Jump to content

Nominations for Tractor of the Month
Garden Tractors and Parts on eBay



Photo
- - - - -

"super Garden Tractors"


  • Please log in to reply
52 replies to this topic

#31 SammyRye OFFLINE  

SammyRye

    Member

  • Member
  • Member No: 1558
  • 41 Thanks
  • 45 posts
  • Location: Northwest Wisconsin

Posted January 05, 2014 - 04:46 PM

OkieGT - Sorry, but I don't agree.  Don't know about the 995, but the 990 is truly a SuperGT, built and marketed to compete with Craftsman, Bolens, Wheelhorse, Ford, etc. SGT's of the day.

 

According to Scuffy 727's original criteria:

I know cub cadet coined this phrase when they introduced the 982, but I also like to consider other garden tractors of similar size as a super garden tractor.  Mainly when I refer to a garden tractor as a SGT it needs to be shaft driven and an engine size of 16hp and up.  The frame needs to be heavy of course and the tires usually are: Front tire:            18x8.50-8 and the Rear tire:  26x12.00-12.  I know that they are tons of different models out there, and with that said I put together a little comparison of some SGT that were competing with each other for their share of the market.  Some of the information is incomplete so feel freely to add any information that is missing. Most of the information and pictures came from the internet, I thought it would be interesting to put it all together in one spot.

 

I have a '73 and '82 990.  Both have B&S 16hp horizontal shaft single cylinder engines, hydrostatic trans, rear wheels are 27x9.50-15, front wheels (stock) are 16x6.50-8 (mine are 18x6.50-8), weight is right about 1,000#, mid-PTO, rear hydraulic 3-point.  Both are capable of using several cat "0" attachments, including ground engaging implements, such as a shaft driven tiller.  Another option available was a FEL.  All in all, I'd say the MTD 990's fit the description of a Super Garden Tractor, but not the modern description of a SCUT.

 

Enough said - Rich


  • OkieGt said thank you

#32 twostep OFFLINE  

twostep

    Rockstar

  • Senior Member
  • Contributor
  • Member No: 10198
  • 1,850 Thanks
  • 2,476 posts
  • Location: Berea, KY

Posted January 05, 2014 - 05:44 PM

LOL, and of course if the 990 is included then throw in WH GT-14's too since they match the 990's spec's (minus they are belt driven instead of shaft.



#33 OkieGt OFFLINE  

OkieGt
  • Senior Member
  • -GTt Supporter-
  • Member No: 36782
  • 1,427 Thanks
  • 1,447 posts
  • Location: Oologah, Oklahoma

Posted January 05, 2014 - 06:19 PM

OkieGT - Sorry, but I don't agree.  Don't know about the 995, but the 990 is truly a SuperGT, built and marketed to compete with Craftsman, Bolens, Wheelhorse, Ford, etc. SGT's of the day.

 

According to Scuffy 727's original criteria:

I know cub cadet coined this phrase when they introduced the 982, but I also like to consider other garden tractors of similar size as a super garden tractor.  Mainly when I refer to a garden tractor as a SGT it needs to be shaft driven and an engine size of 16hp and up.  The frame needs to be heavy of course and the tires usually are: Front tire:            18x8.50-8 and the Rear tire:  26x12.00-12.  I know that they are tons of different models out there, and with that said I put together a little comparison of some SGT that were competing with each other for their share of the market.  Some of the information is incomplete so feel freely to add any information that is missing. Most of the information and pictures came from the internet, I thought it would be interesting to put it all together in one spot.

 

I have a '73 and '82 990.  Both have B&S 16hp horizontal shaft single cylinder engines, hydrostatic trans, rear wheels are 27x9.50-15, front wheels (stock) are 16x6.50-8 (mine are 18x6.50-8), weight is right about 1,000#, mid-PTO, rear hydraulic 3-point.  Both are capable of using several cat "0" attachments, including ground engaging implements, such as a shaft driven tiller.  Another option available was a FEL.  All in all, I'd say the MTD 990's fit the description of a Super Garden Tractor, but not the modern description of a SCUT.

 

Enough said - Rich

It doesn't matter what they marketed them for, or against, if they aren't an SGT, and I would say a 990 or 995 is in the class of D200, JD400 et al, maybe you have seen/driven a real SGT, one on the list. What's up with "enough said" does that mean no else has a opinion?I don't like that phrase.



#34 twostep OFFLINE  

twostep

    Rockstar

  • Senior Member
  • Contributor
  • Member No: 10198
  • 1,850 Thanks
  • 2,476 posts
  • Location: Berea, KY

Posted January 05, 2014 - 08:12 PM

Comparing my GT-14 to my JD400, I can say there is a huge difference between the feel of using them. Even though the JD400 isn't any heavier it is just BIGGER.. and more powerful.

 

Maybe we should put the GT-14, 990, 300 series JD (318, 330, 322, 332), others? in a SSGT class, Sub-Super Garden Tractor :thumbs:


Edited by twostep, January 05, 2014 - 08:13 PM.

  • OkieGt said thank you

#35 OkieGt OFFLINE  

OkieGt
  • Senior Member
  • -GTt Supporter-
  • Member No: 36782
  • 1,427 Thanks
  • 1,447 posts
  • Location: Oologah, Oklahoma

Posted January 05, 2014 - 08:23 PM

Comparing my GT-14 to my JD400, I can say there is a huge difference between the feel of using them. Even though the JD400 isn't any heavier it is just BIGGER.. and more powerful.

Maybe we should put the GT-14, 990, 300 series JD (318, 330, 322, 332), others? in a SSGT class, Sub-Super Garden Tractor :thumbs:

That's a good idea, because the 990, 995, GT-14, 300 series JD's, Massey 1650s, and even the Ariens GT18's etal, are in a class above most 10, 12, 14, hp GTs, but none of those are a Super Garden Tractor and none of those Super Garden Tractors on the list is a SCUT, a SCUT is a Sub Compact Utility Tractor, literally a little farm tractor.

Edited by MH81, January 05, 2014 - 09:18 PM.

  • twostep said thank you

#36 Canawler OFFLINE  

Canawler

    Member

  • Senior Member
  • -GTt Supporter-
  • Contributor
  • Member No: 1273
  • 1,893 Thanks
  • 1,750 posts
  • Location: York, PA

Posted January 06, 2014 - 11:16 AM

There seems to be a bit of an argument about what tractors to add to the list of SGTs but its hard to tell if a tractor makes it when there haven't been any hard numbers established or absolute required features to qualify.  I suggest setting minimum requirements first.  Then it would be a lot easier to say a tractor makes it or not.

Minimum wheelbase:

Minimum length:

Minimum width:

Minimum weight:

Minimum tire size:

Power steering required?

A certain speed pto required?

Front pto required?

Front hydraulics required?

Does it have to be shaft drive?  No belts anywhere in the drivetrain?

Does it have to have shaft driven attachments?

 

Anyone else care to add to the potential requirements?  Please do and add any answers you feel appropriate.

 

 

 

 

 

I don't think the 990/995s would qualify any more than the 444/448s or the Massey 1650s, because of front wheel size, weight, and size

I knew the 990s were big but I never looked up numbers or measured before.  I'll grant you the front wheel size but I think the 990s are a bit bigger than you realize.  The weight and size are right in there with most on the posted list.  Obviously VERY subjective but I've been on a JD425 and it didn't really feel any bigger than the 990 to me.  In fact, I think the 990 seating position might have been up higher.

 

The only specs I could find in advertising were the WB and weight so I just measured one in my garage.

Weight:  875lbs - 1035lbs (depending on which brochure I read)

Wheelbase:  49.5"

Length:  73.5" (measured)

Height:  45" (measured at top of seat - is that the correct place?  Personally I think hood height does a lot more for perception of size)

Width:  41"-46" (measured - mine was 41" with wheels in but the hubs can be moved out for 5" additional tread) 

 

 

It doesn't matter what they marketed them for, or against, if they aren't an SGT, and I would say a 990 or 995 is in the class of D200, JD400 et al, maybe you have seen/driven a real SGT, one on the list. What's up with "enough said" does that mean no else has a opinion?I don't like that phrase.

 I assume that's a typo as those two were included on the initial list?  Or did you mean those two shouldn't be on the list?

 

 

Obviously the Bolens large frames should be considered SGTs but even the medium frame Duratracs and Troy-bilt GTXs are very close in dimension to the others on the list (except tire size) plus standard power steering, shaft drive everything, and available diesel engines and front hydraulics, depending on model.  Just a thought.


  • MH81 and OkieGt have said thanks

#37 OkieGt OFFLINE  

OkieGt
  • Senior Member
  • -GTt Supporter-
  • Member No: 36782
  • 1,427 Thanks
  • 1,447 posts
  • Location: Oologah, Oklahoma

Posted January 06, 2014 - 11:36 AM

There seems to be a bit of an argument about what tractors to add to the list of SGTs but its hard to tell if a tractor makes it when there haven't been any hard numbers established or absolute required features to qualify.  I suggest setting minimum requirements first.  Then it would be a lot easier to say a tractor makes it or not.

Minimum wheelbase:

Minimum length:

Minimum width:

Minimum weight:

Minimum tire size:

Power steering required?

A certain speed pto required?

Front pto required?

Front hydraulics required?

Does it have to be shaft drive?  No belts anywhere in the drivetrain?

Does it have to have shaft driven attachments?

 

Anyone else care to add to the potential requirements?  Please do and add any answers you feel appropriate.

 

 

 

 

 

I knew the 990s were big but I never looked up numbers or measured before.  I'll grant you the front wheel size but I think the 990s are a bit bigger than you realize.  The weight and size are right in there with most on the posted list.  Obviously VERY subjective but I've been on a JD425 and it didn't really feel any bigger than the 990 to me.  In fact, I think the 990 seating position might have been up higher.

 

The only specs I could find in advertising were the WB and weight so I just measured one in my garage.

Weight:  875lbs - 1035lbs (depending on which brochure I read)

Wheelbase:  49.5"

Length:  73.5" (measured)

Height:  45" (measured at top of seat - is that the correct place?  Personally I think hood height does a lot more for perception of size)

Width:  41"-46" (measured - mine was 41" with wheels in but the hubs can be moved out for 5" additional tread) 

 

 

 I assume that's a typo as those two were included on the initial list?  Or did you mean those two shouldn't be on the list?

 

 

Obviously the Bolens large frames should be considered SGTs but even the medium frame Duratracs and Troy-bilt GTXs are very close in dimension to the others on the list (except tire size) plus standard power steering, shaft drive everything, and available diesel engines and front hydraulics, depending on model.  Just a thought.

Yeah it was a typo, but to clarify, When we talk about the Tractor model 990 or 995, which one are we talking about, the 1970s Dayton/Farm King/Unico, or the latter MTD GT2055, because the later 80's gold Dayton 990/995 isn't the same as the earlier 990/995 and neither are like the later 1980s MTD GT2055, or GT1855's, which I would consider SGTs because of their size. The Duratracs and Troybilt GTX's fall into the same class as the MTD GT2055s, and I would have to allow them SGT status as well. I apologize for the offhand comment we are all entitled to voice opinions, sorry Sammye.


Edited by OkieGt, January 06, 2014 - 11:39 AM.


#38 gtcsreg OFFLINE  

gtcsreg
  • Senior Member
  • Member No: 25875
  • 1,665 Thanks
  • 1,646 posts
  • Location: Winchester, IL

Posted January 06, 2014 - 12:34 PM

Ok, there are some thin lines here.  If you're going to list minimum specs you need to clarify whether it has to come from the factory that way or it is easily capable of meeting those requirements.  According to the original post Massy/Snapper 1650 would meet all but the tires I believe.  I've seen some of you guys put on the bigger tires with only your pocket book as a limitation.  Mine's super to me whether it meets or not.  I think Scuffy 727 started this for fun and if so I say lets have fun.


  • twostep, OkieGt and jpswift1 have said thanks

#39 OkieGt OFFLINE  

OkieGt
  • Senior Member
  • -GTt Supporter-
  • Member No: 36782
  • 1,427 Thanks
  • 1,447 posts
  • Location: Oologah, Oklahoma

Posted January 06, 2014 - 12:42 PM

Ok, there are some thin lines here.  If you're going to list minimum specs you need to clarify whether it has to come from the factory that way or it is easily capable of meeting those requirements.  According to the original post Massy/Snapper 1650 would meet all but the tires I believe.  I've seen some of you guys put on the bigger tires with only your pocket book as a limitation.  Mine's super to me whether it meets or not.  I think Scuffy 727 started this for fun and if so I say lets have fun.

Back in fun mode. I would think SGT would have shaft drive front, mid, and rear, 3 point, but some on the original list don't have that (I don't think). By the specs my Ariens GTs would come in as a SGT more so than my Massey 1650, but I don't consider them any differnet. I really do think there is a difference in Bolens HT series, Wheel Horse D series and John Deere 400s. I think its safe to say that there were only a few SGTs before 1980, the ones just mentioned and maybe a couple others, many more SGT's appeared after 1980. One thing I have to disagree with is the inclusion of ANY single cylinder into the SGT class/


  • gtcsreg said thank you

#40 gtcsreg OFFLINE  

gtcsreg
  • Senior Member
  • Member No: 25875
  • 1,665 Thanks
  • 1,646 posts
  • Location: Winchester, IL

Posted January 06, 2014 - 12:54 PM

Back in fun mode. I would think SGT would have shaft drive front, mid, and rear, 3 point, but some on the original list don't have that (I don't think). By the specs my Ariens GTs would come in as a SGT more so than my Massey 1650, but I don't consider them any differnet. I really do think there is a difference in Bolens HT series, Wheel Horse D series and John Deere 400s. I think its safe to say that there were only a few SGTs before 1980, the ones just mentioned and maybe a couple others, many more SGT's appeared after 1980. One thing I have to disagree with is the inclusion of ANY single cylinder into the SGT class/

On the single cylinder argument, I think age comes into play.  Yes the twins run sooth as silk and can be fantastic at there intended use. I wouldn't want to put my JD X320 twin 22HP Kaw. against my Snapper 1650 Kohler 16HP in a torque contest (pulling).  That's a direct drive deference mostly I know but it's all about intended use.  Old age = torque and raw power.   New age = smooth ease and dependability.


  • twostep and OkieGt have said thanks

#41 OkieGt OFFLINE  

OkieGt
  • Senior Member
  • -GTt Supporter-
  • Member No: 36782
  • 1,427 Thanks
  • 1,447 posts
  • Location: Oologah, Oklahoma

Posted January 06, 2014 - 01:27 PM

On the single cylinder argument, I think age comes into play.  Yes the twins run sooth as silk and can be fantastic at there intended use. I wouldn't want to put my JD X320 twin 22HP Kaw. against my Snapper 1650 Kohler 16HP in a torque contest (pulling).  That's a direct drive deference mostly I know but it's all about intended use.  Old age = torque and raw power.   New age = smooth ease and dependability.

But, I don't think your x320 Deere (not sure why it's even mentioned, it's not an old GT) or our 1650's qualify as SGT's. A SGT almost has to be a twin, I dont care about smooth or quiet, a 18-20 hp engine is SUPerior to a single cylinder in torque and power. I think we have very few SGTs prior to 1980 and many more after 1980. Back to the 1650's, They are not in the same class as the 1655's or 1855. or the Bolens HT's, Wheel Horse D series, they just arent. They are in the same (small) class as the Ariens GTs, CASE 444/446/448 in fact these models seem to occupy a spot between large GT and SGT, It seems like after 1980 many brands went to twins on their large GT's from which a SGT evolved. It also seems clear there were a few that fell in between classes.



#42 Canawler OFFLINE  

Canawler

    Member

  • Senior Member
  • -GTt Supporter-
  • Contributor
  • Member No: 1273
  • 1,893 Thanks
  • 1,750 posts
  • Location: York, PA

Posted January 06, 2014 - 01:32 PM

When we talk about the Tractor model 990 or 995, which one are we talking about, the 1970s Dayton/Farm King/Unico, or the latter MTD GT2055, because the later 80's gold Dayton 990/995 isn't the same as the earlier 990/995 and neither are like the later 1980s MTD GT2○055, or GT1855's, which I would consider SGTs because of their size.

I'm going to simplify it because of all the individual model numbers but MTD had really only two big hydros, early and late. The 990 was produced from '71 through the early '80s (MTD website lists an 83/84 manual) with no changes in physical size. The new updated tractor was the 995 which came out as a '78 and all the later models (992/994/996/998/999) produced through '99 were just slightly tweaked versions of that 995 with different engines. There was a 990 Dayton but the one pictured in this thread would be a 995. The White 1855 and 2055 are all the same physical size as all the other late model design tractors, just different grills and engines mostly.
I don't have one of the newer tractors but I might be able to get some dimensions from a White brochure I have. The numbers I posted are from a 990.

I hadn't thought of the single cylinder thing so that would be a spec to consider.

Edited by Canawler, January 06, 2014 - 01:36 PM.

  • OkieGt said thank you

#43 OkieGt OFFLINE  

OkieGt
  • Senior Member
  • -GTt Supporter-
  • Member No: 36782
  • 1,427 Thanks
  • 1,447 posts
  • Location: Oologah, Oklahoma

Posted January 06, 2014 - 01:50 PM

I'm going to simplify it because of all the individual model numbers but MTD had really only two big hydros, early and late. The 990 was produced from '71 through the early '80s (MTD website lists an 83/84 manual) with no changes in physical size. The new updated tractor was the 995 which came out as a '78 and all the later models (992/994/996/998/999) produced through '99 were just slightly tweaked versions of that 995 with different engines. There was a 990 Dayton but the one pictured in this thread would be a 995. The White 1855 and 2055 are all the same physical size as all the other late model design tractors, just different grills and engines mostly.
I don't have one of the newer tractors but I might be able to get some dimensions from a White brochure I have. The numbers I posted are from a 990.

I hadn't thought of the single cylinder thing so that would be a spec to consider.

But the later model MTDs were made int he 1980s and later, also the later 1855s and 2055s had larger front tires and power steering. They also made a GT1650 and maybe a 1850/2050 ( I believe that were single cylinder versions) Again are we going to include all GTs ever built no matter what year or decade n the SGT list, or should their be a early and late classification?



#44 gtcsreg OFFLINE  

gtcsreg
  • Senior Member
  • Member No: 25875
  • 1,665 Thanks
  • 1,646 posts
  • Location: Winchester, IL

Posted January 06, 2014 - 01:53 PM

But, I don't think your x320 Deere (not sure why it's even mentioned, it's not an old GT) or our 1650's qualify as SGT's. A SGT almost has to be a twin, I dont care about smooth or quiet, a 18-20 hp engine is SUPerior to a single cylinder in torque and power. I think we have very few SGTs prior to 1980 and many more after 1980. Back to the 1650's, They are not in the same class as the 1655's or 1855. or the Bolens HT's, Wheel Horse D series, they just arent. They are in the same (small) class as the Ariens GTs, CASE 444/446/448 in fact these models seem to occupy a spot between large GT and SGT, It seems like after 1980 many brands went to twins on their large GT's from which a SGT evolved. It also seems clear there were a few that fell in between classes.

No real argument on the 1650 vs 1655 and 1855.  1650 is the biggest I've ever driven.  The x320 JD is the largest lawn tractor they were putting out when I bought it.  Almost a crossover to a GT just not quite.  Dad had a good sized MTD (may have been branded something else, I don't remember) it was made in the 90's I think, it was a twin over 20HP and had heavier frame for the period.  I would class it's performance and ability equal to my modern JD.  More of a heavy use lawn tractor. I very much see your points on twin against singles of old.  Guess what I'm saying is IMHO they don't make them like they used to.


  • OkieGt said thank you

#45 OkieGt OFFLINE  

OkieGt
  • Senior Member
  • -GTt Supporter-
  • Member No: 36782
  • 1,427 Thanks
  • 1,447 posts
  • Location: Oologah, Oklahoma

Posted January 06, 2014 - 02:12 PM

Guess what I'm saying is IMHO they don't make them like they used to.

That is an understatement, but two final things. I don't believe most Americans (consumers) ask the same out of a GT as our predecessors did, not in mowers or big tractors. The Capitalistic system can only survive on repeat sales, they cannot survive on mowers. tractors, refrigerators, cars, etc lasting 30 plus years. and we as consumers as a whole don't do or own repair, gardening, snow removal, in fact many don't even mow their own yards, those that do find the quickest easiest way possible. These companies know that and for the most part build a cheap throw away or an expensive throw away that wont be asked to even do what our old GTs took for granted






Top