JD 5320.....will it really handle this?

[workinonit]

Yea, no hills around here. I'm sure that's a different operating experience. I pucker when a rear tire drops in a mud hole.

 

[mo1]

It's a 4WD, no cab and no bucket......and no weights. Got a lot of hours on it and will need the breaks worked on as they drag, plus a new radiator. But for the price all that is okay.

What I am a little concerned about is that the purpose for it is to haul a 225 gallon PTO driven water tank when we do prescribed burns. The frame the tank is on is a beast...3/8 X 2 SQ welded tubing.....and it's not just a underframe but a box frame. So the frame must add a good 300+ pounds.....maybe a lot more.

My concern is that even though the "specs" for the tractor say it will handle in the 3300 pound range I know from experience with other tractors that just because it will lift it does not mean that you want to be wandering about the woods with whatever it is attached.

So.......225 gallons.....1800 pounds....+ at least 400 more for the frame pump and the like......is this going to flop around and be dangerious?

Or is it far enough under the spec max to where it is going to be reasonable?

You should be fine. That setup weighs roughly 2200 pounds based on what you stated. Deere actually recommends using more 3 point weight than that (2867 pounds) for counterweight if you were to install their 520M loader on your specific tractor, so the tractor itself is more than stout enough to handle the weight. However, you don't have a loader weighing close to a ton hanging off the front of your tractor, so you will need to get the front weight bracket and all 10 weights that can be racked on it to keep the front end down.

@LD1
I would expect the 5320 to handle the weight better than the 630 did. The 630 may be a little heavier as shipped from the factory and have a little longer wheelbase, but the 5320 is a stouter machine with heavier axles and tires that can withstand more counterweight, particularly on the front end. The 6.00-16 front tires on the 630 have about half of the weight-carrying capacity as the tires on the 5320 and the axle construction would be similarly lighter on the 630 as well. Those old tractors weren't designed to be heavily ballasted on the front to be able to lift heavy mounted implements, they were mainly designed to pull drawn implements. Shoot, the 30 series is only the second generation of Deere to even have a standard 3 point hitch.

 

[zzvyb6]

Problems may arise because of sloshing. This produces a dynamic load that can be much higher than the static load, unless the tank is baffled. What about a caster wheeled axle under it to support 1/2 of the load ? Starting & stopping will be the test conditions.

 

[LD1]

@LD1
I would expect the 5320 to handle the weight better than the 630 did. The 630 may be a little heavier as shipped from the factory and have a little longer wheelbase, but the 5320 is a stouter machine with heavier axles and tires that can withstand more counterweight, particularly on the front end. The 6.00-16 front tires on the 630 have about half of the weight-carrying capacity as the tires on the 5320 and the axle construction would be similarly lighter on the 630 as well. Those old tractors weren't designed to be heavily ballasted on the front to be able to lift heavy mounted implements, they were mainly designed to pull drawn implements. Shoot, the 30 series is only the second generation of Deere to even have a standard 3 point hitch.

You mis understood what I said.
I said nothing about how "stout" the 5320 is compared to the 630.

Its symply a physics calculation. The 5320 is LIGHTER and a SHORTER wheelbase (shorter lever-arm). Therefore WITHOUT front end weight.....its foolish to think the 5320 can lift as much as the 630. As the 630 can lift enough to make the front wheels come up........given that it is LONGER and HEAVIER......physics says it will take LESS weight to make the 5320 do the same thing

 

[mo1]

You mis understood what I said.
I said nothing about how "stout" the 5320 is compared to the 630.

Its symply a physics calculation. The 5320 is LIGHTER and a SHORTER wheelbase (shorter lever-arm). Therefore WITHOUT front end weight.....its foolish to think the 5320 can lift as much as the 630. As the 630 can lift enough to make the front wheels come up........given that it is LONGER and HEAVIER......physics says it will take LESS weight to make the 5320 do the same thing

The whole mention about the 5320 being a stouter tractor was that it can be counterweighted more heavily than the 630 and thus be able to handle more weight on the 3 point hitch than the 630 can. The 630 can have 375 pounds added to the front of the tractor and then 200 pounds bolted onto the side frame rails, for 575 pounds in total but not all of it is on the very front of the tractor. The 5320 can have 900 pounds of counterweights added overhanging the front of the tractor. A MFWD 5320 with no ballast has 2110 of its total 5315 pounds on the front axle (40%) according to the University of Nebraska. An unballasted 630 has 1776 of its 7025 lb on the front axle (25%.) The actual moment arm is likely shorter on the 630 than the 5320. The fulcrum is the rear axle, so the relevant distance is the distance between the rear axle and the front of the tractor. The 5320 is actually 8" longer in total length than the 630, so the weight on the 3 point hitch will have to exert torque through an extra 8" or so of tractor ahead of the rear axle to lift the front counterweights up. The shorter 630 simply has a longer wheelbase as it puts the front axle centerline farther forward than the 5320 does. If the axle was anywhere near as heavy as the 5320's axle, this might help with handling weight on the 3-point hitch as it's farther forward, but the 630's pedestal rowcrop axle and much smaller tires would be a lot lighter than the 5320's MFWD axle and much larger, heavier tires.

The 5320 unballasted has more front axle weight, and ballasted has a longer moment arm between the rear axle and where the counterweights are located, plus much heavier counterweights. Unballasted, the 5320 can likely pick up a bit more weight and retain steering control than the 630, and ballasted it handle quite a bit more.

 

[LD1]

Unballasted, the 5320 can likely pick up a bit more weight and retain steering control than the 630,

I still stand by my statement that the 5320 would only handle 180 or so gallons without ballast added.
NO ONE here is arguing about adding ballast, that was you. Infact everyone was suggesting TO add ballast.


So Agree to disagree. I dont think a bare 5320 is gonna outperform a wide front 630 in simple terms of what it can lift before the front gets light. Continue to argue all you want, it wont change my mind, and simple phtsics and geometry doesnt support it

 

[Tx Jim]

I'm constantly amazed of tractor operators that use tractor for towing implements with Quick-attach/detach frt end loaders with boom & a lot of the times BUCKET RAISED VERY HIGH in lieu of just quick removal of FEL.

 

[mo1]

I still stand by my statement that the 5320 would only handle 180 or so gallons without ballast added.
NO ONE here is arguing about adding ballast, that was you. Infact everyone was suggesting TO add ballast.


So Agree to disagree. I dont think a bare 5320 is gonna outperform a wide front 630 in simple terms of what it can lift before the front gets light. Continue to argue all you want, it wont change my mind, and simple phtsics and geometry doesnt support it

My argument was that the 5320 could handle noticeably more weight on the 3 point hitch than a 630 could, and a good chunk of that "noticeably more" was because the 5320 could be much more heavily ballasted on the front than the 630 could be. I absolutely did recommend the 5320 be ballasted.