Dude, you're about to get 50 votes for hydro. I've got both and there's no comparison whatsoever. Hydro walk behinds will go anywhere. Much easier to maneuver and use. Less fatigue on the operator.
skag--your productivity figures of your professional machine over some 21 inch pusher sounds reasonable.Originally posted by Scag48
I've cut my mowing times by 65% on most properties over a 21", maybe more. The productivity of a hydro over a belt is 40%, you do the math. More lawns in less time = profit.
hahaha! thanks skag fot that little correction!Originally posted by Scag48
Oops, my bad Geo. The 40% figure was Exmark's mulching sales pitch. .... I think 20% or so productivity gain with hydro is sufficient.
BTW, bring it on, Lesco don't scare me!
At least try a Hustler 37".........Nothing will laster longer, IMO........PeteOriginally posted by Cheesedawg1
What do you guys think would be a better longer lasting 36 inch hydro?
nest--sorry to repeat you whole post. and I'm not arguing but I don't see your numbers working out.Originally posted by ElephantNest
The "40%" increase is true, from what I've learned. It is a 40% increase over the life of the mower, I believe. Not for one yard. Factoring in an average of accounts, wet, dry, tall, short, etc.
Easily a 20% increase on a yard to yard basis, maybe more. When you have mastered the Zero turn, which a belt cannot do, you will see a large increase of production. Only with 10 yards a day, save 5 or 10 minutes each yard....you see my point. I've used a Viking for 10 years or more, owned a belt 36", and sold it, now I just got the TTHP 36", there really is no comparison IMHO. Belt was slower, wet or dry, handling response was slow and labored, and seemed to need more up-keep. My TTHP is SO smooth, and responsive, and fast and agile that I would NEVER consider a belt drive again UNLESS it was a 32" for back yards only....then MAYBE I could justify it....maybe.