3032E vs 2520

[jenkinsph]

Actually, even though the 2720 has 4.5 more gross engine HP, it has less PTO HP then the 3005. Looks like that 2 speed hydro tranny really pulls down the power. It's also a few hundred pounds lighter then the 3005 which may reduce traction for ground engaging implements. The 3005 can easily handle a 60" cutter or 72" rear mower.
The rear tires on the 2720 are smaller too, so less fluid in them. That translates to less traction.
As far as lifting hydraulics, although the 2720 does have higher lifting capacities the light weight (1973 lbs) will work against the operator. The 3005's capacities are balanced for the size/weight the tractor.
Now, the big sticking point would be the collarshift transmission and 2-stage clutch of the 3005 They're easy to use once you get the swing of it (short learning curve though). The biggest disadvantage of the 3005 tranny (and one of the few things I never liked about my 790) is reverse. Reverse low range is slow (you could almost take a nap)...reverse high range is too quick (both at PTO speed).

Whichever tractor OUBrew buys...make sure you get a ballast box! You'll need it for adequate ballasting of either the 2720 or the 3005.

Good luck with your choice!

Roy,
I suggested the 2720 because it is lighter and also suggested to select implements that require less tractive force such as a tiller. Less weight and a removable loader, turf tires and mower since most of the work will be as a large lawn mower.

 

[Rob-D]

Fish,
I ran a 47 blower on a 2320 and we get a lot of snow up here. It wasn't the fastest machine but it had no problem moving snow. The 2720 is a great machine with a blower but the heavier 3005 would be better pushing it around I think. In fact the 2320 with a blower would easily be better than a 3005 with a blade.

Roy,
I've run a Wood's HD60 Rotary Cutter (640 lbs), about the same as the Deere MX5, on the 2720 with no problems. In fact the front end wasn't flopping around in every different direction either. Although I would say the 3005 would probably run it too. It's advantage over the 2720 is overall weight and that is a big issue in a tractor.
For me I love the hydro because I do a lot of loader work which is why I'm going ot the 3320. You can't beat a hydro for loader work.

Rob

 

[RoyJackson]

Roy,
I suggested the 2720 because it is lighter and also suggested to select implements that require less tractive force such as a tiller. Less weight and a removable loader, turf tires and mower since most of the work will be as a large lawn mower.

I agree with the removable loader...3032 doesn't have offseat PTO capability either (unless you want to put a sandbag on the seat).

 

[RoyJackson]

Fish,
You can't beat a hydro for loader work.
Rob

Unless you have a reverser transmission...best of both worlds!

In fact the front end wasn't flopping around in every different direction either.

Yeah, but I'll wager that front end felt mighty light (unless you had the loader installed). My cutter is a Land Pride (don't recall the model number...it's about 8 years old). I could transport it OK (with my 670 and 790), but I sure didn't want to make any sharp turns!

 

[Rob-D]

Roy,
I don't know the reverse tranny so you may be right. The problem with manual boxes are the clutches. I don't want one or more accurately, I don't want to change one. Also auto trannies can haul more. Check out any truck with an manual tranny and an auto. The auto always has higher pulling forces.

I really didn't have problems with the rotary cutter. My concern was the extra weight on the 3 point. I was right at the limit in my calculations so I was careful. Would I have been happier with a 3000 or 4000 series with that weight? You bet!

Rob

 

[foggy1111]

Fish,
I've run a Wood's HD60 Rotary Cutter (640 lbs), about the same as the Deere MX5, on the 2720 with no problems. In fact the front end wasn't flopping around in every different direction either. Although I would say the 3005 would probably run it too. Rob

I am not so sure about the same size on those cutter comparisons.

When I bought my 790.....the dealer had a slightly used MX5 cutter available, at a very good price. I really wanted that MX5....but I passed on the cutter as it has a weight of 850 lbs.....and I felt it would be like the tail waggin the dog on my 790 (3005) size tractor.

200 lbs of extra weight is allot.....when swinging around on the back of these small tractors....IMO.

 

[RoyJackson]

Roy,
Also auto trannies can haul more. Check out any truck with an manual tranny and an auto. The auto always has higher pulling forces.

I'm not sure where you got that statistic from...never saw an 18 wheeler (or even too many box trucks) with automatic transmissions (with the exception of some rental trucks...too many non-truck folks intimidated by a 5 or 6 speed manual when they haul their stuff). As far as off road vehicles (quarry dumps, for example), they're all manual transmissions.
And don't mistake a hydro transmission for an automatic tranny in a car or truck. They're two totally different animals.

Several years ago, one of the over the road tractor-trailer manufacturers did come out with an auto for an 18 wheeler. It was an utter failure. I don't recall the manufacturer, but it wasn't Kenworth or Peterbuilt (real trucks for manly men).

The problem with manual boxes are the clutches. I don't want one or more accurately, I don't want to change one.

Clutches last a long time as long as you don't "ride" the clutch or abuse it. Costwise, splitting and replacing a clutch would cost about the same as a major repair on a hydro.

 

[foggy1111]

Roy.....I can recall driving a few GMC trucks with Allison tranny's in them(many years ago).

I always thought these were popular in dump truck and off road applications.....but I can't attest to that. I think the cost rather than the durability was a factor.

 

[Rob-D]

I am not so sure about the same size on those cutter comparisons.

When I bought my 790.....the dealer had a slightly used MX5 cutter available, at a very good price. I really wanted that MX5....but I passed on the cutter as it has a weight of 850 lbs.....and I felt it would be like the tail waggin the dog on my 790 (3005) size tractor.

200 lbs of extra weight is allot.....when swinging around on the back of these small tractors....IMO.

Thanks,
I always thought the two were about the same!

 

[Rob-D]

I'm not sure where you got that statistic from...never saw an 18 wheeler (or even too many box trucks) with automatic transmissions (with the exception of some rental trucks...too many non-truck folks intimidated by a 5 or 6 speed manual when they haul their stuff). As far as off road vehicles (quarry dumps, for example), they're all manual transmissions.
And don't mistake a hydro transmission for an automatic tranny in a car or truck. They're two totally different animals.

Several years ago, one of the over the road tractor-trailer manufacturers did come out with an auto for an 18 wheeler. It was an utter failure. I don't recall the manufacturer, but it wasn't Kenworth or Peterbuilt (real trucks for manly men).



Clutches last a long time as long as you don't "ride" the clutch or abuse it. Costwise, splitting and replacing a clutch would cost about the same as a major repair on a hydro.

Hydro trannies are infinitely variable that's what gives them the edge in load pulling on tractors.
I think a hydro is a more dependable box on a tractor. For one, it never needs a clutch. You may be kind to a clutch but it still wears just like brakes, you can't stop the wear. It's a given that the clutch will, at some point, need to be replaced. It's not a given that a hydro will fail, that's the difference.

I think big rigs run standard for fuel economy. I don't see why an 18 wheeler can't have a good auto box. What are we saying, no one can design one?

"real trucks for manly men" or real women. I have a friend who can drive us all under the table.

Rob