Want to see how a 24-G with 72" mowing deck looks

Yup, got a couple pics. One's my avatar.


Next to my '67 424

I can see one serious problem with a 72inch deck.......I'd be done way too fast! I enjoy my time on the Gravely. Even the 50 inch deck makes short work of my lawn. Must be really nice on a large lawn! The 24g must be a real beast. my 12's and 16 hp machines seem to have plenty of power..but I guess you can never have enough power. Ed

Thanks. Now that I know what how to spot the G-series 72-inch deck, they will be easy to spot. All G-series can attach this big deck, and their transmissions are identical. But if a G-series tractor was originally fitted with the 12 horse Kohler engine, Gravely limited mowing deck choices to 40" and 50". Here are some shots of a 16-G with the 72" deck. which must have been a special order as that was not listed as a standard choice for a 16-G tractor. It wouldn't be prudent to let the grass get too tall before trying to make that 16 horse engine swing 72' of mowing width. My Ariens S16-H has a 16 horse Kohler single-cylinder engine, hydrostatic transmission, PTO shaft drive to its 60-inch belly mower. It mows fine with that width, but if you let some remote lawn section get REALLY tall, it needs to cut less than full width plus my usual 6" overlap per pass. But I still want to replace my 50" deck with one of these 72" cuties since I have 11 acres, most of which I mow. I have a huge Kubota snow blower that I'd trade for one of these decks if anyone has one. Kubota attachments are much more marketable.




Talk about a low center of gravity compared to effective track width.

I've looked at images of the 72" deck they ran on the GMT 9000.
At least the side wheel supports are configured differently.
They might be interchanged, but it might require some tweaking.
They are definitely NOT identical.

Hope this research helps others as well. Thanks for your help.
John

LoveLearn said:

Hope this research helps others as well. Thanks for your help.
John

Click to expand...

thanks, it DOES help ... helps me WANT ONE OF THOSE TRACTORS!



what's under the hood?

what an awesome beast ... I'm on the look out now

also, what kind of Kubota snow thrower do you have? ... and photos of it you might want to put up here? :wwp:



.

"What's under the hood?"

Without an engine under the hood, there's room for a FULL SIZED automotive battery, rather than one of those tiny tot sized batteries. I've intermittently used mine to drive an inverter that powered my electric chain saw. Trimming along a fence line like that with a tiny battery that couldn't pull the load would only be frustrating. Jump start a car that won't start? Not likely with a 1/3-sized battery. I like Gravely's generously-sized battery containment space just as I like pulse-type lead-acid battery maintainers which can double battery life by preventing and even reversing sulfation. If you don't have one, check into them as they can save you from aggravation when a battery on which you depend fails you. Besides, over the long run, they will save you money too.

Serious tractors that were intended for professional use should be fitted with generously-sized fuel tanks. Gravely's G-series 5-gallon tank capacity is not over-sized.

That under-hood space is pretty well used. Access to that space for service work when it's needed is more pleasant than many machines which require crouching down into some contorted position. I've experienced both. Less aggravation feels better. Here, see for yourself -

John

The 16-G in the pictures LoveLearn posted looks to me to have a 60" deck. Here is a cl link for a 20-G with a 60" deck for sale in Philly with some pictures for reference. http://philadelphia.craigslist.org/grd/1283523238.html

My stepfather has a 18-G he purchaced new with a 60" deck. Very nice, garage kept machine. He's been talking about replacing it with a Kubota for a couple years now. I ask him most every time I see him if he's ready to sell me the Gravely......

Great find Bill. Thanks. If I were not so far from that offering party, I'd offer to trade my well-functioning 12-G with 50" deck in a heart beat and then repair his for my own use.

Ok, Tiretrx, would you do the following two things for us?
First use a tape to measure your deck's actual CUTTING WIDTH, not the deck plus ejector width. Confirm that yours is actually a 72" cutter.
Next, examine the photos I posted and those in the Craigslist link. Then position you camera's distance and angle either from front to back or back to front as closely similar to one of those photos as you can so we can compare them. A 72" deck should project out 6" wider on each side than a 60" deck. All these photographed decks appear HUGE compared to my 50" deck. That extra 6" per side should be pretty obvious if camera angle and position are similar.

I've been using http://www.tinypic.com/, with photos sized close to one of these pixel size limits : 1024 horizontal, 768 vertical. Then, BEFORE uploading, I click on the bottom box which allows selecting preferred image size where I select 1024 x 768. After uploading, I copy and paste the discussion group image format address that site generates and post it into the note. Yoke, sugar, easy. Why post a tiny image when a more screen-filling image shows so much more detail?

Thanks for your help.
John

LoveLearn said:

Great find Bill. Thanks. If I were not so far from that offering party, I'd offer to trade my well-functioning 12-G with 50" deck in a heart beat and then repair his for my own use.

Ok, Tiretrx, would you do the following two things for us?
First use a tape to measure your deck's actual CUTTING WIDTH, not the deck plus ejector width. Confirm that yours is actually a 72" cutter.
Next, examine the photos I posted and those in the Craigslist link. Then position you camera's distance and angle either from front to back or back to front as closely similar to one of those photos as you can so we can compare them. A 72" deck should project out 6" wider on each side than a 60" deck. All these photographed decks appear HUGE compared to my 50" deck. That extra 6" per side should be pretty obvious if camera angle and position are similar.

I've been using http://www.tinypic.com/, with photos sized close to one of these pixel size limits : 1024 horizontal, 768 vertical. Then, BEFORE uploading, I click on the bottom box which allows selecting preferred image size where I select 1024 x 768. After uploading, I copy and paste the discussion group image format address that site generates and post it into the note. Yoke, sugar, easy. Why post a tiny image when a more screen-filling image shows so much more detail?

Thanks for your help.
John

Click to expand...

I found some information on the G series riders on www.oldgravleys.net. Based on what I'm reading it looks as though the 24-G is the only G series rider that was available with the 72" deck. A 60" deck was available on the 16-G, 18-G, and 20-G.

Something else I noticed, the 24-G is physically larger than the 18-G and 20-G, which are larger than the 14-G and 16-G. My point is, since the 24-G is physically larger (3.2 inches wider, 8.2 inches longer) than a 20-G it would be difficult to compare tractors and decks using seperate photos.

The photos do show nice detail, especially when you zoom in.

http://www.oldgravelys.net/pdf/ProG_Power_Units.pdf

http://www.oldgravelys.net/pdf/Pro_24G_Flyer.pdf

Bill

bill72dart said:

I found some information on the G series riders on www.oldgravleys.net. Based on what I'm reading it looks as though the 24-G is the only G series rider that was available with the 72" deck. A 60" deck was available on the 16-G, 18-G, and 20-G.

Something else I noticed, the 24-G is physically larger than the 18-G and 20-G, which are larger than the 14-G and 16-G. My point is, since the 24-G is physically larger (3.2 inches wider, 8.2 inches longer) than a 20-G it would be difficult to compare tractors and decks using seperate photos.

The photos do show nice detail, especially when you zoom in.

http://www.oldgravelys.net/pdf/ProG_Power_Units.pdf

http://www.oldgravelys.net/pdf/Pro_24G_Flyer.pdf

Bill

Click to expand...

Good call Bill and MY thanks! Your right, the 24-G is unique in the Pro G series in a number of ways as well illustrated in the reference material you linked. The dual drum brakes and power steering really kick *** in my book. It's interesting to note that many people consider the GMT 9000 the apex of Gravely riders, but a lot of pretty hardcore Gravely folks say it's the 24-G. I've never had the pleasure of being on a 9000 so I don't know enough to say. But I do know I wouldn't trade for my own reasons. Any opinions out there?

Forgive me for asking, but are you sure you "know what how to spot" a "72-inch deck"? Based on your photos they might NOT "be easy to spot".

LoveLearn said:

Now that I know what how to spot the G-series 72-inch deck, they will be easy to spot.

Here are some shots of a 16-G with the 72" deck.

Click to expand...

I could be wrong & certainly haven't seen all versions of them, but it looks like a 60" deck to me. All the 72" decks I've seen have a round/radiused curve at front left corner, conversely all the 60" decks I've seen have a nearly square/sharp angular corner, as is clearly seen in your photo. The guide wheel adjustment brackets I've seen on 72" decks are located well away from the left edge, attributable to the extra (~6"/side) width, whereas the bracket on a 60" is adjacent to the edge, as is clearly seen in your photo. This bracket is also relatively long on a 72" whereas the 60" in your photo looks just like the short 1 on my 60" deck.

The 24-G frame is longer & the extra length is easily seen as the 'stretch' between the footstand & the welded to frame deck latch. This additional length is required to fit the 72" deck's longer front to back size. The 24-G's extra width is accomplished by extending the axles & 26x12 tires.

bill72dart said:

Based on what I'm reading it looks as though the 24-G is the only G series rider that was available with the 72" deck. A 60" deck was available on the 16-G, 18-G, and 20-G.

Something else I noticed, the 24-G is physically larger than the 18-G and 20-G, which are larger than the 14-G and 16-G. My point is, since the 24-G is physically larger (3.2 inches wider, 8.2 inches longer) than a 20-G it would be difficult to compare tractors and decks using seperate photos.

Click to expand...

In regard to: "the 18-G and 20-G, which are larger than the 14-G and 16-G" I believe you'll find the only reason for the slightly different width specs was GRAVELY's choice of different tire sizes. The 14-G & 16-G came w/23x8.50-12 whereas the 18-G & 20-G had 23x10.50-12 tires. IMHO, outside of motors, there is nothing "physically larger" about 18 & 20-G tractors themselves.

Old3Banger said:

The 24-G frame is longer & the extra length is easily seen as the 'stretch' between the footstand & the welded to frame deck latch. This additional length is required to fit the 72" deck's longer front to back size. The 24-G's extra width is accomplished by extending the axles & 26x12 tires.



In regard to: "the 18-G and 20-G, which are larger than the 14-G and 16-G" I believe you'll find the only reason for the slightly different width specs was GRAVELY's choice of different tire sizes. The 14-G & 16-G came w/23x8.50-12 whereas the 18-G & 20-G had 23x10.50-12 tires. IMHO, outside of motors, there is nothing "physically larger" about 18 & 20-G tractors themselves.

Click to expand...

Thanks for clearing that up for us.

I'm glad that I started this discussion thread because I had failed to fully analyze information which was available to me. I wasn't sure that the larger deck photos I had all showed 72" rather than 60" mowers. It's now clear to me that extra space between the side-support roller bar and the outside is required to confirm that it is a 72" rather than the more common, but still wonderful 60" deck. Also the rounded outside leading edge should help spotting 72" decks. Old3banger observed and well described those differences.

"IMHO, outside of motors, there is nothing "physically larger" about 18 & 20-G tractors themselves."

Agreed that the 24-G is the same size as the rest of the G-series except for its 7.7-inch longer wheelbase (60" - 52.3" = 7.7"). So we could swap onto a common G-series machine, power steering, heavier steering links, larger rims and tires, individual drum brakes, a 24 horse or stronger engine (make mine a diesel), but without that extended frame, we still wouldn't have duplicated a 24-G. I've seen some 72" and 84" mowing decks with 4 rather than 3 blades. Their front to back dimension is smaller than same-width 3-blade decks. I speculate that one of those short-but-wide 4-blade shaft-drive decks could fit under standard G-series tractors without extending their wheelbase. There's an extra benefit from this path which the following paragraph will make clear.

One descriptive feature that I didn't like about the 24-G which has not been mentioned in this discussion is its very limited PTO driving capabilities. My GMT 9000 has front, middle and rear PTOs. Standard G-series 12-G, 14-G, 16-G, 18-G and 20-G all list PTO attachment choices as: Front - optional, Middle - standard, Rear - optional. Whereas 24-G lists PTO attachment choice as: Front - Not Available, Middle - standard, Rear - Not Available. You can confirm this description in this link Bill72dart kindly provided.
http://www.oldgravelys.net/pdf/ProG_Power_Units.pdf

Without front or rear PTO factory options, a 24-G is more limited in what it can do unless the owner swaps on parts from a standard G-series machine and makes extensions as needed. Anyone preforming a wheelbase extension to a standard-length G-series tractor would face most of the same issues if they want to enjoy a front or rear PTO optional choice. That extra work argues toward keeping standard length frame dimensions and looking for a suitable wider mowing deck that can fit within space between the front and rear tires, even if that must be a 4-blade rather than a 3-blade deck.

I've owned a heavy front lifting device equipped tractor without power steering. It has a forklift front which was formerly used at an airport near Seattle. Why they didn't fit power steering to that machine is beyond me. I picked up a slide-in pickup camper with it once and could barely steer it. It's fine for handling less heavy objects, but it still requires steering effort when turning. If anybody would be interested in owning an International 2424 with glassed-in rain cab and front fork lift, touch base with me by personal message as I still own it and would like to allocate that garage space to something else. Power steering, which was a standard feature on 24-G and GMT 9000 makes them especially suitable candidates to accept Front End Loaders (FEL). Anyone adding a FEL to a standard G-series tractor would be well advised to also add power steering. At least that's my opinion.

Thanks for correcting my errors and instructing me. This has definitely been a 2-way information flow which can help others better understand these issues and from which I learned. Yet nobody attacked anybody. Nicely done.
John

LoveLearn said:

This has definitely been a 2-way information flow which can help others better understand these issues and from which I learned. Yet nobody attacked anybody. Nicely done.
John

Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more John. At the end of the day we're here because we're interested in communicating about Gravely's. I learn every day. In my opinion the Gravely forum just keeps getting better. It's good to hear honest opinions and see questions asked and answered. Thanks for the input.

LoveLearn said:

Click to expand...

It's probably ag'in the rules to keep having this pic of the 24-G keep appearing, right?