Go BottomRollover vs Conventional Box Scraper
 | JeffM
Join Date: Posts: 1 
|
2001-02-16 24282
I plan to buy a box scraper this spring and trying to decide if I want to get a rollover box scraper or a conventional one. I'd appreciate any and all opinions on the merits of both types, especially from folks who have used them both. My tractor is a 35 hp JD4400 with turfs and a loader. My soil is well-drained, but has a significant clay base and is embedded with glacial till, that is, rocks varying from pea gravel to boulders the size of major appliances. Over time I want to grade and landscape about 4 acres of the old fields/pastures around the house we recently built for a "lawn" and open meadow. I also want to excavate for and finish grade a crushed-stone driveway and parking area. My plan is to get a fairly heavy-duty unit just wider than my tractor tires (65 or 66"). I expect that I would make use of the scarifiers quite a bit, especially with the rocky soil. Should I get a wider box like 72"? How big and heavy a box can my tractor handle? There are some box blades with hydraulic scarifier retraction, but they are ~1000 lbs and are indicated for 40-65 hp tractors. The rollover boxes look interesting to me, but I don't even know how expensive they are yet. Lend me your thoughts and opinions please.
Reply to |
Quote Reply |
Add PhotoRollover vs Conventional Box Scraper
| TomG
Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 5406 Upper Ottawa Valley 
|
2001-02-17 24301
I use a 6' plain old box on a 24-hp tractor with turf tires. The soil is very sandy. The combination does give me traction, rather than power, problems when ripping sod or dragging a full box on loose gravel. The traction problems are manageable by taking smaller bites. A 5' box would be the conventional choice for my tractor, but the extra length is useful when cutting side-grades. A 6' box should be fine for your tractor. With clay soil, I'd get as heavy a box as possible. Roll-over and hydraulic scarifier features add a lot the price of a box. I think of these features mostly as time savers. They may be desirable on a box in commercial use, but for a homeowner, the landscaping eventually is done. A full-featured box can become an expensive implement that mostly sits around and is used to maintain a few drives a year. Fancy box features take a rear hydraulic outlet(s). I try to save my hydraulics for uses where I need to make small adjustments frequently, and especially adjustments on the fly. For homeowner use, I think hydraulic top and side-links (especially top-link) are a much better use of rear hydraulics than scarifiers and roll-overs. Another choice that could be made is between fixed and hinged rear cutter type boxes. I've only used a fixed rear cutter type, and that's what I'm happy with, but I understand that a hinged type has some advantages. I believe that a fixed rear cutter can sometimes interfere with the front cutter's action. A hinged cutter also is supposed to spread material in the box better than a fixed type. However, I use my box for compacting gravel by tilting it down so it rides on the back of the rear cutter. I don't think I could do that with a hinged cutter. A final choice might be between a fancy box, or a plain box plus a landscape rake. A landscape rake will do a much better job preparing land for planting lawn than any box. ....
Reply to |
Quote Reply |
Add PhotoRollover vs Conventional Box Scraper
| Roger L.
Join Date: Jun 1999 Posts: 0
|
2001-02-17 24307
I've never used the rollovers, but even so I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Tom has it right: A hydraulic top and side link (particularly top)would be more useful. In fact, they would are useful for a variety of tools. If you ever have to turn around in tight quarters on sloping ground you will appreciate the hydraulic top link.
As for the hinged rear blade, I have one and don't find it to be any great use. It does fold up when you don't want it in the way, so it isn't any detriment. I guess it could help when pushing sand backwards...but usually when I'm going backwards I'm pushing something big or smoothing - not pushing sand.
Hmmm...I'll go a step farther on this landscaping thing. Of all the jobs that I thought that I would do with the box, I've ended up doing them with the loader instead. The box is mainly handy as a counterweight for the loader, as a portable workbench, and sometimes in reverse I use the box to push something heavy like a landscape rock into position. Everything else I thought I'd do with the box is done with the loader. In fact, I'm sitting here trying to think if there is anything that the box will do better than the loader? Even scarifying... With my tooth bar ($250) the loader bucket will out-scarify the best box. The bucket can move more material from place to place in a shorter time - and without dragging it around in the process. For smoothing, the bucket used in reverse is so much better than it isn't even a contest.
....
Reply to |
Quote Reply |
Add PhotoRollover vs Conventional Box Scraper
| JeffM
Join Date: Posts: 1
|
2001-02-17 24311
Tom and Roger, great insights! That's why I love this board so much. I had already decided to get a hydraulic top link, so I wasn't considering the hydraulic scarifier control very seriously. I find Roger's comments very interesting because I already have a toothbar on a heavy-duty loader bucket. Having never used a box blade I assumed it would be a much better tool for the tasks I am looking at. I respect Roger's opinions a great deal - does anybody out there agree or disagree enough to comment? ....
Reply to |
Quote Reply |
Add PhotoRollover vs Conventional Box Scraper
| Roger L.
Join Date: Jun 1999 Posts: 0
|
2001-02-17 24313
Thanks Jeff. I'll beat the rush and disagree with myself a little bit... I scarify with the bucket teeth because my land is narrow and twisty with lots of rocks. If you have a large areas to rip with compacted soil or clay with only medium stones, then you want some sort of towed implement. Like always, it depends on your land and soil as much as on the tractor.
I'm not arguing against the box scraper. It would be hard to do so anyway, since I've already confessed that I have one living on my 3pt! But my opinion is that the box scraper is an implement where you can get a lot of the use out of an inexpensive one. ....
Reply to |
Quote Reply |
Add PhotoRollover vs Conventional Box Scraper
| TomG
Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 5406 Upper Ottawa Valley
|
2001-02-18 24329
Experiences are different, and as always, there are many ways to get the same thing done. For myself, I never had much luck grading with a loader, but then I was new to tractors when I was trying it. Going forward, I ended up gouging out as many dips as I was curing while trying to cut in position control. In float, the light bucket would ride up over most things I wanted to cut or would just dig in. I don't think I ever got the hang of controlling the cutting action with the curl. I'm probably a little better with the bucket now, and of course, I did find that spreading and cutting by back-dragging the bucket works pretty well. By the same token, I didn't find the box very useful until I got the hydraulic top-link. I spent most of my time hopping on and off the tractor to adjust the manual top-link. It took me a little time, but now I control the box's action almost entirely with the top-link. I may limit the 3ph float sometimes to ride over a serious dip, or lift the box to cut a serious bump, but not very often. Most times, using the top-link to control the box works OK. To me, the main advantage of a box is the ability to go from cut, to drag, to spread on the fly with just a few top-link adjustments. I never figured out how to do that with a loader without making several passes. I do use the loader to carry material, rather than drag it very far. I also back-drag the bucket sometimes for spreading (float) or compacting (down-pressure) gravel. I also use the box for these things. Sometimes one seems better and sometimes the other. There is something of an art to doing these things, and everybody develops their own style. For me, I'm just happy to have two tools that can move earth on the tractor at the same time so I can be artsy and pick and choose. Of course, if I had Roger’s fancy back-blade, I’d be even happier. I could cut crowns on drives without using my manual side-leveler. ....
Reply to |
Quote Reply |
Add PhotoRollover vs Conventional Box Scraper
 | Murf
Join Date: Dec 1999 Posts: 7249 Toronto Area, Ontario, Canada
 Pics
|
2001-02-19 24365
I think the logic here should be divided in two. First, 'Do I need it?', easy question, it's something for your tractor you don't have, of course you NEED it. Second, the old saying comes to mind, 'In for a penny, in for a pound.' I have often preached this, if you're going to buy (or build, or fix) something, do it right the FIRST time. In my line of work (building and maintaining golf courses) box-blades are about as essential as rain and sunshine. The only place a roll-over blade really shines is in time savings, for the average user the benefits are lost. If you are experienced with a box-blade (jump in here Roger) you will know that there is a big difference in the performance of the blade in forwards and reverse. The roll-over feature allows you to cut in 'forwards' regardless of which direction the tractor is pointing, in our business that means that you can cut on EVERY pass WITHOUT turning the tractor around (ie, limited wasted time and driving over areas not being worked on just to turn around). As an aside, I personally feel that the upper link of EVERY 3pth should be hydraulic, but then I'd put a cylinder on 'her' if I thought it would adjust the attitude some days, but I digress. INMHO, the average user does not NEED a roll-over. So that said buy the very best one you can afford that suits your needs. Best of luck. ....
Reply to |
Quote Reply |
Add PhotoRollover vs Conventional Box Scraper
| SteveT
Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 0 Temecula, Ca
|
2001-02-19 24384
I'm working a deal for a new TC35D with a 72" Landpride fixed blade box scraper and saw your post about mainly using your hydralic top link for control. This sounds like something I should work into the deal. What exactly do I need to have installed on the stock tractor/box? ....
Reply to |
Quote Reply |
Add PhotoRollover vs Conventional Box Scraper
| Murf
Join Date: Dec 1999 Posts: 7249 Toronto Area, Ontario, Canada
Pics
|
2001-02-19 24385
You don't need anything but a 2 way valve, remote outlets and a cylinder in place of the upper link. You use the cylinder to telescope instead of getting on & off to adjust conventional upper link to adjust the 'bite' of the blade. Best of luck. ....
Reply to |
Quote Reply |
Add PhotoRollover vs Conventional Box Scraper
| JeffM
Join Date: Posts: 1
|
2001-02-19 24386
Murf, Tom, and Roger - thanks for all your insights and help. I am now leaning toward the suggested simple box and a landscape rake. I did get to snoop around this weekend and nearly passed out at the prices of the higher-end boxes and rollover boxes. Are gauge wheels that useful on a rake in my application? ....
Reply to |
Quote Reply |
Add PhotoRollover vs Conventional Box Scraper
| Dave M
Join Date: Posts: 1
|
2001-02-19 24393
Gauge wheels on a rake are pretty helpful because of the short wheelbase of the tractor, and the position of the rake. The whole tractor can act like a see-saw that causes the rake to lift when the front wheels go into a dip, and vice versa. Gauge wheels can substantially reduce this effect.
....
Reply to |
Quote Reply |
Add PhotoRollover vs Conventional Box Scraper
| Roger L.
Join Date: Jun 1999 Posts: 0
|
2001-02-19 24400
That's simple: The answer is "Yes". Get the gauge wheels with the landscape rake. ....
Reply to |
Quote Reply |
Add PhotoRollover vs Conventional Box Scraper
| TomG
Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 5406 Upper Ottawa Valley
|
2001-02-20 24409
Steve, I'll just add a bit to what Murf said. With a rear hydraulic outlet on a tractor, a hydraulic link simply replaces the fixed link and plugs into the rear quick-connects. A dealer should be able to work up a cylinder/hose package. Without a rear outlet, extra long hoses can be put on the link cylinder, which then can be connected to the loader bucket curl circuit. That can be a pain because the bucket curl can't be used without swapping hoses again. That would be a real pain for me, because I think of the box and loader as parts of the same tool. However, I do run my link from the bucket curl when using 3ph pallet forks. My rear outlet is taken by the fork-lift cylinder. It's not too painful in this application, because I usually use the loader only for carrying ballast when the forks are mounted. Rear outlets eventually would prove useful for many owners and may be something to think about, and I probably would have added additional rear outlet(s) by now if I had to run the box from the curl circuit. In my case, an additional outlet would solve my forks problem and also would let me use a hydraulic side leveler. I use the manual side levelers frequently when I crown drives or cut pads into side hills with the box. ....
Reply to |
Quote Reply |
Add PhotoRollover vs Conventional Box Scraper
| SteveT
Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 0 Temecula, Ca
|
2001-02-20 24440
Thanks Guys! This is the kind of stuff that makes me much more comfortable (knowledgable) when I'm discussing options and end use with the dealers. Can't say they don't go out of their way to help me out, it's just the salesman thing I guess. If you don't know what your talking about, you never know if YOUR being sold... ....
Reply to |
Quote Reply |
Add PhotoRollover vs Conventional Box Scraper
| JeffM
Join Date: Posts: 1
|
2001-02-26 24695
Thanks to all who shared their knowledge on this thread. I've decided to get a simple, but relatively heavy, box scraper: Bush Hog BX-650 which is 65" wide, weighs 510 lbs with fixed rear blade and 3-position scarifiers with replaceable teeth. Seems to be a decent price at $500. I'm also getting a landscape rake: Woods LR-107 with gauge wheels. I liked the fact that the tines in the Woods (and the Landpride) go through a box beam member before being secured. The gauge wheels are very sturdy looking, but expensive - $400 additional on top of $750 for the rake. I decided to pay more and get the Woods rake because I expect I will use it often in the years to come and it seemed to be high quality. ....
Reply to |
Quote Reply |
Add PhotoRollover vs Conventional Box Scraper
| SteveT
Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 0 Temecula, Ca
|
2001-03-21 25705
I'm in the market for a NH tractor TC40D and will not be able to purchase all of the implements I'd like (So what else is new) with this initial buy. Like many, I'm sure, I'll need to get by with a few and make the best use of them. My question then is what would make the best sense to get up front. The FEL and rear discharge finish mower are given but what kind of grading tool is the most versitile? I'll be doing some slight leveling, fixing up some established logging roads, grading my 200yd gravel drive and if the box scraper w/scarifiers is the choice, ripping out a bunch of 1-4" stumps from a newly cleared 7 acres. This 7 acres to be pasture eventualy. Soil is 10" loam and sand beneath. How does a rear blade or rake stack up for uses? I figure the blade would be of better use with trenching, maybe crowning the drive and snow removal, the rake for lighter grading and stone removal. Should the box scrapper be the first implement I look at purchasing? ....
Reply to |
Quote Reply |
Add PhotoRollover vs Conventional Box Scraper
| Roger L.
Join Date: Jun 1999 Posts: 0
|
2001-03-21 25710
I look at the blade vs scraper from another perspective: The loader will do most of the same work as a box scraper, but a blade does a different job. On the other hand, a box blade usually makes a better counterweight than a blade - and a loader does require counterweight.
Another argument is that both of those implements are so inexpensive compared to how much you are spending on the loader tractor that you might as well get them both.
Hmmm....it doesn't sound like I'm being much help here.
....
Reply to |
Quote Reply |
Add PhotoRollover vs Conventional Box Scraper
| Bird Senter
Join Date: Jun 1999 Posts: 962 
|
2001-03-22 25713
Steve, I don't know where you are, but in my area I think anyone who has a tractor has a box blade; don't know how you can do without one. ....
Reply to |
Quote Reply |
Add PhotoRollover vs Conventional Box Scraper
| TomG
Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 5406 Upper Ottawa Valley
|
2001-03-22 25715
Except for loaders, box scrapers seem to be the Swiss Army Knives of implements. They also probably take more experience than other implements to be develop a knack for using them. Boxes are inexpensive and do a whole bunch of things, but there are always an implement that will do a particular job better. I like my box scraper, but who knows, I might get a blade this year for the reasons Roger mentioned. However, I think a box is more useful than a basic blade, and I'd want a blade with some weight, end-plates and all the adjustments, but such a blade stops being inexpensive. Blades are more versatile than boxes for cutting jobs. A box can cut shallow ditches for drives, but a blade is much better for ditching. For actual trenching, I have a backhoe, but some people use one-bottom plows for less precise trenching. Of course, a box scarifies and most other things don't. On the other hand, I might get a rake with gauge wheels as well. Rakes are much better than boxes for smoothing. I think it's important to keep in mind that a lot of this stuff is a question of time. I can get grading work done faster with a box than with the loader. If I had a blade, I could get some things done faster than with a box. However, you can get most everything done adequately with just about anything you have. It's also important to note that many of the 'grading-intensive' jobs are one-time jobs in the development of a property. You have to trade off how much faster the work will get done with all the toys with how much each implement is going to be used over the decades. Snow removal is one of the big on-going reasons to have a blade. However, I use a blower, and that would reduce the amount of long term use I'd get from a blade. For myself, the box was a big improvement over the loader alone, and I'll stick with it and see how my work evolves. If I find I'm spending a lot of time trying to get things done with the box, then I'll get another toy. Of course, then I'll have to expand the shed. That necessity sort of adds to the cost of buying implements. ....
Reply to |
Quote Reply |
Add PhotoRollover vs Conventional Box Scraper
| Rick Cosman
Join Date: Posts: 1
|
2001-03-22 25744
Tom, you used However so many times I started to think you were indecisive, However you used it so eliquintly to illustrate your point I can't decide what to buy.HA-HA! My question is re: weight. Everyone always recomends a heavy blade or box. Could a good fabricator take a cheap box and add weight with overlays of heavier plate on the sides and back? Is it primarily heavier steel that makes some blades more expens. ? Thanks Rick ....
Reply to |
Quote Reply |
Add PhotoRollover vs Conventional Box Scraper
| SteveT
Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 0 Temecula, Ca
|
2001-03-22 25754
Sounds like the box scraper is the tool of choice if limited by funds or storage. (Can't get comfortable with leaving this stuff out in the weather) Guess that's why I see so many tractors with one mounted. That and the counter weight this implement provides. Seems I read another thread about how the box and the FEL are the perfect complement to each other. Blade or bush-hog on the list next. Guess it will depend on what time of the year the extra cash is available on that one... ....
Reply to |
Quote Reply |
Add PhotoRollover vs Conventional Box Scraper
| TomG
Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 5406 Upper Ottawa Valley
|
2001-03-23 25763
Yes, I know. However's and but's are called detractors. You throw out a big idea and then take a piece of it back with a 'however.' Detract enough and nobody can figure out what you mean. My excessive use of detractors is a hold over from my uncomfortable days as a researcher who had to work with political policy and economist types. That's the language used there, and it is a bad habit. Of course, some people consider both the language and the types to be bad habits. Regarding weight: The issue is that a 3ph implement depends solely on its weight to engage the ground. Almost all 3ph's always will float up from where the position control is set. A lightweight box, or blade, will just bounce around on hard ground without cutting much. Weight can be added to a box, but it doesn't take a fabricator. An old barbell or sandbags strapped across the top will do the trick. HOWEVER, there is a lot of stress on a box, and they are prone to failure of the 3ph pin mounts. A lightweight box probably has light joints and is more prone to failure. Even a good basic box isn't very expensive, and paying some extra for a heavy one to start with may make sense. Actually, it's not only the gauge of steel, it's also the design. My dealer substituted one supplier of moderate cost boxes for another because he didn't like the 3ph-mount design. There is a rough correspondence between quality, including design, and weight in box scrapers. ....
Reply to |
Quote Reply |
Add PhotoRollover vs Conventional Box Scraper
| Roger L.
Join Date: Jun 1999 Posts: 0
|
2001-03-23 25768
I have a medium weight four foot box blade. It was made by Acme in the 1980s and is their "Bulldog" model. This four footer overmatches my little 16 hp 4WD compact, which doesn't have the traction to pull it in sandy and rocky soil - even with chains. So one day I put it on my 35 HP farm tractor and lowered the scarifiers. It pulled fine for a few minutes until it hit a rock. Then the 3pt hitch parts just sort of folded up. I had to use a cutting torch to get it loose from the tractor. BTW, I have about 200 or 300 pounds of extra weight on this box blade in the form of a stack of flat plates bolted to the top. ....
Reply to |
Quote Reply |
Add PhotoRollover vs Conventional Box Scraper
| JeffM
Join Date: Posts: 1
|
2001-03-23 25769
TomG, I thought "detractors" was how one referred to Kubotas, Deeres, and NHs if they couldn't speak English real good. :>) Seriously, I understand your use of detractors well because I am the same way. I blame it on my engineering background which causes me to compulsively examine all sides of a scenario and explicitly state limitations and exceptions to my big ideas. I also think detractors are useful in that they provide a structure for comparisons and balancing opinions and perspectives. There it is, probably the first post I've written without the use of the word "but" or "however", although "seriously" and "although" could be considered detractors also! ....
Reply to |
Quote Reply |
Add PhotoRollover vs Conventional Box Scraper
| TomG
Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 5406 Upper Ottawa Valley
|
2001-03-23 25772
Yes Jeff: me too. I noticed with some amusement that I managed to write an entire post to another thread without one 'however' or 'but.' Well, an 'although' did slip in. I was dragged out of retirement by our local Library Board on Monday to deal with a consultant proposal to conduce a survey etc. I've spent the last two days writing a blurb to consultants--no wonder I have 'howevers' popping out all over. Oh well, I'll get over it. After all I'm just the child of dustbowl country folks who got stuck in big cities until recently. I didn't acquire the language of people born to urban sophistication until late in life. I probably grew up thinking that if you lived in the city you said 'however' all the time. Fortunately, I realized that I'm just an educated hick and I'm happy about it. I managed to return to the life my folks spent most of theirs escaping, and I sound less and less like a walking policy paper.
However, there still is a role for 'however.' However, it seems you can never get completely away from the city these days. I hope this rates a chuckle. Our neigbouring township was forcibly amalgamated with a more distant town last year. The new Town Council found themselves debating the problem of cats. A by-law was passed that limited the number of cats to three per household. However, the Council recognized the role that cats play in controlling mice in rural areas. People in the country were allowed to have five barn cats, but they had to be licensed, and discounts would be made if they were neutered. Hmmmmmm, licensing and neutering barn cats. Must be a city idea. About up there with fishing in the highway.
....
Reply to |
Quote Reply |
Add PhotoRollover vs Conventional Box Scraper
| JeffM
Join Date: Posts: 1
|
2001-03-23 25780
TomG, I think you and I now hold the dubious distinction of getting a thread farthest (or is that furthest?) off topic. From Box Scrapers all the the way to neutered barn cats. My apologies to all the purists out there. And Tom, I am also an educated hick, and darn proud of it (the hick part). I am slowly working my way back to my rural upbringing after too many years of the "sophistication" of cities and big business. ....
Reply to |
Quote Reply |
Add PhotoRollover vs Conventional Box Scraper
| Karl Fletcher
Join Date: Posts: 1
|
2001-03-23 25782
Yes, I may become addicted to this forum. I have many opinions. ;-) I have a BH RO-72 rollover boxscrape. It is easy to use and can be used for many, many different applications. Example: Last Wednesday I rolled the teeth side down and set depth and draft control as needed. I broke 5 acres on a gentle slope in two hours just enough to plant 200lbs of fescue seed. The rollover scarifiers allowed me to cut 6 small trenches while gently turning the topsoil. Try that with a conventional box scrape. I have both, conventional and rollover. My conventional boxscrape is getting quite rusty.
Karl ....
Reply to |
Quote Reply |
Add PhotoRollover vs Conventional Box Scraper
| JeffM
Join Date: Posts: 1
|
2001-03-23 25783
Karl, I sure envy a guy with two scrapers! What tractor are you using to pull that 72" rollover box? Is your soil rocky? And do you mind me asking what the ballpark price for a BH RO-72 is? I started this thread with the rollover vs conventional question. I still haven't purchased the BH BX-650 that I'm leaning toward because I put some other implements (rotary cutter, Brush-Brute, landscape rake) at a higher purchasing priority. I think I'm tapped out for this season! ....
Reply to |
Quote Reply |
Add PhotoRollover vs Conventional Box Scraper
| Karl Fletcher
Join Date: Posts: 1
|
2001-03-23 25784
Hi Jeff, I'm using a Kubota M5400 4wd. My soil ranges from red clay with moderate rocks to dark top soil. I have about 3 miles of clay dirt roads that I maintain plus about 1.5 miles of fire breaks. If your wondering, I have a small tree farm. That is why I have several pieces of equipment. A 4wd drive tractor is so versatile that having the proper implements is manadatory. I think I paid about $1050.00 for my rollover two years ago. I would be glad to give you the exact price but I am not in my home office.
....
Reply to |
Quote Reply |
Add PhotoRollover vs Conventional Box Scraper
| JeffM
Join Date: Posts: 1
|
2001-03-23 25789
Karl, thanks for the info. I assumed you were pulling that scraper with something heavier than a Kubota B-series. I don't need an exact price: I was just ballpark curious. Quite a few tree farmers frequent this board, including me on a part-time basis. Thanks again. ....
Reply to |
Quote Reply |
Add Photo
Go Top
Share This