What loader bucket size for john deere 3520 with turf tires?

[BigMike50]

I already have the tractor. Its a brand new tractor with premium cab and turf tires. The cab ads almost 1000 pounds to the tractor. So im about 2 tons in weight without any attachments. I have the turfs because I have a mmm and do nice mowing around the house. I plan on doing some digging and want to steer clear of adding chains. I figure a toothbar will be a must. A 72" bucket would be good for loose material and a 60 inch bucket will give less displacemt ideal for digging. The tractor I believe sits at 60 inches at the rear tires so it shouldn't interfere. Just looking for some guys input on the situation before I order the front end loader for this beast. Any input will be grand. thanks

also, I have a counter weight I made out of boredom that I made which weighs in about 11oo pounds. good or bad?

 

[AKfish]

1,100lbs is good, very good! What are you planning to dig? Are you planning to buy 2 buckets? Snow, dirt, sand, gravel... Bigger is always better with snow, of course. If you're only planning (or would prefer) to buy just 1 bucket - get the 72 inch.

The 300cx loader will do very well with a 72 inch bucket. You won't be able to haul heaping loads of wet sand; but, it will do just fine with a good measure of common sense!

AKfish

 

[BigMike50]

Yeah, I plan to just get one bucket for now. I want to get the heavy duty bucket with replaceable cutting edge. I don't plan to dig all the time but I do plan on digging about 3 foot down and 30 foot wide for a retaining wall. Also plan on stripping topsoil for a driveway. So you think the 72 is the way to go? When would the 60 inch be more ideal? Probably on a 2x20 machine huh?

 

[Oldtink]

I agree with AKfish but you might want to look over the JD owners manual for the 300X & 300CX loaders. http://manuals.deere.com/omview/OMW52222_19/?tM=HO
I'm facing the same issues with my new 3520 that will be used 95% of the time for mowing and didn't want the rear tires loaded but looking at the recommendations for ballast using FEL's on this tractor, it appears you can't hardly have too much when it comes to stability and keeping the tires on the ground.
I'm coming to the conclusion of going with the 300CX and 1100 lbs in the ballast box as you have. If it still feels light in the rear, I can add wheel weights.
This is actually my first FEL so it's a learning process and one I plan to proceed with due respect.
Besides, if I rolled it and the tractor didn't kill me......the wife could make life in farmville unpleasant for a long time.

 

[BigMike50]

I agree with AKfish but you might want to look over the JD owners manual for the 300X & 300CX loaders. http://manuals.deere.com/omview/OMW52222_19/?tM=HO
I'm facing the same issues with my new 3520 that will be used 95% of the time for mowing and didn't want the rear tires loaded but looking at the recommendations for ballast using FEL's on this tractor, it appears you can't hardly have too much when it comes to stability and keeping the tires on the ground.
I'm coming to the conclusion of going with the 300CX and 1100 lbs in the ballast box as you have. If it still feels light in the rear, I can add wheel weights.
This is actually my first FEL so it's a learning process and one I plan to proceed with due respect.
Besides, if I rolled it and the tractor didn't kill me......the wife could make life in farmville unpleasant for a long time.

Yeah loading the tires is definatly out of the question for me as well. I have pasture to mow where it can get damp in some areas so I need to remain light at times.

 

[Oldtink]

Personally I've decided on the 60" bucket only because I have a hopper to dump into that has a 6 ft. opening.

 

[greg_g]

Yeah loading the tires is definatly out of the question for me as well. I have pasture to mow where it can get damp in some areas so I need to remain light at times.

"Light" isn't a factor as much as is footprint. You can eventually wear grooves in the ground just by pulling a little red wagon. Empty. The wider the tire, the more square inches of ground contact. The larger the contact patch - the less the compaction (ruts). Turf have a large footprint by design, that's why some of them are called flotation tires. The trade-off is that they provide lousy traction. Ballast adds traction. Wait till your turfs start spinning up black streaks on your wet lawn, you'll see first hand. At that point you'll probably start thinking ballast. It's best to head that particular issue off at the pass.

I personally didn't want the knuckle-busting over-priced bolt-on wheel weights the dealers try to sell. Yellow paint is evidently very very expensive. I filled all four of my 3720 tires with nearly half a ton of RimGuard; about 75 pounds in each front and 425 pounds in each rear. Cost a whole $237 bucks. Installed.

And before you select a bucket, take a serious look at the 61" Frontier 4-in-1 bucket. The work it saves me is worth every nickel of additional expense (over that of a simple materials bucket). Also look at the 300X loader vice the 300CX. Except for cylinder size and price, they're otherwise identical in all respects. The money I saved getting a 300X went toward the extra cost of the 4-in-1.

//greg//

 

[BigMike50]

"Light" isn't a factor as much as is footprint. You can eventually wear grooves in the ground just by pulling a little red wagon. Empty. The wider the tire, the more square inches of ground contact. The larger the contact patch - the less the compaction (ruts). Turf have a large footprint by design, that's why some of them are called flotation tires. The trade-off is that they provide lousy traction. Ballast adds traction. Wait till your turfs start spinning up black streaks on your wet lawn, you'll see first hand. At that point you'll probably start thinking ballast. It's best to head that particular issue off at the pass.

I personally didn't want the knuckle-busting over-priced bolt-on wheel weights the dealers try to sell. Yellow paint is evidently very very expensive. I filled all four of my 3720 tires with nearly half a ton of RimGuard; about 75 pounds in each front and 425 pounds in each rear. Cost a whole $237 bucks. Installed.

And before you select a bucket, take a serious look at the 61" Frontier 4-in-1 bucket. The work it saves me is worth every nickel of additional expense (over that of a simple materials bucket). Also look at the 300X loader vice the 300CX. Except for cylinder size and price, they're otherwise identical in all respects. The money I saved getting a 300X went toward the extra cost of the 4-in-1.

//greg//

A lot of great information. Thank you

 

[tomd999]

Hiya,

I have the 72" HD bucket with the replaceable cutting edge on my 3320 cab/300cx. AK is correct, you won't be able to have a heaping bucket if your working with wet soil. Loose dry material is fine, as is snow. One thing I should mention, the 300 CX with a 72" bucket heaped with material is fully capable of lifting the rear of an open station tractor off the ground if it's not properly ballasted, just ask my next door neighbor about his first day with his 3120.... Also, with the 72, make sure you keep the fill even, the bucket has enough "hang" off to the sides of the loader arms to affect the stability of the tractor as you raise the load possibly presenting a tipping hazard.

I plan on getting a 61" bucket this year and slap on my toothbar to tackle some projects that will require me to dig a bit, The 72" is good for scooping up material from piles, digging, not so much.

On the subject of ballast, Greg_g is correct, loaded tires are far better for traction. Once you break a tire loose on wet ground, your done and you have big ruts. The idea is not to break them loose and weight is one factor as is proper inflation pressure. Now, not all weight is equal, ballast added to tires is weight that aids in tractive effort and stability, weight added to chassis or 3pt does both of those however it changes loads "seen" by the axle housings. Loaded rears or wheel weights even on a cab tractor are not enough to counterbalance a loader. I have a Portland filled Deere weight box with 4 40 Lb suitcase weights on top. Because the weight hangs in back of the rear axle, the ballast box lightens the load on the front axle when your picking up. (OK, proper ballast soapbox is put away)

Tom

 

[Gator6x4]

I would buy the sixty (60) inch heavy duty bucket and never look back. The seventy two (72) inch bucket is nice for that one percent of the time you would actually need or use. The sixty inch would allow for more versatility and be easier to use in tight close place. A seventy two (72) inch bucket is nice for use around an open space barnyard but a dog to use around a close space home yard.

 

[BRBurns]

I have a 4300 with a 430 loader and 72" bucket. With a tooth bar installed, it digs quite well. I really like the larger bucket because I seem to be hauling bucket dulls of dirt 300 - 500ft for projects that I have been doing. It saves a lot of time and wear on the grass not having to make so many trips. I have never loaded my bucket up too much for my loader to lift with gravel or dirt. You can pick up the rear wheels. I have a lighter counterweight and a heavier one depending on what I am doing. The heavy one is probably 1500-1600 lbs. it digs real well with that weight on back.

I also have turfs and mow my yard with this tractor. I put about 120lbs of windshield washer fluid in each rear tire. I did it for stability reasons, but did not want to completely fill the tire to keep weight down when mowing. I find that with 4 wheel drive and a counterweight, I do not have a problem with traction when digging with the loader. I also have chains, but don't use them except for winter.

 

[PhilY]

Just thought I would throw out there that these buckets, while decent at digging with a tooth bar, aren't designed for digging. They can do it, we all use them for this, but just be careful about getting a wider bucket. More of a surface edge to be trying to push into the ground. You will also probably want to find some scarifers or something to loosen up the soil to help dig better. Also, I have a 66in bucket on my tractor, and the back end still gets real light while trying to pick up heavy loads and I have about 1200lbs of rim guard in my rear tires. I have the LA524 loader and between tractor, FEL and liquid ballast, the tractor weighs about 3 ton. It's an open station and supposedly the LA524 will not pick up as much as the 300X JD loader, but my loader still seems to be more powerful than the weight I have. I am making a 1400# ballast box, and I think I will finally have loader lift capability matched with my tractor. It's nice to think of all the HP and power our machines have, but extra unusable power is just extra wasted money. No sense in oversizing the bucket.

 

[BigMike50]

Ok, read through the rest of the replies. I can see the advantages and disadvantages. I probably won't be doing much dirt moving in the bucket to long distances and the snow is not a problem. the longer it takes me to move snow the merrier. I like playin in the snow. I think I better go with the smaller bucket. I'll probably pick up a random dump trailer for my truck and just load the dirt in there and move it if I need to relocate it on the property.

 

[AKfish]

I had turf tires on my JD970 and a 72" bucket. I've got a HD 72" bucket with cutting edge on my JD110TLB. Frame size; the 110 is not a lot bigger than the 970 - it's just built with considerably heavier components! Your 3520 probably has a similar wheel base to the 970 - although it will be heavier with the cab, etc.

I still use the JD ballast box that I had with my 970 - quick hitch on the tractor and QA pins on ballast box. I had it filled with sack-crete and wanna think it was somewhere around 1,100lbs. I guess Deere figures ~1,300lbs if it's filled with Portland cement.

The turf tires were great on snow on the 970! When it got icey, I put on a set of ladder-type chains and went to town! The front bucket would just cover my front and rear tires (barely).

I never had any concerns regarding close quarters with either tractor and with the eHydro tranny, creeping in around building's, fence lines or foundations is a snap!

I would not recommend the 300X. The CX will lift considerably more weight than the X - IIRC it's ~1,200 for the X and ~1,500 for the CX - that's 25% more.

As well, if you have an opportunity; go to a dealer Kubota, Deere, etc. and look at a 60" vs 72" on different tractor/loader combinations. You'll have a better perspective and be able to make a more informed decision.

Good luck.

AKfish

 

[BigMike50]

I had turf tires on my JD970 and a 72" bucket. I've got a HD 72" bucket with cutting edge on my JD110TLB. Frame size; the 110 is not a lot bigger than the 970 - it's just built with considerably heavier components! Your 3520 probably has a similar wheel base to the 970 - although it will be heavier with the cab, etc.

I still use the JD ballast box that I had with my 970 - quick hitch on the tractor and QA pins on ballast box. I had it filled with sack-crete and wanna think it was somewhere around 1,100lbs. I guess Deere figures ~1,300lbs if it's filled with Portland cement.

The turf tires were great on snow on the 970! When it got icey, I put on a set of ladder-type chains and went to town! The front bucket would just cover my front and rear tires (barely).

I never had any concerns regarding close quarters with either tractor and with the eHydro tranny, creeping in around building's, fence lines or foundations is a snap!

I would not recommend the 300X. The CX will lift considerably more weight than the X - IIRC it's ~1,200 for the X and ~1,500 for the CX - that's 25% more.

As well, if you have an opportunity; go to a dealer Kubota, Deere, etc. and look at a 60" vs 72" on different tractor/loader combinations. You'll have a better perspective and be able to make a more informed decision.

Good luck.

AKfish

im pretty much set on the CX after reviews. What is boggling me is the bucket size. I will indeed get the HD bucket for sure. With the 72 bucket, I don't want to be struggling to fill the bucket and destroy my turfs. I don't want to ad chains because the fuel tank is close to the tires. I do site excavation and development for a living and I know that debris can some times get flung into the wheel well and I don't want a rock to get hung up and flung into the tank. Or is this being to precautious? My thinking is with the narrower bucket, I can strip topsoil to the point where it rolls out of the bucket. My fear with the bigger bucket is, the larger displacement it wont allow to get a full bucket. When I buy a bucket, I want it to get full. . Thanks

 

[AKfish]

im pretty much set on the CX after reviews. What is boggling me is the bucket size. I will indeed get the HD bucket for sure. With the 72 bucket, I don't want to be struggling to fill the bucket and destroy my turfs. I don't want to ad chains because the fuel tank is close to the tires. I do site excavation and development for a living and I know that debris can some times get flung into the wheel well and I don't want a rock to get hung up and flung into the tank. Or is this being to precautious? My thinking is with the narrower bucket, I can strip topsoil to the point where it rolls out of the bucket. My fear with the bigger bucket is, the larger displacement it wont allow to get a full bucket. When I buy a bucket, I want it to get full. . Thanks

If you look at the JD specs for loaders they list most of them @ 4"-5" digging depth. The weight per horsepower of the smaller tractors generally means that you'll loose traction before you'll dig any deeper than that -- in the first scoop! Common sense; if you plan to dig any deeper you'll be doing it by shaving a couple of inches with each scoopful.

And, a heavier bucket WITH a cutting edge will dig easier/better than a standard bucket.

It really depends upon what/how you plan to use the loader most of the time... If you're working a dirt pile, sand pile or snow; you can HIT it and roll the bucket back - and the bucket will be rollin' overfull! Sod, hard ground, wet dirt, etc. the bucket angle is just below grade at a slight angle. All the tractor's tires are in good contact with the ground... if your front tires are off the ground - you've lost the advantage of 4x4 traction assist and the bucket will never fill and most likely will dead stop the tractor with the rear tires spinning and leave you with 25%-30% of a full bucket!

I wouldn't worry about the tires being able to hold a large enough rock in the tire cleats to damage the fuel tank. I had the large, cleated turfs on my 970 and I don't think it would/could jam more than a 1"-2" rock and hold it past vertical! If the rock was bigger it would just fall off.

AKfish

 

[BigMike50]

If you look at the JD specs for loaders they list most of them @ 4"-5" digging depth. The weight per horsepower of the smaller tractors generally means that you'll loose traction before you'll dig any deeper than that -- in the first scoop! Common sense; if you plan to dig any deeper you'll be doing it by shaving a couple of inches with each scoopful.

And, a heavier bucket WITH a cutting edge will dig easier/better than a standard bucket.

It really depends upon what/how you plan to use the loader most of the time... If you're working a dirt pile, sand pile or snow; you can HIT it and roll the bucket back - and the bucket will be rollin' overfull! Sod, hard ground, wet dirt, etc. the bucket angle is just below grade at a slight angle. All the tractor's tires are in good contact with the ground... if your front tires are off the ground - you've lost the advantage of 4x4 traction assist and the bucket will never fill and most likely will dead stop the tractor with the rear tires spinning and leave you with 25%-30% of a full bucket!

I wouldn't worry about the tires being able to hold a large enough rock in the tire cleats to damage the fuel tank. I had the large, cleated turfs on my 970 and I don't think it would/could jam more than a 1"-2" rock and hold it past vertical! If the rock was bigger it would just fall off.

AKfish

oh man! back to the drawing board. Good thing that it will be another month before I put the order in. Awesome points.

 

[greg_g]

Forgot to mention that I also have a toothbar on that 4-in-1 bucket. Standard two-bolt side attachment, fits right over the forward cutting edge. Great for scraping/digging into compacted soils. Also handy when trying to get a bucket full out of a rock pile. Hard to impossible task with a simple materials bucket on such a light tractor.

//greg//

 

[Rockgod]

Like others have said, it just depends on what you'll be doing with it. This time around I went with the 60" bucket and R3 turfs. With R4s I might have went with the 72".

 

[soulasphil]

I use a 60" bucket with my 3520 and agri tyres. I find it already very cumbersome around trees and buildings and when full it is very heavy for the 300CX and the front axle. I wouldn't try anything bigger.