OutdoorKing Repair Forum Forums General Discussion Forum Off Topics Greenfield vs Cox

I have been considering the differences between Greenfield & Cox lately.

Is the Greenfield's more complicated belt & pulley drive better than the Cox's mechanically simpler cone drive?

Was there really a court case over each other's drivetrain or is this a myth?

Was Cox or Rover the first?

----

Personally, I prefer the rugged all metal look of the Greenfield & the option to disengage the diff lock on the later model, but the Cox is a more comfortable mower to use.

(That is comparing between the Greenfield Anniversary 88 & the 2000's Cox Stockman)

G'day LRT,

Everyone knew I wouldn't be able to help chiming in on this one.......and here I am

The greenfield drive is not complicated, its elegant! It looks complicated because it takes up more room and has a belt flailing around.
The earlier stuff with the welded frame (pre- the mecano models) are the most elegant of the Greenies (from an engineering perspective).

There is a history of fatigued and broken axles and fatigue-ing the square section clutch drive shafts in the Tractor models but personally I haven't had the problem. Sure, I've wrecked a few machines that have but haven't broken one personally. My theory is that the shafts are fine if not insulted (bent) by misuse and ham-fisted operation. If they are, fatigue failure is inevitable.

And it's true that the later machines have stronger axles and the shorter square shafts are much less prone to failure but I'm still flying the flag for the earlier machines.

Cheers,

Hi prd, yes the drive certainly is elegant! The work of a mechanical genius really!

I bought my Anniversary 88 with a broken square driveshaft for $300 5 years ago. I've probably spent double that on it now which includes boring the motor out 20 thou, a new cutter disc and a new drive shaft.

The greatest difficulty I had was getting the shaft in. I'd probably cut a slot in the frame to allow the shaft to drop in.