4200 vs. 4300

[rwarner]

O.K. - I've heard all the arguments for "buying all the tractor you can afford", and I agree. So, I started out pricing the 4200 but I'm now considering the 4300. My dilema is this, my use will be mostly finish mowing with only occasional use of the FEL and a scraper blade. Is the additional weight that'll be being placed on the R4's (and thus the yard), worth the additional expense and 5.9 horses? BTW, the 4200 HST FWD w/FEL, & 60" MMM priced out at $18,500. Good? Bad? Ugly?

 

[RobS]

rwarner, the other big difference between 4200 and 4300 is the hydraulic output. 2125 vs. 2500 psi and 7.3 vs. 8.3 gpm for the implement pump. Sounds like you'll be fine with the 4200 for your current needs but if you ever want to add a backhoe or other high hydraulic demand implement you'll probably wish you had the 4300. My little 790 is rated at a paltry 5.6 gpm and it's been fine so far for FEL work. Just a bit slower than the big boys.

Rob

 

[MJB]

I struggled with the same dilemma about the weight of these units. After reviewing the specifications I noticed that the 4300 has significantly larger tires than the 4200 and thus the actual contact pressure of the two tractors is probably about the same. I haven't actually run the numbers but it might be possible that the 4300 actually has a lower ground contact pressure than the 4200. This realization combined with the fact that I want to get a JD48 backhoe and the 430 loader led me to choose the 4300 over the 4200. Now if I can only get my wallet to agree.../w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif MJB

 

[Anonymous Poster]

Rob,
That 790 tractor is "a can do" unit! Besides it's thousands less than the 4300. Nice Yanmar updated tractor, and a lot of bang for the buck.

 

[RobS]

Thanks John, I am very satisfied with my 790. Just get a bit of the 'ole tractor envy when I visit the dealer. I had considered a 4300 but couldn't swing the bucks. Still would have gotten gears though /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif Now maybe a 990...

Rob

 

[kerr]

Kerrs 2 cents,If you can swing it i would get the 4300.As i had read here before i baught my 4200,that the 42 is a little under powered.Well,its true but.Im thinking i forget that the 4200 aint a much BIGGER machine than it is.To lug mine down,I promise you im working the machine beyound its design capacities.You will love eather one.

 

[john_bud]

On your quote and how good it is; When I priced tractors in October 2000, I got one for a 4300 HST 4WD Ag Tires, and a 420 loader. The price was $17,500. I don't KNOW, but I guess a 60" mower is about $2000 to $2500, so your price is not much different.

I finally went with an Orange tractor with more extras and less $$, but the 4200 - 4300 were both on the would buy list /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif

John Bud

 

[rwarner]

Thanks to all for the replies, the 4300 is on order!
4300 HST, MFWD, 60" belly mower, 420 FEL, 6' scraper blade (green but not JD), filled tires: $19,927. Now me and my grandson have to wait at the end of the lane...... for about six weeks!

 

[jfakerj]

rwarner

I just got a 4300 with the 420 loader. I really wish I had the 430 loader. Mine was used so I took what was on the tractor. The 430 isn't that much more and besides lifting a little more it rolls back I think about 5 degrees farther and dumps a couple degrees farther. I've already seen where this would have come in handy. It would make it a lot easier to get a full bucket off the ground with the extra roll back. Anyway, that's what I would have bought if I'd had a choice.

Jerry

 

[Branch]

I was going to suggest the 430 loader too. You might also consider the heavy duty bucket for about $100 more. I don't regret either of those upgrades with the abuse I've put mine to.