DX35 Questions & Pricing vs. others . . .

[Chuckatuck]

1. Have priced a "new" 2005 Case DX35 HST w/ R4s at $19,400 w/ 116 loader b/f $900 rebate. Tractor does not have a rear remote. Defintely a "holdover" on the lot in a slow area. Hard to get accurate read on price with age. Tractor definitely looks like it's been out for a while in the sun . . . ran fine today in a "test drive." General thoughts on asking price? (FYI -- in comparison to the MN DOT 2005 "factory code" the quoted price may actually be lower depending on the MN DOT loader cost).

2. Also, want to possibly add a backhoe-->which Rhino would you choose? 65A (NH 756C) (quote: $6100) w/ 9" bucket or Rhino 75 (NH 757C) at $6500. Primary tasks will be removing stumps for 6" to 12" pines and some larger hardwoods; also, working on ditches and some bottom land (6 ac.) to improve drainage (i.e. moving some "muck" around to create a shallow swale).

2A. Should I go with a 12" bucket vs. the 9"? [Soils are almost all sand, most of area around is used for borrow (barrow) sand pits.]

3. Also want to add a Woods 60" RFD6000v at $1800. This has been out on the lot a while too. Rust, etc. Alleged list was "sky high" says salesman!

4. Ballasting issues too: ballast box ($174) vs. wheel weights ($360 total max) vs. filling tires w/antifreeze ($75). Which would you do? Most of time will be spent mowing. Some areas are soft . . . Loader work will be mostly moving old trees and cutoffs, stumps, and distributing marl for driveway. I'm leaning towards wheel weights to be able to switch them off and to remove loader to minimize weight for mowing exercises.

This is in lieu of a new TC29DA priced at $18000 b/f $600 rebate w/ 14LA loader and R4s and a 757C at $6400 and Woods RD 60" at $1700. (Total 25500 w/ rebate).

I'd appreciate any input you might have on any of these issues . . .

Thanks, Chuckatuck

 

[jk96]

Chuck,

I'm not a big help on price, I bought a DX33 this summer, but it was also a partial trade for my DX24, mmm, and loader. So I really couldn't give you an accurate price. My invoice was high for the new 33 but I got almost what I paid new for the DX24. Anyway.......as for a couple comments.

First, I absolutely love my DX33. I think its a little smaller and weighs less than the DX35, which is why I didn't go any bigger. I use mine for mowing quite a bit.

Weight - DX29,33 - 2474 lbs
DX35 - 3300 lbs

I would think an extra 800+ pounds might be a little harder on the yard. The DX35 also uses the LX116 loader which has a higher lift capacity than the LX114 that I have and that the DX29 will use. As for the mower, I had a 60" on my DX24 and upgraded to a 72" for my DX33. Just something you may want to consider. This made a huge difference and really cut down my mowing time. The 72" mower may be a little much on the 29 though in high or thick grass. Good luck.

jk

 

[jbrumberg]

Chuckatuck:

Welcome to TBN ! Please give us a little more information regarding your property, terrain, and intended uses so we can help you spend more money . I have CaCl weighted 11.2x24 R-1's on my TC29DA. I believe the "water" adds ~150#'s to each tire. Wheel weights are expensive and a PITA to remove. There is a lot of discussion about the pro's and con's of CaCl water filled tires in various threads here in TBN land; you need to decide what will work for you. I use attachments (550# tiller or a "boulder carrier" I made from an old tiller) for rear ballast when doing FEL work. I leave my FEL on when "brush hogging" my lower field with my 60" RC to help "balance out" the tractor. I have had no problems with my setup. Jay

 

[Chuckatuck]

Thanks for the welcome Jay! I've enjoyed reading TBN for a while -- lurking I think they call it!

Firstly, the property is 6 ac that's partially wooded w/ scrub pine and some hardwood, partially bottom land which looks like a game of "pick up sticks" with many fallen trees from our last few hurricanes/tropical storms, and the rest is cleared with grass and a small garden area. Land is flat and the soil is very, very sandy. We've had 26 inches of rain in about 8 weeks. I got my SCAG 36" sunk to the spindles two weeks ago in my swale area.

I had originally used a borrowed a JD850 w/ a pathetic loader to begin clearing the land a few years ago. I have a number of 5' implements waiting for a new tractor (rotary mower, BB, & regular blade). I haven't had access to that tractor for years, but it was very useful for manipulating logs, pushing, pulling, dragging, etc. & brush cutting. I understood the drawbar HP to be around 23-25 for this old 850. I would love to have a BH to help me with the installation of drain lines/tiles, removing stumps, making swales, etc.

I had been looking at the TC29D w/LA14 for 18K and the 48 mos. at 0%, but then ran into this DX35 by dumb luck. Dealer appears motivated to get it off the lot. I had seen it last year when I was window shopping. The weights issue is important as I do have soft areas. Also, the BH sizing is important: I don't want to do it a 2d time!

Thanks for you inputs on my many questions!
Chuckatuck

 

[jk96]

Chuck,

Based on your soil type I would probably lean toward the 29. That's quite a bit more weight to add with the DX35. I have no trouble mowing with my 33 with R4 tires but definately have to mow when its dry. If the grounds wet, it can leave some pretty good tread marks. Turf tires would probably make a big difference on the yard but I like the extra traction. With the FEL and my heavy duty rear blade I've never run into problems with traction moving snow or even on ice. Have you had the dealer price a DX33 or 34. (or TC33/34). Based on the specs on Case's website, the DX29/33/34 are all identical on size/weight. The only difference seems to be horsepower. If you went with a 33 or 34, you could get a slightly smaller and lighter tractor with close to the same amount of horsepower. You would trade some lift capacity on the LX114 verses the LX116 loader. Although I've never been disappointed with my 114 loader. I wish I would have taken a picture of the huge stump and rootball I moved with my 114 loader and pallet forks. Even with my rear ballest weight, I had to put the tractor in 4WD because I rode the distance to my burn pit almost entirely on the front two wheels. I know the difference in power from my DX24 to my DX33 was substantial, however I'm not sure how much difference 4 to 5 more horsepower makes. Someone else may have better knowledge on this than me. Also, since Jay's got the 29, he may be able to tell you if he ever wishes he went with the higher horsepower. Sometimes wish I had went with the DX40 or 45 but I know they're just to big and heavy to be practicle for all the mowing and the amount of trees I've planted in my yard the last couple of years.

jk

 

[jbrumberg]

Chuckatuck:

With the number of 5' attachments you already have I think you would be better off with the TC29 or 33 (or whatever they may have been upgraded to- 31/34?) due to the 54.3" (29/33) vs 66.6" (35/40) wheel width (R-1 measurements; R-4's would be wider). Your dilemma is a classic Class II vs Class III tractor challenge. The NH Class II tractors are 10.5" shorter wheelbase, 19"shorter in length, 13.3" less wide, and 7.7" shorter with ROPS. I did not address weight as you appear to need a lighter tractor, but I will add that generally heavier is better when using ground engaging attachments. Lighter is better for mowing due to soil compaction. There is no comparison between the 14LA and 16LA FELS- the 16LA outperforms the 14LA. I do not have a backhoe but according to the NH sales literature the TC29DA can handle the 756C, 757C, and 758C backhoes, but I would wonder about the 29's ability to handle the 758. I bought my "29" for its smaller size as I have to manuever around in my woods as well as the price as "She Who Must Be Obeyed aka Comptroller" put some monetary limits on me . I have not had any problems with realistic log skidding (~ 14" diameter trees) and/or material moving- I have moved some pretty large boulders. Pulling stumps is a PITA, but that is true for bigger tractors with BH's as well. There have been a few times I wish I had a larger tractor (I blame my testosterone levels.), but when I compare the 29 to my old Ford 1100 I can appreciate my upgrade. I do miss how well the Ford could move through the woods and its lower center of gravity. The rocks I could not move required an excavator and a commercial/industrial TLB working together. Personally I would go with the TC29DA, but that is my opinion. Good luck- Jay

 

[Chuckatuck]

Gentlemen,

Thanks for the great responses--it's given me something more to ponder. It's funny how you try to rationalize the larger tractor . . . even my better half (a.k.a. "Bursar") said something about HP and regretting not having enough when you really need it (unprompted, mind you).

Jay, that ole' JD850 sounds a lot like your 1100 (just a smidge bigger) . . . my Dad bought it for a song 15 years ago and the only things that have broken were the loader hydraulic fittings (happens when logs roll up the arms) and the consistently dead battery!

 

[john_bud]

C,

The price on the old stock tractor looks very impressive. Get it. The weight is not that much difference when you look at psi on the contact patch.

If the ground is really that soft, you should probably dump a couple hundred (thousand?) yards of good dirt and raise it up. (or stop mowing there ...)

If you never cycled wheel weights on and off, you will quickly re-think that as a first choice. Go with the filled tires. It's cheaper and more convenient. Yes, the impressions will be deeper. How much is the question. Is it 1/64th of and inch more or is it inches more? Look up the tire on the MFG's site, get the contact patch for the front and back tires and with the weights of the tractor in various configurations, compare the psi differences. It won't be drastic as there are a lot of square inches with R4's.

Also, if you want to use a hoe later, the larger heavier tractor is much better. I have an old Ford hoe and it can easily pick the tractor up when digging. Remember, when you are pushing the bucket down to dig, the counteracting force is the weight of the tractor. On buckets, you have opposing uses that each need different size buckets. Root cutting is better with a narrow bucket (or a single 2" wide blade), but ditching you want a wider bucket to move dirt fast. Either compromise on both jobs, one job or get 2 buckets. (I now have 2 buckets a 14" 2.7 cu ft trenching bucket and a 36" 8 cuft ditching bucket.)

jb

 

[coasterez]

Why only limit yourself to a couple of manufacturers? There are many good brands to choose from, and you might find yourself saving significant cash. Sounds like you don't need a really big machine. I suggest looking at the TYM T273, a nice sweet spot of hp, weight, size, and capability. Of course, the Kubotas make many lightweights that are well suited for mowing. Others I'd consider, include Kioti, Mahindra, and MF. Though some of these may be too heavy for you. Of course, Deere is still the cream of the crop (IMHO), from a convenience-in-design point of view, but you really pay for it, and in many cases it can't be justified.

If you want to be able to remove weight but don't want to carry around a rear implement all the time (some just aren't heavy enough anyway), I suggest suitcase weights because they are easy on/off, and can be easily moved front to back if needed. Alot of guys build their own weight boxes, which seems to be pretty easy to do also. Many times a rear implement just sticks out too far, and gets in the way. But, for sure, a backhoe will give you some serious counterbalance for your bucket.

Whatever you buy, get the biggest backhoe it will handle. A few hundred dollars for an extra foot or more of reach is well worth it. I find myself running out of reach more often than I do out of capacity. I was in the same situation as you concerning backhoe bucket size. The bigger bucket is best for moving a lot of dirt quickly, and if the tractor has adequate pumping capacity, it will not be overpowered. The smaller bucket is much better if wanting narrow trenches or working closer to objects. I wanted both, but couldn't bring myself to justify the extra cash. So, I went bigger, 18", which means my trenches are BIG too. Get them both, if you can afford them.

 

[jk96]

Chuck,

John makes some good points that I didn't consider. When re-reading your original post, looks like the price difference between the 29 and 35 is only about $1000. That's not much difference for alot more tractor. My comments were based mainly on size and not price. Since you've seen them both, If the 35 doesn't feel too big, then go with the 35. We need more people in the red forum anyway Let us know what you decide.

jk