murphy1244
Epic Contributor
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2011
- Messages
- 20,038
- Location
- Ohio
- Tractor
- Kubota 1120 RTV Kioti DK-40, MF-135, Ventrac 4500Y
How much can your loader lift?
Comparison JD 3320 vs 4105
- Thread starter BuzzardA91
- Start date
How much can your loader lift?
CinderSchnauzer
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2006
- Messages
- 1,419
I started with a 2008 3320 O/S and last year sold it and bought another 3320 CAB. Truthfully mine is a giant yard toy for someone in second childhood, but for my applications lack of HP has never yet been a concern. If I did major PTO work or Ground Engaging maybe would feel different. A few times I would have liked more FEL lift, but the up charge to a 4x20 didn't seem worth the $$$. The 3 speed eHydro is great and especially so for FEL or Forks and MMM work. Load Match works. I have Cruise but really have never used the feature.
With bucket there are times when a bit of overhang is nice. As someone else said maybe 66" would be worth a look.
If starting with a fresh sheet SSQA would be good. I went with JDQA more because son had that and we could trade implements if needed.
The JD rear Quick Hitch thing looks good on paper, but often non JD stuff will not fit without modification so go into that with realistic expectations. Also to work properly probably need $65 set of bushings for each piece or change all the pins to CAT 2.
I have no experience with the 4105, but at the time of my choice, I knew for sure I did not want gears and after testing neither did I want Power Reverser or equivalent. If it fits your needs and $$$ I highly recommend 3320.
With bucket there are times when a bit of overhang is nice. As someone else said maybe 66" would be worth a look.
If starting with a fresh sheet SSQA would be good. I went with JDQA more because son had that and we could trade implements if needed.
The JD rear Quick Hitch thing looks good on paper, but often non JD stuff will not fit without modification so go into that with realistic expectations. Also to work properly probably need $65 set of bushings for each piece or change all the pins to CAT 2.
I have no experience with the 4105, but at the time of my choice, I knew for sure I did not want gears and after testing neither did I want Power Reverser or equivalent. If it fits your needs and $$$ I highly recommend 3320.
cartod
Platinum Member
All of the 3x20's are rated at 1600 lbs. Max height. I believe if you step up to the 4320 you get 2500lb lift.
Last edited:
OP
BuzzardA91
Gold Member
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2012
- Messages
- 361
- Location
- West Granby CT
- Tractor
- JD 4105. 375 Backhoe. 2005 Polaris Ranger
So CINDER ..... The max width is listed at 68+". So for general loader work and snow removal go with a 72" bucket? A 66" bucket wouldn't give any overhang but close to covering width. Which do I pick?
You want one that just covers your wheels for earth moving and general purpose. If your only doing light duty, then go bigger. I thought that the 60" bucket was what covered the wheel base, but looks as though I'm mispoken.
Take a look at the picture of my 110 (72" HD bucket) and 3120. The picture doesn't really do it justice, but I definitely wouldn't want to try and use my old 3120 with my 110's bucket.
CinderSchnauzer
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2006
- Messages
- 1,419
Sorry for the potential confusion. I didn't go back and reread your other thread. I believe the 68" max is with R1 AG tires. They have a different two part rim which with one of the configurations produces the 68" Many of the posters on here use either R3 Turfs or the R4 Industrial tires, so my answer was based on those sizes. From memory max width for R3 / R4 is 59", so in theory with the standard bucket which has a nominal width of (I believe) 61" there is a tiny bit of overhang. I have a 61" Heavy Duty and a Materials 84" Bucket. In retrospect a 66" might have been a good choice for my purposes.
The 84" works relatively well for snow or light material and reasonably well for back dragging, but the bucket is so heavy itself that it is really no use for things like digging or dirt / rocks.
OP
BuzzardA91
Gold Member
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2012
- Messages
- 361
- Location
- West Granby CT
- Tractor
- JD 4105. 375 Backhoe. 2005 Polaris Ranger
Thanks for checking that CINDER. going from Ags to R4's ( my choice ) cuts 9" in width? That sound right?
charleyfarmall
Platinum Member
I recently sold my 3320 as I traded to a 4520 cab. I had the larger R4's and the 72" bucket and that is exactly what I would order again. I also had a set of Artillian pallet forks which I have kept because they are so good. They now go with the 2720.
It's a great small utility tractor. I put 4" wheel spacers on mine and used the loader to it's max capacity which is very good at 1600# especially compared to other similar sized tractors. I would still get the 72" bucket. I didn't do a lot of digging with it but I moved a lot of material and the extra capacity was worth it.
Overall, I was, and remain, impressed with the 3320.
It's a great small utility tractor. I put 4" wheel spacers on mine and used the loader to it's max capacity which is very good at 1600# especially compared to other similar sized tractors. I would still get the 72" bucket. I didn't do a lot of digging with it but I moved a lot of material and the extra capacity was worth it.
Overall, I was, and remain, impressed with the 3320.
OP
BuzzardA91
Gold Member
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2012
- Messages
- 361
- Location
- West Granby CT
- Tractor
- JD 4105. 375 Backhoe. 2005 Polaris Ranger
I'm bout ready to give up and buy a shovel and wheelbarrow. After yet ANOTHER conflicting report from a JD dealer I went on my own for my questions. JD corporate was ZERO help. We know the models better then who I spoke with.
I'm back to the 4105 if I don't just give up on whole thing out frustration, it shouldn't be this hard, and it is no longer fun. At the dealer today there was a 3320 with a broken backhoe, bolts and mounts. Mechanic said it was over worked and too heavy for frame of 3320. Totally opposite what other JD dealer said. They said 3320 was a far stronger frame then 4105, hence the bigger backhoe.
Here is what I found. The 4105 is considered a large framed CUT and the 3320 a medium framed. However, the rear axle on the 4105 is rated for 4000 pounds and the 3320 5,200 pounds. I think THAT is why the bigger hoe.
Also found on my own ground clearance on 3320 is 11" and the 4105 14.7". This will be important for me. 4105 also comes with way bigger tires.
I don't like the plastic on the 3320, I don't like all the electronic controls on 3320. I do like the bigger hoe and the smoother eHydro. I like the 12" wider width of 4105, don't like the jerkier transmission, afraid of the turbo, but do like the simplicity and the way more HP.
Confused on why the 4105 has a 10% reduced lift but 10% greater breakout force which I think is a more Important measurement.
Four dealers so far. One said don't sell or make the 4105 anymore. One said 4105 doesn't come with quick park loader hoe, cruise, SCV. All wrong according to brochure. Other dealer can have in a week.
I guess I'm on my own. I want simple but don't want to buy stupid. Maybe the 3320 with broken hoe is the only one ever to break but it is wearing on me.
I'm back to the 4105 if I don't just give up on whole thing out frustration, it shouldn't be this hard, and it is no longer fun. At the dealer today there was a 3320 with a broken backhoe, bolts and mounts. Mechanic said it was over worked and too heavy for frame of 3320. Totally opposite what other JD dealer said. They said 3320 was a far stronger frame then 4105, hence the bigger backhoe.
Here is what I found. The 4105 is considered a large framed CUT and the 3320 a medium framed. However, the rear axle on the 4105 is rated for 4000 pounds and the 3320 5,200 pounds. I think THAT is why the bigger hoe.
Also found on my own ground clearance on 3320 is 11" and the 4105 14.7". This will be important for me. 4105 also comes with way bigger tires.
I don't like the plastic on the 3320, I don't like all the electronic controls on 3320. I do like the bigger hoe and the smoother eHydro. I like the 12" wider width of 4105, don't like the jerkier transmission, afraid of the turbo, but do like the simplicity and the way more HP.
Confused on why the 4105 has a 10% reduced lift but 10% greater breakout force which I think is a more Important measurement.
Four dealers so far. One said don't sell or make the 4105 anymore. One said 4105 doesn't come with quick park loader hoe, cruise, SCV. All wrong according to brochure. Other dealer can have in a week.
I guess I'm on my own. I want simple but don't want to buy stupid. Maybe the 3320 with broken hoe is the only one ever to break but it is wearing on me.
Any machine can be overworked, don't get too worried over one instance. As long as you treat ANY machine right, it will treat you right.
The 4105 is a physically larger machine than the 3320. Unless you need the extra HP for the PTO, otherwise per the specs, the two machines are very similar.
I love the plastic. As surprising as that may sound, it is extremely durable. It's a trade off, because I can take a baseball bat to the heavy duty plastic and it won't leave any sign of damage. Do the same thing on steel and you have a bunch of dents. Now, should you really wack something hard, and I mean REALLY hard, then the entire plastic piece is broke, but there's just a large dent in the steel. Either way, for it to look new, the entire piece will have to be replaced.
The 'goodies' of the 3320 are great! There's something to be said about simple. Trust me, I love driving my 1953 Farmall Cub around. There's nothing too the tractor. Three forward speeds, one reverse. No hydraulics whatsoever. That's fun for a little while, but if I had to work with something like that all day I'd be beat! All the comfort tractors are so much nicer than the old. Not saying that the 4105 is comparable to the Cub, it's not, but when you have a choice to run a 3320 or a 4105 all day, the 3320 would win out every time for me. May be a little smaller physically, and a little less HP. But the specs are relatively even and the 3320 is MUCH more comfortable. There's really no need to worry about the extra gizmos in terms of failure either, they are built to last.
As far as lift goes, there's funny things like that. The specs aren't perfect. In real world performance, I doubt you could tell the difference between the two.
I'd go talk to the dealers. Some of those things on the 4105 are optional, where they are standard on the 3320. Have them explain to you and show you the literature on where it says that.
My vote stays for the 3320, I think the one you saw was just a fluke.
The 4105 is a physically larger machine than the 3320. Unless you need the extra HP for the PTO, otherwise per the specs, the two machines are very similar.
I love the plastic. As surprising as that may sound, it is extremely durable. It's a trade off, because I can take a baseball bat to the heavy duty plastic and it won't leave any sign of damage. Do the same thing on steel and you have a bunch of dents. Now, should you really wack something hard, and I mean REALLY hard, then the entire plastic piece is broke, but there's just a large dent in the steel. Either way, for it to look new, the entire piece will have to be replaced.
The 'goodies' of the 3320 are great! There's something to be said about simple. Trust me, I love driving my 1953 Farmall Cub around. There's nothing too the tractor. Three forward speeds, one reverse. No hydraulics whatsoever. That's fun for a little while, but if I had to work with something like that all day I'd be beat! All the comfort tractors are so much nicer than the old. Not saying that the 4105 is comparable to the Cub, it's not, but when you have a choice to run a 3320 or a 4105 all day, the 3320 would win out every time for me. May be a little smaller physically, and a little less HP. But the specs are relatively even and the 3320 is MUCH more comfortable. There's really no need to worry about the extra gizmos in terms of failure either, they are built to last.
As far as lift goes, there's funny things like that. The specs aren't perfect. In real world performance, I doubt you could tell the difference between the two.
I'd go talk to the dealers. Some of those things on the 4105 are optional, where they are standard on the 3320. Have them explain to you and show you the literature on where it says that.
My vote stays for the 3320, I think the one you saw was just a fluke.