Box Scraper Is there really a difference in box blades?

[AllenArmory]

Maybe this is a newbie question, but aren't box blades just chunks of metal? My dealer is offering a 6' VTEKS box blade for dealer cost ($600) when purchasing a tractor from him. Should I do it or look for a higher quality box blade? What does it even mean to get a higher quality box blade?

 

[ultrarunner]

Don't know too much about them except heavier costs more and is generally more robust.

I do have top and tilt and wish I would have sprung for the hydraulic controlled ripper height.

 

[motownbrowne]

It looks like you're going to be buying implements for a 55 HP cab tractor. That TYM weighs 4200# without loaded tires or the loader. If you're like 80% of members here, you'll load the rears, which gets you better traction and stability. So, with loaded tires and the loader, you're gonna be looking at a tractor in the 6000-6500# range.

Yes, a back blade is a chunk of metal, but yes, there is a big difference in quality. A higher quality blade will weigh considerably more. The added weight makes the unit cut much better and makes it much more durable. I don't know what the actual tread width will be on your rig, but you want a blade wider than your tire treads, I'd think you'll be looking at 6 or 7 foot models. Personally, I'd look for a used one. If you can find a decent deal, you'll be able to get a much more heavy duty blade that will be way more useful, much less likely to get damaged, and will always be worth what you paid for it, or a little more.

By the way, one of the only drawbacks to a larger tractor is that implements cost considerably more than for the smaller compacts.

 

[brown40]

They are all basically the same in design and function, in the same vein that saying a paring knife is the same as a machete. Weights vary greatly, depending on the gauges of metal used. You need to cover your tracks, and you need enough weight to do the job (without losing traction). Your tractor can handle a heavier blade, but what your needs are should determine what you need a box blade to do/how much weight the job takes to do. Snow removal, light grading, manure and chip removal don't take much... scarifying unbroken ground, or getting deeper into a road bed/pot hole, you need the weight to sink the teeth, and the extra steel to withstand the pull--tractor dependent.
Mine is my go to counterweight, but at 560# for a 6 footer, its not especially heavy. I've added an old wagon axle and free weights to get the total up to ~900#. It works MUCH better as a counterweight, and for what jobs I have the traction to do. I do not have enough tractor to twist up a 400# blade, let alone a 900# one, so adding to a lighter box works.
If my 560# box was on a 150 hp Ag machine, it could get torn up pretty quick under the wrong circumstances.

 

[TripleR]

As mentioned, same basic design for standard box scrapers, but lots of difference. Thickness of metal, attachment and adjustment of rippers, number and strength of rippers, type of bracing and hitch pin types.

Then there are Roll Over Box Scrapers, preferred by many.

Your uses will depend on your needs, usually the heavier the better and I prefer the "heavy" because of construction and not added weight. Yes, I tried adding weight to my old one and it makes a good counterweight, but I use my heavily built one for real dirt work.

The downside for many is increased quality means increased cost; worth it to some, not to others.

 

[jeff9366]

The key metric is weight per unit of width.

100 pounds per foot is OK. 125 pounds per foot is better. 150++ pounds per foot is nirvana.

Pictured Bush Hog (brand) 60" Rollover Box Blade weighs 630 pounds = 126 pounds per foot.

Soil: Florida sandy-loam.

 

[oosik]

I have the Bush Hog 72" ROBB(RO720). Looks exactly like what jeff9366 has pictured. It weighs 710 = 118 pounds per foot. With my hydraulic top link it does a great job of moving dirt. I also have a 400 pound concrete block that I can place on it for added weight. I've found that by using the hydraulic top link and the rippers its just as effective as adding the concrete block and a whole lot easier to control/use. I can easily take a deep cut and end up with all four wheels digging.

 

[sdef]

I have the same blade jeff9366 has except in the 72" version and really enjoy the usefulness and quality of this ROBB. My soil is very hard clay and very rocky with rock sizes in excess of 1000#. Sometimes I wish for a heavier blade- one maybe twice this weight for better penetration in my tough soil conditions. In many hours of grading I have only damaged it once in a minor way by bending a shank a couple inches sideways I believe happened when the shanks were digging deep and the unseen tip of a buried rock (think iceberg type of build) happened to pass between the two shanks. Off course, the buried rock would not move so the steel had to.

No lesser BB would work nor survive at my place. Attached is a pic of the type of the rocks (many) I have dug up- initially with the ROBB and then finally with the stump bucket and rock grapple bucket. And the completed job made doable by this ROBB.

 

[ishiboo]

I think the economy box blades work just fine if they have twin curved cutting edges and rippers... I'm still using my 6' KK from my last tractor and it's only 500 lbs. It has no problem cutting, it'll fill up and stop the tractor especially with the rippers down no problem. Yes, my 1400 lb rear blade will dig in faster, but it's not really an issue. It's brought the tractor to an immediate stop hitting 24" iron stakes in the driveway (and pulled 2 out) so build quality has not been an issue.

Given the size of your tractor though, I wouldn't buy a new 6' box blade. You probably want a 7' at the very least. Keep your eyes out on Craigslist for a nice Gannon/Woods or other brand name box.

 

[roadhunter]

The key metric is weight per unit of width.

100 pounds per foot is OK. 125 pounds per foot is better. 150 pounds per foot is nirvana.

Pictured Bush Hog (brand) 60" Rollover Box Blade weighs 630 pounds = 126 pounds per foot.

Soil: Florida sandy-loam.

My new 200 pound per foot blade is really nice. 1400 pounds 7 ft. When I purchased I figured everything on a cost per pound basis. Simple but effective as I felt they were similar in design.

 

[C4Ranch]

Lots of differences... Take a look at what Gannon's run, >1.2k#s... Many options to choose from:
Hydraulic vs manual rippers
High back vs low back
Hinged tail gate vs fixed
Replaceable side plates vs fixed

Then the best features of all IMO is hydraulic top and side links when used with box blades...

 

[sdef]

Lots of differences... Take a look at what Gannon's run, >1.2k#s... Many options to choose from...

Then the best features of all IMO is hydraulic top and side links when used with box blades...

Absolutely +1. Works well for most 3PH attachments, even post hole diggers.

 

[Gary Fowler]

The key metric is weight per unit of width.

100 pounds per foot is OK. 125 pounds per foot is better. 150++ pounds per foot is nirvana.

Pictured Bush Hog (brand) 60" Rollover Box Blade weighs 630 pounds = 126 pounds per foot.

Soil: Florida sandy-loam.

For your sand, you could use just about any box blade without any issues. I doubt you ever have to use the scarifiers for that soil.
I bought a cheap (about $500) box blade with my first tractor (45HP) and now use it with my 70 HP tractor. I have broken some scarifiers when I hang them on huge rocks, but never had any issue with the box blade itself. Many times I have stalled the tractor in 4 WD and not damaged the box blade. Now if I use it, I try to keep my tractor in 2 WD and it is ok. Now I mostly use this attachment when I am trying to turn up rocks in my garden

 

[sdef]

Now you have seen a bunch of different answers, all correct for each user in their circumstances. Your best option now would be to explain what your intended uses are and soil types.

 

[AllenArmory]

Now you have seen a bunch of different answers, all correct for each user in their circumstances. Your best option now would be to explain what your intended uses are and soil types.

Honestly, I have no idea what I'm doing. I do have 40 acres of raw land where the trails/roads get muddy and I'm looking to create a more stable road for driving my truck and camper over. I want to create a road where I don't stand the chance of getting stuck.

The soil in the area is best described as sandy. It's NE Texas, where the spring rains will turn everything to mush and the rest of the year will be scorching hot and dry.

 

[TripleR]

Honestly, I have no idea what I'm doing. I do have 40 acres of raw land where the trails/roads get muddy and I'm looking to create a more stable road for driving my truck and camper over. I want to create a road where I don't stand the chance of getting stuck.

The soil in the area is best described as sandy. It's NE Texas, where the spring rains will turn everything to mush and the rest of the year will be scorching hot and dry.

See if this helps, we were once all at one time more or less mystified about this too, I'm still no where near where I would like to be: http://www.tractorbynet.com/forums/owning-operating/214590-how-use-box-blade.html

 

[sdef]

Honestly, I have no idea what I'm doing. I do have 40 acres of raw land where the trails/roads get muddy and I'm looking to create a more stable road for driving my truck and camper over. I want to create a road where I don't stand the chance of getting stuck.

The soil in the area is best described as sandy. It's NE Texas, where the spring rains will turn everything to mush and the rest of the year will be scorching hot and dry.

Others will probably respond and provide their input and maybe someone is familiar with your type of soil conditions.

The only way I could fix my mushy/muddy driving surfaces was to grade with a box blade and rake, let it dry out and then cover with larger diameter (2" - 3") gravel or crushed concrete which fixed the muddy surfaces seen in a previous picture I posted. I prefer the crushed concrete as it is less expensive. Most folks will recommend creating a road with a crown in the center and drainage (ditches) off the sides. At my place the best I could hope for was a fairly smooth driving surface a bit higher than the sides in most areas as any grading just brings up more large rocks that creates more grading problems to deal with.

In general, sandy soil would probably not require a box blade as heavy and robust as mine (72" and 710 pounds). However, it certainly would not hurt and the only downside is it would be more expensive. Personally I prefer to go heavier with any implement I purchase to make sure it is robust enough. However, there are cases when it can be easier to float a lighter weight blade over a surface than have a heavier weight blade that may dig in more than wanted. I know. Lots to consider...

It is best for a blade to completely cover your rear tire tracks so measure the tractor and purchase the BB width based upon this measurement. My width is ~ 68" and I purchased a 72" unit. I believe someone previously mentioned a KingKutter 500 pound BB (box blade) and this may be a decent choice for you but I would not go much lighter in weight than this.

A rollover box blade like mine can be easier to use as each position of the blade has only a single function and not multiple functions with one function potentially interfering with another, like in a "regular" BB. My ROBB has three separate positions. One for shanks only, one with a blade for dragging forward (or smoothing backwards) and one for a blade to dig going backwards or smooth going forwards. I use all three positions. In a regular BB the working surfaces are mainly controlled by the angle of the tractor's top link, making a hydraulic top link a near requirement, in my opinion. I highly prefer the simplicity of the ROBB. However, in general they are more expensive than similar non rollover box blades.

Hydraulic cylinder top link and side link options will be a godsend to a new user and is one of the most effective options available, in my opinion. I believe MtnViewRanch on TBN makes these units if interested. I purchased mine with the tractor from the dealer.

If you decide to get a landscape rake, it will need to be at least one size wider than the BB to account for the decreased width when angling the rake. My rake is 84" and barely wide enough when angled to cover the tire tracks.

 

[WoodChuckDad]

You've had some great answers. When it is scorching hot and dry there, is the ground hard to dig? We have red clay here, mixed with some good rich grey dirt. I know that I wish I had insisted on a 1,200 lb gannon box blade instead of the 750 lb woods medium duty blade I have. With 73 hp I could use the extra traction. With tires loaded and the grapple on the front, I'm at about 9,000 lbs. When I'm moving (or I should say when SWAMBO is moving) and hits a small stump or a heavy root, that's a lot of force to put on a boxblade. So far mine is holding up fine...but it's taking a beating. I have 15-20 acres of woodland that I am converting to orchard....I'm unlikely to change to a different box unless it starts to come apart, which it probably won't....but a bit more rear weight would be nice. Everything I buy from now on, will be heavy duty. the only exception is if I came across something at a giveaway price and wasn't planning to use it more than once or twice.

I'd rather have too much power and capability than too little. Not being able to work hard because I'm afraid my box blade is too dainty would irritate me.

 

[bcp]

If you decide to get a landscape rake, it will need to be at least one size wider than the BB to account for the decreased width when angling the rake. My rake is 84" and barely wide enough when angled to cover the tire tracks.

Take the rake or blade width at 90 degrees, multiply that number by 0.7 and the answer will be within an inch or so of the width when turned to 45 degrees.

Bruce

 

[Zerk]

Are the scarifiers the weak point? Can you just use them bent for awhile, and just buy new ones?