Mahindra 2015 v 2615

[TBrown]

I'm not going to argue theory with either of you, but...

I have a 2015 HST with a 60" RFM. It doesn't seem to matter if the grass is 3" high or 6" high, the tractor does not bog down when mowing. Due to rainy days and my schedule, I had to wait two and a half weeks between mowings last time and my lawn was looking pretty shaggy, it made no difference whatsoever. The limiting factor on how fast I can mow seems to be whether or not I can stay in the seat. The tractor and mower suit each other to a 'T'. I cannot believe anyone would suggest its too large for the tractor.

Now if you're talking about 20hp gasoline powered L&G tractors, I'd agree wholeheartedly, a 60" deck is too big.

I seem to recall that someone in the Kioti forum ran a 60" hog behind their CK20HST. I would think that would asking a bit too much.

Santiago, I waffled between the 2015 and the 2615 as well, ultimately I chose the smaller tractor because I would be finish mowing. For the tasks you've mentioned, I think I'd want the larger tractor. IMO, for a little more money you get alot more tractor with the 2615.

Of course, for just a little bit more than that you can move up to the 3015, and for a little more than that....
/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[Charlie_in_TX]

I would also say the 2615. Have you looked at the xx10 series? They are heavier and more utilitarian machine. The 2310 may be just what you need.

 

[imported_MiserblOF]

Bob, I don't pretend to be an expert, not even owning a tractor myself, but the sizes of mowers I mentioned were the ones that the local dealers seem to advocate with the particular machines mentioned. Also, since I lean toward gear machines rather than the hydros, the PTO hp ranges are not far from those you mention.

The only ballpark I can use as a guestimate is the 12 horsepower Wheelhorse we currently use. It has a 42 inch deck. Now, I ballpark the pto horsepower at the belts of this machine to be about 8, with the other four being used to move the 600 pound machine and the 200 pound me, and some lost to the belt drives. This is a ratio of better than 5 to 1, and this machine has NEVER bogged down in my experience, not even in 18 inch high, thick grass. The limiting factor on this machine has always been the sheer volume of stuff that the deck can process at any time, which results in the need to use a lower gear in the real heavy stuff. This wouldn't even be an issue if it were a rear discharge deck. Of course, I don't go through the really thick three foot stuff in sixth gear with this machine, but when I do, I realize that it isn't really even supposed to be cutting this stuff, which it somehow does with a couple extra passes to get the ones that bridged the deck completely the first time over. When cutting really out-of-control (but still lawn type grass) of the kind that one gets in summer places where you can't get there every week, and weather doesn't even allow cutting every two or three weeks sometimes, the larger deck would be a big advantage because, the 14 inch blades and housing, while capable of cutting just about any grass, are not wide enough to let some of the tall stuff pop up into the mower.. thus a 72 inch deck would be a big boost, allowing anything (roughly) 18 or 20 inches tall to easily get sucked up into the thing.

Kubota sells their 22 HP machines with 60 inch decks, and I believe the 2015 gear has more PTO hp than those machines. Likewise, the Deere machines in the 26 horsepower range tend to be sold with 72 inch decks here.

In all honesty, when you start going to 30 HP tractors, the weight of the tractor itself would seem to make finish mowing kind of chancey, and defeat the purpose of buying one for using with the 72 inch deck.

Anyway, it's good to hear different ideas here. Certainly will help me in my decision.

The Woods Equipment site recommends tractors of 16 to 35 hp. for both its 60 and 72 inch rear finish mowers. (I am assuming that means PTO, but it doesn't say.)

 

[Bob_Skurka]

<font color="green"> Bob, I don't pretend to be an expert </font>
I don't either, but I do play one on TV /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif But seriously, the reason that people like me ask people like you to fill out your profiles is so that we can learn where you are, what conditions you face in terms of soil, climate, etc. I always try to error on the side of caution, and I always stick with the recommendations of the manufacturers (both tractor & implement) because while both are "safe" both also recommend things that will allow their equipment to last a very long time.

As for some other things, let me see if I can help (and all this is coming from a city boy who moved out here about a decade ago and just loves to play with tractors). Gear machines typically will have about 1/2 to 1 more hp available at the PTO than a Hydro transmission will offer (in the size ranges we are discussing here). There is very little advantage to a gear machine for most "homeowner" applications other than the negligable bump in PTO hp and the cost savings when buying the machine. For both loader work and mowing (the 2 jobs typically that eat up most homeowner hours on a tractor and probably make up 80%+ of the total hours) are both accomplished faster with a HST transmission.

Do not ever make any comparisons between a garden tractor and a CUT. You will confuse yourself as they are mechanically so different that any comparison is futile. Sort of like comparing a Cat 3116 175hp diesel in a GMC 25,995 GVW commercial delivery truck to the 305 HO engine in my Avanti Convertible. By making a direct HP comparison, my Avanti should be able to pull one of my loaded trucks around backwards! The reality is quite different.

As for using a 30hp machine to mow, it is very common here! But I will say it is most common on a tractor like a Kubota B2910 or B7800. Those are fairly light machine and make great mowers, especially with a 72" mid mount mower deck. Those two Kubotas weigh only about 300# more than my 24hp New Holland TC24, if I recall the specs correctly.

<font color="blue"> In all honesty, when you start going to 30 HP tractors, the weight of the tractor itself would seem to make finish mowing kind of chancey, and defeat the purpose of buying one for using with the 72 inch deck. </font> There is often an issue of WEIGHT that comes up. I think it is fair to say that weight is only good if you need it, otherwise it is bad. And if that isn't confusing enough, then the real question is when do you need weight? Dealers (and even some manufacturer websites) say that heavy tractors are stronger, simply put there is no basis in fact for that statement on two similar size tractors. Further, some dealers/manufacturers condem tractors made on frames as being prone to breaking (again no basis in fact). If you are plowing a field then weight is good. Weight does equal traction. But if you are using a FEL, then BALLAST is good, but ballast is not weight. Ballast is counter-weight, or weight in the correct place. A heavy tractor is not a better tractor for FEL use IF the weight is in the front axel, engine, etc because that weight is forward of the "center of effort" of the FEL, therefore that weight simply does no good. Now if you shift that weight to the rear of the tractor, then that weight is good, but it simply is not enough. To safely operate any FEL on any brand of tractor of any size you need wheel weights, loaded rear wheels or a ballast box. Think of a schoolyard toy called a "see saw" or "teeter tauter" with 2 kids on it. If one kid is 50# and the other is 100# then the toy is unsafe. If both kids are the same weight, the toy is safe, that is how ballast works. Now, if you want to add weight to that the way some people argue that weight is good and light is bad, I suggest you have a 100# kid sit at the pivot point of that toy, and put one 50# kid on each end. . . the toy still works, while the overall weight is much greater, the added weight doesn't really make it work better or worse, it just exists. For doing some heavy digging into dirt piles, there is some advantage to added overall weight (remember physics class with the discussions on momentum & kenetic energy), but for 98% of the homeowner applications, that advantage is a minor one.

 

[To20Chris]

<font color="blue"> "A heavy tractor is not a better tractor for FEL use IF the weight is in the front axel, engine, etc because that weight is forward of the "center of effort" of the FEL, therefore that weight simply does no good." </font>

Nonsense - you need weight when using a FEL for two purposes:

1. To stabilize a load, and here is is best towards the rear.

2. To get a bite when digging into the earth. Here it is best in the front, right over the blade. It does not matter that the FEL pivots are in the middle of the tractor, the hydraulic pistons make it into a rigid assembly. Weight up front is exactly where you need it for this use.

The main difference between the heavier conventional construction tractors and lighter units with sheet steel constrution is the gear cases. These are located toward the rear anyway. While a ballast box is a great counterweight, and located right where it should be for that purpose, it is also an inconvenience. I often work with the box blade on the back when moving soil - it is not the heaviest thing, but I can use it to smooth the area in fron of the pile now and then, which makes for a more level working area. I can get away with this because the tractor is heavy enough, and the tires are filled.

 

[Bob_Skurka]

Obviously Chris and I disagree on this issue??? Or do we???

To point #1 Chris makes, he is obviously agreeing with me. To stabilize a load you need ballast.

As for point #2 made by Chris, I did point out that mass/kenetic energy does favor a heavier tractor when digging into a pile, so again we agree, but I placed the caveat on my statement that most homeowner would never really benefit from excess weight in most instances.


I would also suggest, that most homeowners probably won't notice much functional difference between any brand of tractor regardless of the price provided that person compares similar size and similarly equiped tractors. So the difference between a lightweight orange, a midweight blue, a heavy red or anything else is really something that most homeowners really will never notice, especially since most CUT owners have 1 tractor and they keep it for 5 to 20 years. They rarely have an opportunity to compare 2 different machines, let alone 2 different brands, side-by-side on their own property. Commercial users may gain a lot of benefit from one feature or another. Homeowners with CUTS typically spend more time mowing their lawn than all other tasks combined. Homeowners with a tiller typically use their tillers for about 1 to 2 hours per year. The majority of CUTs get less than 50 hours per year of use. Homeowners who put 100+ hours each year on their machines are actually fairly rare in the real world, but on TBN are fairly common. So taken from the perspective of the typical user, I think my answers are both safe and accurate.

 

[To20Chris]

<font color="blue"> "Homeowners with CUTS typically spend more time mowing their lawn than all other tasks combined." </font>

Bob, as I have said before, I think this is the reason for our difference of opinion. I really don't know what most people use their CUTs for. I know 4 people with CUTs - 1 is a landscaper with an L35, he has better machines for mowing. 1 has a TC24 (I think), he does some mowing, and is involved with finishing up his house construction. 1 has a Kubota B something or other, he mostly uses it for mowing. 1 has a horse farm and never mows with it. Mine might drag the brush hog now and then, mostly it is digging and dragging a box blade.

The assumption that most CUTs are for mowing may or may not be true, but what is important is that people recognize what they will be doing with it, and what type (not brand) of CUT will be best suited for that use. Then they can have a reasonable expectaion of getting CUT that will last, and be useful, for many years to come. As for the people who buy CUTs and don't read TBN /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif - well, I can't help them much!

 

[DavesTractor]

Bob and Chris,
I think I am starting to get the proper perspective on the weight issue between you guys. It comes down to intended use. Do we mow our lawns with these or not? Do we have acres of lawn? In our area, you either pour the irragation to it or it is brown. To keep a couple acres green would cost several hundred per month in electrical fees to run the pump. Most lawns are less than an acre, generally much less.

We sell a lot of tractors here in northern California, probably around 250 or so this year, of those we sell just a handful of finish or MMM models. Everyone buys a loader and a box scraper and often a brush hog type mower and a post hole digger. Seldom are people looking for a CUT to mow their lawns. Now when I talk to Wayne at LMTC in Ohio, he sells bunches of finish mowers (good prices by the way...) and people like to buy tractors with turf tires from him. I've got turf tires on pallets that will probably rot before I sell them. I hardly ever sell a 2-wheel drive. 98% of the tractors are sold with FELs.

If the major use is the loader and scraper, more weight is better. If the primary use is mowing, lets have a light but powerful machine. As for me, I mow my lawns with a ZTR, and when I want to scrape or load I want a tractor that is not prone to spinning the tires or doing back-wheelies.

So can we say you guys or both right, given your focus?

 

[Bob_Skurka]

Chris, the numbers of what % of time with a CUT is spent mowing came from dealers who post on TBN. Same with the statistic about how many hours a year are spent tilling.

As for people with CUTS and what they do with them, that is going to vary from person to person. There are about a dozen CUTS in my neighborhood, only 1 is NOT used for mowing. At least 3 don't have FELs on them at all.

 

[Ledgemere Farm]

I had a Cub Cadet 7200, which is the same as a 2015. I liked it very much and wished I could have kept it as second tractor. I upgraded to the Cub CAdet 7260, which is the same as the 2615 because I needed, er wanted something heavier. I like the 26 HP a little better, because in the gear version, it had syncro gears and stronger hydraulics (same as the the 30HP model). Go take both of them for a ride and see which you prefer.