Hydro walk behind or belt?

[jlouki01]

I am going to be adding a walk behind to my ZTR's. I use Cub's commercial stuff and I am looking for someone who has used both a hydro walk behind and a belt driven.

The price tag is way higher on the hydro so it must be better ;-)

Do the belts really slip enough on the belt driven to worry about?

[Pelican]

Go hydro and don't look back. The belt drive will be so far behind you that you wouldn't see it anyway. A hydro will mow circles around a belt drive machine and you'll be much less fatigued at the end of the day. The cost is more up front, but you'll get some of that back in added resale at trade in time. I wouldn't own a belt drive having run hydros.

[Nebraska]

Exactly what Pelican said. When I started and it was just me I started with a belt drive... for two years! I picked up my first hydro and it was like a Cadillac compared to the belt drive.

We have a belt drive as backup and this week one of the crews had to use it. The crew leader who's been with us for three years said, after the first time using the belt drive, "Dude, if I ever have to use a belt drive again I'll quit!" He's obviously kidding...but was serious about how much of a dramatic difference there is.

[GLAN]

What are ya cuttin?

Size lots? turf area?

[HRLand]

I switched to hydros 13 years ago and would never consider a belt drive again. I don't think it matters what size lot's or turf areas you're cutting unless it won't fit anything larger than a 21. Most of the properties we service are 5k sf total.

[familyguy]

HYDRO! Absolutely no reason to buy belt. Except for holding up your pants.

[cutntrim]

If money is tight, a belt-drive will work fine. Guess I'm the only one using belt-drive WB's. Two 36" Ransome mowers that I bought new in '99. Used hard every day May-Oct since then with very few problems other than replacing belts. Yep, they require more effort than a hydro but they're reliable and cut quality is just as good as a hydro.

Having said all that, if money is NOT tight, then I'd go with a hydro for the reasons listed above. Especially if you're going to be the one using it daily. My WB's are due to be replaced after this season and I'll look to go to hydro.

[GLAN]

We use belts for 32 and 36.......They are not all that difficult to maneuver. They are also lighter.

Hydro we have in 48 and a 42 Walker.......Hydro certainly makes sense on anything larger than 36

[jlouki01]

Isn't money always tight? :)


thanks for the feedback everyone.

The cub 48" belt is 2700 the Hydro is 4100 I think. Little over 1k different. Not too bad.

[GLAN]

LOL 1400 difference.....

I remember when the difference between belt and hydro was in the $600 range

[Pelican]

I think you'd make that back in a month or two in increased production.

[Mark Oomkes]

Go with the hydro, been using WB's for longer than I care to remember. Took a long time before we bought a hydro, that was stupid. No more wet belts slipping, pushing the dang things up hills when wet or not stopping because the belts are slipping.

Not sure, but I don't think it will pull a sulky as well as a hydro either. There's going to be a lot more wear on the belts if it's pulling another 100-200#'s around.

[cutntrim]

48" Exmark hydro is over $7k up here. I got my 48" Ransome rider for $8,500.