Comparison John Deere 3320 and Implement size selection

[tsimmons]

I recently posted in another area about searching for the right compact tractor for me. After going around to the local (and not so local in some cases) dealers to check out all the different models I've decided that the John Deere 3000 20 series is my favorite lineup and I'd really like to own one. The Deere's aren't cheap and the 3320 is the only one in my price range, but 32 horse is what I was looking for anyway so I'm ok with that. In doing a little more research though on the entire package and the implements I'd need I came up with one observation and question. The 3320 has a width of 68", most tractors in its class are 59 or 60 inches. This would mean that 5' (60") implements would not be as wide as the tractors footprint, which seems like it would be an annoyance not being able to brush hog or roto-till up to an edge or wherever you need to get to, same with box blade. The easy solution would be to jump up to a 6' implement but that would be pushing the limitations of the tractor just a little bit. The rule is 5HP per ft for brush hog, so the 25 PTO is just right. For maintaining I'm sure its fine, but cutting new paths in thick or hilly terrain I wonder how it would work. Same with box blade, we have a lot of clay, maintaining an existing road I'm sure would be fine with 6', doing tough work with all tines sunk in may be a bit much? Or maybe not, I don't know. Wonder if I should look at a gently used 3520 or 3720 with 100 or so hours on it and a little more HP or if the 3320 would handle the tasks I'd throw at it just fine. Anyone have experience with this and could give me some advice? Thanks in advance.

 

[mfreund]

I have a 4310, same hp and it runs a 6 ft box blade and 72" Mid Mount Mower. I also have a 55" rototiller and it is soooo close to covering the wheels it does not matter. No suggestions, just giving experience.

I would highly suggest that you get a hydraulic top link for box blade work. It makes the box blade about 100x more useful.

 

[tomd999]

Hiya,

A 3320 does not have a width of 68 inches. I have a 3320 cab with the 59 inch front snowblower and the wheels fit in the path it makes. 60" implements are just right.

If you want my 2 cents, if you get a loader for it, get the CX version and get the 61" HD bucket. The dealer will try to sell you the 72", trust me, it's a little bit big for the 3x20/300cx series with heavy material, the 72 is better suited for the 4x20/400 loader combo.

Tom

 

[Wagtail]

Of course you can always off-set implements by either the 3PH set-up or the implement set-up.

If you get the iMatch quick hitch for the 3PH (I highly recommend it) then you would offset the implement. I run a JD 655 tiller and it tracks centre of both rear wheels.

 

[brown40]

The 3x20's are right about 5 feet wide, give or take for dishing the wheels in or out.

For heavy PTO implements (bushhog, tiller) rule of thumb is one foot for every 5hp available at the PTO. The 3320 has 25hp at the PTO, so 5 foot is about where they should be. Some go up to 6 ft without a problem; I have 5 footers for a 3520. There is plenty of lift & power, but the machine is a bit light for the power it has, so heavy 3 pt stuff feels very heavy.

For ground engaging I have a 6ft box; I lose traction before it fills. For a rake or blade you could go up to 7 ft; I have a 7ft rear blade. That can push around the front of the unit when set off to the side, but it gives coverage to the rear wheels at a steep angle. a rake you may get away with going bigger, but to what end?

60" for heavy stuff; up to 7 feet for lightest stuff would be the range to look at; they are overpowered for their size and weight so traction & torquing forces limit you going any bigger/heavier safely in my opinion. 60" is perfect coverage for the rear too, so there'e no offsetting required.

Unless you got a deal you couldn't pass up I'd stay in those ranges. At 7 ft that thing swings WIDE and sticks out plenty to snag stuff you moseyed right by with the tractor; amazing how much better they seem to cut & move material when you didn't intend to touch it!

 

[tsimmons]

Ok, thanks for the info: In John Deere's own sales literature that I am looking at as I type this, in the brochure titled 3000 Series Compact Utility Tractors on page 5 there is a picture from the rear of the tractor and a dimension line that says 68.4 inches, as I search other places though this is apparently with the optional 43x16x20 R4 tires, so I'm assuming the standard configuration is closer to 60"..... or Deere's own literature is wrong, one or the other! I agree with Tomd999 and will certainly opt for the CX loader, the 300x seems underpowered and for only a few hundred dollars less I'm not sure why they even offer it. Thanks again.

 

[popsie]

I had a 3320 and used a 6 foot bush hog in heavy grass and brush. It worked fine. I already had mower and tried it. In thick bush not that slow. That tractor is rated at 25pto as you have stated. Dealer told me that is conservative. And i believe it. I also have 6 foot woods finish mower and it worked well. Only problem that my be is weight. I had front end weights and it made a big difference. The weight issue would be no different with a 3520 or 3720

 

[NorthPole]

I have a 3520 with the larger (43 -16) R4 tires, mounted in the wide stance and they're not quite 61" wide. My Rt1165 (65" wide) rototiller (or for you technical jargon types "the roundy-round diggity thing") covers the tire tracks without any problems at all. I would second the choice of the 300CX (I have one) and the 61" bucket. I have the 71" HD bucket with replaceable edges. While it is a nice bucket, the 300CX has difficulty lifting it when full of gravel or wet soil. I chose it thinking the 61" wouldn't be wide enough as I looked at JD's drawings as well. The 300CX manual has very definite requirements for tractor ballasting which are ballast box, wheel weights and filing the tires. I have a ballast box only. I think wheel weights at least would be good too. I'm kinda hesitant to fill the tires as I don't know how they'll do this winter when the temps hit -50F.

 

[WilliamBos]

I have a 3520 with the larger (43 -16) R4 tires, mounted in the wide stance and they're not quite 61" wide. My Rt1165 (65" wide) rototiller (or for you technical jargon types "the roundy-round diggity thing") covers the tire tracks without any problems at all. I would second the choice of the 300CX (I have one) and the 61" bucket. I have the 71" HD bucket with replaceable edges. While it is a nice bucket, the 300CX has difficulty lifting it when full of gravel or wet soil. I chose it thinking the 61" wouldn't be wide enough as I looked at JD's drawings as well. The 300CX manual has very definite requirements for tractor ballasting which are ballast box, wheel weights and filing the tires. I have a ballast box only. I think wheel weights at least would be good too. I'm kinda hesitant to fill the tires as I don't know how they'll do this winter when the temps hit -50F.

Wheel weights are a much better idea, especially if you want/need to take them off for summer chores.

 

[kris100]

Whether you're a professional landscaper at work or a homeowner clearing brush, Kubota's durable and versatile Grand L40 will boost your productivity and deliver professional-quality results with everyday simplicity