If history is going to repeat itself i have to say go with the TORO, they are tied with Honda for most reliable according to consumer reports. thay're also known as the best mulchers on the block. i know the lawn boy and the toro's are made in the same facility nowadays(i think) but still the toro's come with a better reputation. i own several lawnmowers, toro, craftsmen, weedeater and have owned even more over the years, snapper, ariens. i bought my toro (20016) almost 4 years ago and have been trying to kill it ever since...and can't. i'll never buy anything else, it has the tecumseh lv195ea 6.5 hp. hope this helps.

The tractor forum is the place to ask your question. If you want to avoid some abuse, include the size of your property and its topography (steep hills, flat, many trees, etc.) Also include the jobs you plan to do with your tractor (mow grass, mow pasture, haul rocks, grade gravel driveway, blade snow, etc.). Lastly, include your budget ($3,000?). You may want to first search on each tractor. They have been discussed many times. BTW, there is a strong bias for JD on the Tractor Forum. -Deerslayer

We actually decided to go with Tigerwood. We got three bids, one for TT Earthwood w/their Radiance Rail, one for 5/4*6 TGW w/ the Radiance Rail, and one for 1*6 TGW w/ the radiance rail. The TT was a couple thousand more than the 1*6. And the rail was over 1/3 the cost. We've decided Tigerwood b/c of cost and b/c the contractor thinks it's tougher and will do better with our dogs. TT is less maintenance, but the maintenance on TGW still seems minimal other than the parefin (SP?) sealing it needs. Plus, we just like wood better, so the cost consideration definitely pushed us toward the tigerwood. As far as the PVC, I was interestd, but it's just sooo fake looking. My husband would have never gone for it.

Likely only talking to myself here in this old thread, so here goes anyway: amazondk, I do note much nuanced thought in your writings and I applaud that, but a few discrepancies have easily been spotted. First, way back up yonder, you speak of the methodology of a "sustainable" harvest, whereby only trees of large size are removed, the rest being left to grow on. Well, many decades ago here in the US, this was recognized for the mistake it is, and is known as high-grading. It can amount to the systematic removal of a given stand's best genetics for profit, leaving the weaker and less vigorous stems behind. Then, you also speak of how in the US PNW, there is so much replanting post harvest. Sure, sure, but it's all one species, so where you had doug fir, w. hemlock, w. red cedar, perhaps grand fir, etc. you now have just doug fir. That's hardly environmentally wise and is certainly not preserving the previous forest genetics. Also, in speaking of, for example, ipe's rapid growth, you do not mention that it is precisely the huge expanse of time which has allowed that and other species' gradually slowing growth rate (As they near maturity) that allows for such high-quality product. Finally, you repeat the long-discredited notion that it is young forests which are sequestering the most carbon. This erroneous thought came about when researchers initially only measured height increment in determining overall use and hence, sequestration of carbon. In fact, the old-growth tree is still, by dint of its immense overall size, still growing "faster" than the young pup, its growth simply being spread all over its many growing points. I learned that 20 years ago. All that said, I do certainly agree with some of your other points. For the best example, the often erroneous portrayal of a logged-out stand as a ruined one. If that's the case, I sure do wonder where all this great woodland here in Wisconsin came from! We supplied half the country with the wood to build this nation, in the case of a little town called Chicago, twice! Yes, nature is resilient and it can bounce back impressively. It is too bad though that your buddy seems to only want to hurl names and stereotypes around in this thread. Everybody else had reasonable things to contribute.