W/B ZTR or stander/sentar

Discussion in 'Lawn Mowing' started by scagman, Dec 31, 2001.

  1. scagman

    scagman LawnSite Senior Member
    Posts: 270

    In the next couple of months Im going to buy a big mower. Im stumped on what to get, right now I run a Scag 32 Which Ive grown out, this is whats in mind #1 Scag 52" hydro 21hp with sulky #2 Wright sentar 52" with 23hp #3 ZTR Ive heard many good things about these, but have never used them. There are two things that concern me about these mowers Height adjustments (how fast) also the rear bagging system makes me nervous are there any ztrs with side baggers. I live in WA so I freqently mow in wet conditions. Would a rear bagging system on a ztr be a good choice. these three mowers would all work on my properties, but my question is which one will be the most productive. If I was to get a ztr I would stay within 61". I know alot of you guys use these ztrs and I hear you all say you will never use a walkbehind again, for those that use them what are the best ones and what are your thoughts on the bagging system, also how do you get them over curbs.
     
  2. Richard Martin

    Richard Martin LawnSite Fanatic
    Posts: 14,700

    Scagman,
    If you are considering a ZTR and you must bag then you should be also looking at the Walkers with the GHS (Grass Handling System). They are the best mower for bagging grass and I don't think anyone here at Lawnsite will argue with that.
     
  3. Bagging grass is laborous, expensive, time consuming, and almost a complete waste of time, energy, and nutriants. If you can get by without bagging, this is surily the way to go. It too will bag and handle grass well.

    [​IMG]
     
  4. strickdad

    strickdad LawnSite Senior Member
    Posts: 544

    ut-ohhh, Lgf now you know you gonna stir up dem walker boys buy talkin like dat.
     
  5. There are other options out there.

    Ransomes make a bag only mower. However I think its only 44".
     
  6. Richard Martin

    Richard Martin LawnSite Fanatic
    Posts: 14,700

    I don't own a Walker and probably never will because I only side discharge but if I ever had a need to bag grass consistently a Walker would be my mower of choice. I have no doubt that your duct taped, jury rigged, disgustingly dirty Exmark does a fine job for you.
     
  7. 65hoss

    65hoss LawnSite Fanatic
    Posts: 6,360

    If you are going to bag only then the Walker is the way to go. But, if your going to mostly mulch or side discharge and only bag during leaf season LGF is correct. The midmount is more versatile. The ability to cut large areas fast, bag a few picky customers, mulch leaves, pull aerator, etc.

    Changing deck height is pull a pin and stick it in another hole. Pretty simple. If all you have is small postage stamp size lawns then maybe you should consider a stander. That would be better for you. Look at what your properties are, demo a few mowers, search here for all types of opinions on this, then you will find what is right for you.
     
  8. edward hedrick

    edward hedrick LawnSite Senior Member
    Posts: 871

    Let me give anoyher choice I use a 3 wheel Scag Sthm. I use it with a grass gobbler when needed
     
  9. Duct tabe, why not. Why replace the hose when you can tape it. And it has a new one on it now, couldn't tape any more. The one in the pic is 3 years old. $22 fixed that.

    And nothing of mine by no means is ever JIMMY RIGGED!!!!!!!!!!

    Dirty Only in the pic, just finshed for the day and had enough day light to take pic.

    BTW I used to think there was money in bagging grass, right!!!!

    Cushman 807 60" deck with grass caddy that was the way to bag. And less than 1 min could switch to side discharge. This thing would dump in the bed of a pickup.

    Bagging grass is 10 times harder, 10 times slower, 10 times more work, and lots of debris to haul off.

    A 1 acre lawn will produce 2 tons of clippings in 1 week.
     
  10. I have nothing against the mower, Just bagging grass, it is a small niche market, with very high disposal costs.
     

Share This Page