them, I have come to really appreciate that feature. It lets me get in much closer on inside corners to trim than I could with other more conventional design Z's.

It should have a suspension seat though, that's for sure, especially on a machine that costs right in the same range as all other top tier mowers that do come with a suspension seat. I understand that the 2013's will have one finally.

I would still like to have a TT some time. They are just cool IMO, and the only scag that I have been on that I felt comfortable, with plenty of room on. I did not care for the cramped foot rest on the Cheetah at all. IMO, the TT is much more suited to me over the Cheetah all things considered.

Just as a side note, I am getting right around 1.5-1.7 gph on my 950. I wouldn't think that the 35 TT would do any better, at least not from all I've read here. Then again, having the extra power for the same gph is a plus.
IDK, maybe their was something wrong with the demo. We ran it for 2 days the last time in thick wet grass. It was using 2.3 gph and the TT was at 1.8, and getting through the grass quicker. Of course it was like comparing apples to oranges with a 27hp.

I would like to be able to demo a 950 with a 37hp. They priced it at 12,750 with suspension seat. The last TT I bought this June with the 35hp VG was 9300. The one before it 2 years ago this Oct was a demo with 120 hours, and it was 8200. So my JD dealer is definitely not dicounting the price any. Also the JD dealer won't take anything besides another JD mower in on trade.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 09-14-2012, 02:06 PM
Ridin' Green Ridin' Green is offline
LawnSite Fanatic
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Michigan
Posts: 8,315
Quote:
Originally Posted by LibertyFarmLandscaping View Post
IDK, maybe their was something wrong with the demo. We ran it for 2 days the last time in thick wet grass. It was using 2.3 gph and the TT was at 1.8, and getting through the grass quicker. Of course it was like comparing apples to oranges with a 27hp.

I would like to be able to demo a 950 with a 37hp. They priced it at 12,750 with suspension seat. The last TT I bought this June with the 35hp VG was 9300. The one before it 2 years ago this Oct was a demo with 120 hours, and it was 8200. So my JD dealer is definitely not dicounting the price any. Also the JD dealer won't take anything besides another JD mower in on trade.
I think you are getting your JD model numbers mixed up. The JF with the 37 )actually a 35 now under the new rating system) is the 970. They do run more, but part of that is because of the bigger Kawi, and part of it is because of the fact that they only come with a 72" deck.

If you were comparing those two machines, then I could see the higher fuel use on the JD. That engine typically uses more gas than the Vanguards do for some reason. On top of that, if the TT had the more common 61" deck and the JD had a 72" deck, that would def make a difference in fuel use, and performance in how fast you'd be able to cut grass. I would think that if you could get the 970 with the 35 and a 60" deck, it would be very close in performance to a TT with the 35 BB and 61" deck.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 09-14-2012, 10:42 PM
Classic Cuts Lawn Service's Avatar
Classic Cuts Lawn Service Classic Cuts Lawn Service is offline
LawnSite Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Herndon, Virginia
Posts: 880
I dont own one personally but another company I work for has an old Tiger Cub from way back when and that thing still runs like a champ and is used almost everyday! Not sure how many hours are on it but I know the hydro pump had to be replaced not too many hours ago
__________________
Classic Cuts Lawn Service
Ford and Chevy trucks
Exmark, Toro, Scag mowers
Stihl and Echo handhelds
Commercial Applicator Certified in 3A and 3B
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 10-13-2012, 11:36 AM
JABBERS JABBERS is offline
LawnSite Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Ohio
Posts: 459
I was curious what the 36hp vanguard uses per hour on fuel. Anyone know?
__________________
8' X 20' ENCLOSED TRAILER
48" SCAG WALK BEHIND
60" EXMARK 26HP EFI
PUSH MOWERS LAWN BOY AND TORO PROLINE
All STILH
ENCORE 8HP PUSH BLOWER
VERMEER 630B STUMP GRINDER
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 10-13-2012, 02:07 PM
puppypaws's Avatar
puppypaws puppypaws is offline
LawnSite Fanatic
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Marshville,NC 28103
Posts: 7,739
Quote:
Originally Posted by JABBERS View Post
I was curious what the 36hp vanguard uses per hour on fuel. Anyone know?
It will be in the same range as all the 900+cc big block engines running on mowers today, and that will be in the 2.0 gph range.
__________________
Farm Mower
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 10-14-2013, 02:53 PM
dogwood1984 dogwood1984 is offline
LawnSite Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Illinois
Posts: 17
I Love my Scags. I've been running Scag since 99 and have had great luck with them. You get what you pay for with them.
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 10-16-2013, 09:23 PM
watatrp's Avatar
watatrp watatrp is offline
LawnSite Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: South Bend, IN
Posts: 431
I've run Scags in the past for nearly 2 decades. They were always good machines and built like tanks. The only reason I don't run them now is because there is no Scag dealer in the area. I've also used Great Danes. Those are basically a copy of the Scag since they were developed by the same guy-Dane Scag. For those that don't know, he passed away in August at 94. I've run a Dixie Chopper for the last 3 years and am finding that it is comparable to the Scags. I'm more productive with the DC only because it is faster and does better in wet grass. Less clumping. I very rarely clean the deck on the DC. Ease and speed of service and repairs would be my number one deciding factor.
__________________
Mike's Lawn Service
2009 60" Dixiechopper Classic
2006 Ford F350 Flatbed
30 years in business
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 10-16-2013, 11:08 PM
flamed69 flamed69 is offline
LawnSite Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Canyon, TX
Posts: 56
Posted via Mobile Device
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 10-19-2013, 07:54 PM
dathorpe dathorpe is offline
LawnSite Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Marshall, Va.
Posts: 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by puppypaws View Post
You're gph is accurate, a 34 is a 999cc big block engine, all mower engines in this 61 cu. in. class burns around 1.8 gph, and it makes no difference the brand name. Before Kawasaki made the head design change to their 999cc engine, it was at about 2.3 gph, extremely fuel inefficient.
Sorry Puppy, but I have to disagree. My 35 Briggs was between 1.8 & 2.0 in the spring. But in the thinner late summer to fall grass, over the course of 108 hours, she burned at 1.57 gph.
Posted via Mobile Device
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 04:00 AM.

Page generated in 0.07782 seconds with 7 queries