FEL for 2320
- Thread starter Hoosier Farmboy
- Start date
- Views: 5069
spruce Deere
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2009
- Messages
- 1,170
- Location
- Northmost Idaho
- Tractor
- John Deere 790 with loader LS xr3140h also with loader plus a cab
Have seen a 61" on a 2320. Looks big but seems do-able. As stated before, its easier to have more bucket than not enough, rakes and things fit better. Got a 61 " on the 790, bigger tractor-loader but, I have ran into NOT having enough bucket more than to much bucket. Always move any fully loaded bucket low and carefully
jcmseven
Veteran Member
I have a 2320 and have the 53" bucket. For my needs, I do not want a larger bucket as I need to keep things compact in some of my tight spaces. That said, the 2320 will handle the 61" bucket. It is as stout as the 2520 or 2720 with regard to ground engagement and lifting capacity, it simply will not lift as fast secondary to the lesser hydraulic flow. In short, if the 2520 will dig it, the 2320 will too. The major issue with the 2320 is that the loader is not very fast (not as fast as the 2520 with the dedicated pumps) but it gets the job done. One thing to remember: with regard to larger buckets, box blades, etc., the extra width in many cases does not help get done that much more quickly. I have owned compacts from the 2000, 3000 and 4000 series John Deere line and have been surprised in most cases how close in speed the models are. The larger tractors really help when covering longer distances or tackling huge piles of dirt, etc., but for the average homeowner like me I have found only small differences. My 2320 will move and spread a dumptruck load of mulch within 15 minutes or so of being as fast as my 4520, and is quicker than the 4520 boxblading my drive, in no small part due to its much enchanced manuverability on my hills and steep switchbacks. I can also plow snow and such that I would not have even attempted with my 4520 (due to fear of sliding off our mountain). Now, everything has its limit and my findings are due in part to where I live, which is steep and tight in many places. A smaller, more manuverable machine excells in the this enviroment, where a bigger machine would have its lunch in more open areas. The point I am making here is that many think an 8" larger bucket will really enhance loading speed, etc., and it really doesn't unless one can utilize the larger bucket fully--all the time--which most of us do not do. I personally would go with the 53" bucket, but that is not because the 2320 will not handle a larger one; just that the slight efficiency improvement ( in some--but not all--cases) to me does not offset the reduced manuverability.
John M
John M
My 2520 tries to stall when i dig really hard, so how is a 2320 with less HP ever going to dig as fast, like you say above?????????
Nothing for nothing but what does almost stalling your tractor have to do with anything? If you are in fact almost stalling your 2520 tractor when you dig I will guarantee I can dig fast with my 2320.jcmseven
Veteran Member
Deadman,
Stalling a tractor really has little to do with bucket size. The size differential here of 8" is not really that great and neither is the horsepower difference between the two tractors. The reality here is the physical size of the tractor in this class machine is the real determining factor in its ability to do work. The 2520 and 2720 are a bit larger and a tiny bit heavier than the 2320 but the lift capacities with the 200x or cx loaders are almost identical to the pound between the machines. The chassis weight differential is simply not enough to make one a superior "digger" to the other, especially with such a small HP difference also. When I was looking at 2000 series machines I brought them all, one by one, to my property to test them. The conclusion I made was that the 2520 and 2720 were a little bit better in some ways such as loader CYCLE times, but for ground engagement using exactly the same attachments, including bucket sizes there simply was no discernable difference except that I noted. There was a difference between each of the 2020 machines and the 2305, however. Sorry to disagree, but the findings you mention I have been unable to replicate in my use of each machine. To me, this means one could effectively use a 61" bucket on a 2320 and use it fairly well--but bear in mind with that knowledge I still did not recommend it (I actually do not recommend it for any of the 2020 machines, but know that many including yourself have had good success with the larger buckets in certain circumstances).
John M
Stalling a tractor really has little to do with bucket size. The size differential here of 8" is not really that great and neither is the horsepower difference between the two tractors. The reality here is the physical size of the tractor in this class machine is the real determining factor in its ability to do work. The 2520 and 2720 are a bit larger and a tiny bit heavier than the 2320 but the lift capacities with the 200x or cx loaders are almost identical to the pound between the machines. The chassis weight differential is simply not enough to make one a superior "digger" to the other, especially with such a small HP difference also. When I was looking at 2000 series machines I brought them all, one by one, to my property to test them. The conclusion I made was that the 2520 and 2720 were a little bit better in some ways such as loader CYCLE times, but for ground engagement using exactly the same attachments, including bucket sizes there simply was no discernable difference except that I noted. There was a difference between each of the 2020 machines and the 2305, however. Sorry to disagree, but the findings you mention I have been unable to replicate in my use of each machine. To me, this means one could effectively use a 61" bucket on a 2320 and use it fairly well--but bear in mind with that knowledge I still did not recommend it (I actually do not recommend it for any of the 2020 machines, but know that many including yourself have had good success with the larger buckets in certain circumstances).
John M
Deadman
Veteran Member
Torque is what does the work, NOT Horsepower. Yea a 2320 might only be 1.5 HP less, but anyone know how much LESS torque it has? Over 10 Ft. Lbs. of torque less than a 2520, thats 25% less BTW.
So, if I am stalling a 2520, then a 2320 would be stalled much much easier. Thats my only point. so thats why I suggested a smaller bucket on a less powerful machine.
So, if I am stalling a 2520, then a 2320 would be stalled much much easier. Thats my only point. so thats why I suggested a smaller bucket on a less powerful machine.
I will also state that the FEL's for theses tractors are nowhere close to being as stout as the FEL was on my older JD 650. The new units seem to have way to much flex in them and the hydraulics are not as good on these tractors. IMO
Birdmayon
Silver Member
Deadman, I'm sure you're quoting engine stats, I don't believe the gearing is the same between the 2320 and 2520, so that has to be taken into consideration as well.
