Help me decide...

[Fordlords]

It just depends on the jobs to be done and what you have (or want to) spend. The difference is definitely there though and totally noticeable- just go to a Cub Cadet dealer and test a LT1042, then hop on a GT3200. Other than they both have tires and are painted the same colors and will both cut grass, there is not much else to compare between the two models mechanically. Sure, with proper care a Chevy Cobalt CAN last as long as a Silverado and they both will drive down the road, but the Cobalt will not hold up if continuously asked to do the heavy work a Silverado is designed for. Sort of the same comparison here with the tractors. You are foolish to buy a new LT1042 to mow 3 acres of rough, hilly terrain, and likewise the same fool buying a new GT3200 to mow a half acre of flat stuff.
-Fordlords-

 

[thingy]

Like I said,its about money. You are not foolish to get a 2-3,000 dollar mower at lowes or sears to cut 1-3 acres,,you are not foolish to get a 6,000 plus mower to cut 1/2 acre either,,,if you got the money,,the best is,,always better,,,if you ain't the not best will just have to work,,doesn't make you foolish one way or the other.
Comparing a heavy duty truck to a not heavy duty truck[or whatever a colbart is,probably a little car] is foolish,,,we are talking lawnmowers here,,lawnmowers just cut grass,,basicly,,,cheap ones cut grass just as well as expensive ones,,fit and feel ain't got much to do with that.
And,desil,,you mean to tell us that them expensive ones cuts rocks sticking up and humps,,what are they got heavy duty brush hog blades on them or something?,,,and,,my cheap ones going on 14 years,,the 20 hp one,,I ain't spent 100 dollars on parts in those 14 years either,,cut with it every year. And if you think that cub will last the next 50 years or something,,,well it might,,parts might still be on it that were on it new,but,,,,,thingy

 

[Diesel-ME]

And,desil,,you mean to tell us that them expensive ones cuts rocks sticking up and humps,,what are they got heavy duty brush hog blades on them or something?.....

hehehe....I wish

What I meant to imply was that if you have a lawn that was, say, created by reclaiming a hay field and it is bumpy and/or has the tips of large rocks slightly protruding, then I should think the one would think of this as rather rough service for any mower. Not coincidentally, that would be my scenario.

~paul

 

[thingy]

Well,than see there,,,you need one of those cheap ones,,that way when you tear it up you won't have lost so much,,,thingy

 

[Fordlords]

I have a cheap Craftsman Thingy. Sure, it cuts grass just fine and is dependable for that task on the half acre of smooth stuff. However, I don't dare try to pull my heavy dethatcher or aerator with it. Those chores would rip the guts out of the little Hydro-Gear transaxle. And comfort level and ease of operation (fit and feel) DO mean something to many operators. I would not want to mow 3 acres with my Craftsman. It is tiny, steers like a kiddie-toy, and is very noisey. My analogy between the cars and tractors is trying to point out the reality of why heavier duty lawn and garden tractors exist, and why I keep the heavier Cub around for the rough stuff, and why I would buy, or should I say INVEST in a heavier, more expensive machine in the future if the need arose. But, I'm bargaining on my Cub getting to year 50, which it will unless the garage burns down.

Cub 682 Cost new in 1980: $2625 (A lot of 1980 dollars)
Repair/maintenance costs from 1980-1996 approximately $750
New Engine 2006: $1300
New Deck 2006: $580
Projected repair/maintenance costs 2006-2030: $850

Total 50 year projected cost: $6105.00

Factored for inflation, a new Cub 2500 or 3000 would likely have the same round-a-bout figures over the period of time. There are many, and I mean many thousands of well built GT's from the beginning of time that ARE going to reach the 50 year mark- easily. I can't say as I know what happened to the first cheap Craftsman LT10/36 circa 1978 we owned, other than it's probably lying under 20 years of methane at a landfill somewhere in Omaha, NE.

Buying a new cheap Craftsman LT at $1200 every 10 years would equal $6000 in 50 years, less repairs and maintenance, yet the numbers would be equal if used normally, higher if abused. But if the money were the same, the entire time of ownership the more expensive tractor will have hands down better performance and comfort and be able to do heavier tasks. My father was not made of money in 1980 nor was he ever rich. After initially owning a tractor too light and small for his tasks however, he invested in the 682, an investment that paid off. The same will likely hold true for those who buy a tractor like a Cub 2500 or 3000 today.

-Fordlords-

 

[ChipSmith]

You are foolish to buy a new LT1042 to mow 3 acres of rough, hilly terrain, and likewise the same fool buying a new GT3200 to mow a half acre of flat stuff.

This is exactly why I'm having trouble deciding. I only have a half acre (or so) to mow, but with some serious hills.

Strictly for mowing, the fact that an LT is half the price (or less) of the GT makes it very attractive. But I am worried the hydro on an LT being able to handle my (30%+) hills. My current 5-speed tranny is doing just fine with them (with the occasionally belt squeal), but the splash lube engine is toast now.

Trying to find a pressurized lube engine mated to a non-hydro tranny is tough. Craftsman has a few, but trying to sift through the ~50 different flavors Craftsman offers is painful. I don't now if I can trust Sears because I have seen three different prices listed on their web site for the same model tractor. Likewise, they offer different models with what appears to be the same specs, but different prices.

So does anyone have any experience with the Cub LT hydros on hills? Or if I decide to go the non-GT route, would a non-hydro be the best bet?

 

[Diesel-ME]

This is exactly why I'm having trouble deciding. I only have a half acre (or so) to mow, but with some serious hills.

So does anyone have any experience with the Cub LT hydros on hills? Or if I decide to go the non-GT route, would a non-hydro be the best bet?

My shaft-drive (engine->tranny) Cub GT is great for terrain like this. I have a few hills like this that it handles just fine. If it weren't for the hills I'd suggest that you get a typical LT, but I can see your conundrum. I used to have an old gear drive Gravely rider before the Cub and it was not great on the hills. But between the weight, shaft and performance of the GT, for steep hills it's great.

If belt slippage is a concern of yours perhaps some of the other guys know if there are any LT's out there with shaft drive Hydros.....??... But it would be hard to justify spending the extra $$ on a big GT for a small lawn.


Maybe just get a high-wheel lawn mower instead
Heck you could buy 10-15 of those for the price of a big GT!

~paul

 

[Fordlords]

There are no new LT's out there with shaft drive hydros. The cheapest new shaft drive tractor out there is Cub's GT2542 at $3199, but most will say to spend $300 more for the GT2544 as the 44" deck has a different design and is much better than the 42". If you go green their lowest price offering for shaft drive is an X700 at $9700.

The transaxle is the heart of the lawn/garden tractor. There is not much out there that compares to the heavy shaft drive transaxles on the Cubs. They are designed to take anything you can dish out to them, and steep hills will not bother or overheat them. As far as going with a belt drive hydro for steep hills, it's touch and go. Some say they have a perticular model that works fine, others say it's nothing but slip and whine city. The Kohler Command horizontal crankshaft engine (fully pressurized with filter) used on the Cub GT's also has a couple of advantages over a vertical shaft engine, in that it is less prone to seal leakage and less prone to oil consumption when the tractor is used on slopes. The horizontal V-Twin is a superior design for small tractor use. The heavy weight of the Cub GT's is not only made by the large transaxle, but by a heavy gauge frame, something not found on any LT at any price.

With a need to justify it (steep hills) yet only a half acre to mow, the low hours the machine will be used and the uncompromised performance can justify the extra cost as the machine will likely still be around working 30 years from now.

-Fordlords-

 

[thingy]

Ford,yeah,like I said,some pieces of it will [could] last for 50 years,,,once you got to put a new motor in something,,its not lasted any longer than that,to my way of thinking,,you are working on rebuilding it,,I could rebuild that cheap one of mine too thats going on its 14th year,,but the replacement cost for a new one like it,,[maybe 2,500 dollars],would make that a stupid decision on my part,,,,
Its just how you look at it I guess,,its just I don't consider anything with a motor on it a forever thing,,,but to each his own,,,,,thingy

 

[Fordlords]

True an inexpensive LT is not generally worth replacing the engine on when it goes, and that most often signals the end of the LT's useable life. Most LT's have a non-maintainable transaxle that is not rated to last much longer than the engine, and most LT's have no frame at all, they are just bolted together folded or stamped box sections of steel.

With many of the good GT's though, most of the components aside from the engine will outlive an air cooled engine's life two or more times over. This was the philosophy behind upgraded Super GT's with Kubota and Yanmar diesel engines. There they put a 3000 hour engine with basically the same transaxle and frame as their air cooled gas powered GT's and like magic you got a tractor with a total 3000 hour projected lifespan package.

The replacement engine/retrofit market has become HUGE for the older gas GT's, with places like Small Engine Warehouse supplying engines for most of the popular 10+ year and older garden tractors. Why? Because putting a $1200-1500 replacement engine in these tractors is often well worth it compared to spending $3500-10,000+ for an EQUIVALENT replacement tractor. Their frames and transaxles if kept maintained are just about impossible to destroy. (Go to any classic GT forum and you'll see that latter sentence is well verified.) This and the comfort/performance factors are part of what makes a more expensive GT an investment, not just a purchase. It's also why you see quite a few good condition 25+ year old Cubs like the 682 and 782 (yesteryear's equal to the current Cub GT2544 model) still fetching more money on the used market than a brand new Craftsman LT will cost you, which is also a justification factor- resale value. If you buy one and don't like it or your lawn care needs change in the future, you likely won't have too much difficulty unloading a good GT without losing much money. Deere and Cub Cadet GT's are the consistent leaders in the resale category.

-Fordlords-