Anonymous Poster
New member
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2005
- Messages
- 0
How does the 4400 work with the backhoe? Does anybody wish they had a 4600?
Backhoe 4400 tractor with backhoe
- Thread starter Anonymous Poster
- Start date
MJB
Gold Member
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2000
- Messages
- 499
- Location
- Syracuse, New York
- Tractor
- 1952 Case DC-4, 2001 JD4300 MFWD, HST
I have a 4300 and 48 backhoe. Works great. The hoe seems to be just the right size for the tractor. I set the engine speed at 1500 RPM and go to work. I have about 107 hrs on my tractor now, and I would estimate that about half of that time was running the hoe. Don't know how I ever got along without it./w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif
72% of all statistics are made up./w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif
72% of all statistics are made up./w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif
butzkeg
Gold Member
I have a 4300 with the 47 hoe, and it has been great as well. Only 20 hours on the tractor and 4 on the hoe so not much experience. I've dug a few trenches so far, and it has been a breeze. Wouldn't mind the extra reach of the 48, but then I would probably want a little more than that too. I have an 18" bucket, and I could see having 2 different buckets as useful (a 9" for trenches and then something else - 18" or 24" maybe).
The one thing I noticed running around 1500-1700 rpm's is there isn't much power pushing dirt side to side for backfilling. I was suprised at that. Maybe more rpm's would have helped, but I didn't try that. I was having way too much fun to reach over and kick up the throttle.
I've put the hoe in the back of the garage for the winter now. One of my spring time projects is digging up 50 or so small stumps, then digging a hole to bury them. It should take me several hours, but I'll enjoy every minute of it.
The one thing I noticed running around 1500-1700 rpm's is there isn't much power pushing dirt side to side for backfilling. I was suprised at that. Maybe more rpm's would have helped, but I didn't try that. I was having way too much fun to reach over and kick up the throttle.
I've put the hoe in the back of the garage for the winter now. One of my spring time projects is digging up 50 or so small stumps, then digging a hole to bury them. It should take me several hours, but I'll enjoy every minute of it.
OP
Anonymous Poster
New member
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2005
- Messages
- 0
I was just wondering if the extra weight of the 4600 would help digging. I saw a JD skidsteer with the backhoe attachment, and while I dont know the weight of the machine, the machine wasn't too steady when the operator started digging.
I am trying to decide on a 4400 or 4600. I don't want to buy a 4400 and wish I went for the 4600.
John
I am trying to decide on a 4400 or 4600. I don't want to buy a 4400 and wish I went for the 4600.
John
butzkeg
Gold Member
The extra weight might make a hardly noticeable difference. The biggest difference you would notice is the extra hydralic flow of the tractor. The tractors get their stability from the hoe stabilizers (the same width/stability on any tractor model, because the hoe doesn't change from one tractor to another) and the FEL.
There would be a difference between the 47 and 48 hoe, because the stabilizers are different lengths.
On your other post about 4400 w/r-4's or 4600 r-1's, John made a good point of more mowing, get the 4400 or more hoe work, get the 4600. You'll get more manuverability out of the 4400, being a smaller machine. The r-4's would be more friendly to your turf, while the r-1's would give you a big traction advantage. If you're not slopping around in a lot of mud and you want to mow, r-4's would probably be a better choice.
There would be a difference between the 47 and 48 hoe, because the stabilizers are different lengths.
On your other post about 4400 w/r-4's or 4600 r-1's, John made a good point of more mowing, get the 4400 or more hoe work, get the 4600. You'll get more manuverability out of the 4400, being a smaller machine. The r-4's would be more friendly to your turf, while the r-1's would give you a big traction advantage. If you're not slopping around in a lot of mud and you want to mow, r-4's would probably be a better choice.
butzkeg
Gold Member
Forgot to mention this, a skidsteer doesn't have the use of a FEL for stability as well as the stabilizers.
MJB
Gold Member
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2000
- Messages
- 499
- Location
- Syracuse, New York
- Tractor
- 1952 Case DC-4, 2001 JD4300 MFWD, HST
I am not sure that the extra hydraulic flow of the 4600 would be an advantage with the backhoe. The flow rate only affects the speed that the hoe moves. On my 4300 I set the engine speed to only 1500 rpm when running the hoe in order to keep the flow rate down. I find that I can control the hoe much more precisely with the slower motion. Hydraulic pressure, which is independent of engine speed, determines how much power the hoe has. The hydraulic pressure is the same on the 4300-4700s. Hope this helps.
72% of all statistics are made up./w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif
72% of all statistics are made up./w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif
butzkeg
Gold Member
MJB, thanks for the clarification. Now I know about the hydraulic flow/pressure difference. This is the first hydraulic thing I've ever owned/used, so I have a lot to learn.
The slower speed is defintely easier when trying to be precise.
The slower speed is defintely easier when trying to be precise.
OP
Anonymous Poster
New member
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2005
- Messages
- 0
Question concerning the model 48 backhoe. Will the model 48 fit on a JD1070??
Russ
Russ
I have a 4300 and a 48 backhoe. The backhoe works great. It has more than enough hydraulic power. I usually run it between 1500 and 2000RPM. Before buying the 48, I had the opportunity to try both the 47 and 48. The 48 is a MUCH stronger, heavier, and more powerful hoe. In addition it has more digging depth and reach.... Spend the extra $1,000 and get the 48.