2520 upgrading to a 3320 or 3520

[eagle107]

Rob makes a good point about generally low fuel use with most of these machines. My mom's 3320 cab burns only 0.9 - 1.0 gal per hr at 2500 - 2600 rpm. My 3038e burns 0.6 - 0.7 gal per hr at 2300 rpm, where I normally bushhog, which is interesting given the greater power output. I have to attribute that excess burn of hers in part to power losses from the a/c, and in part to the 700# greater weight of her setup, and to her 10% greater engine speed. Still, I'd have thought that mine would be roughly equivalent to hers.

I'd be interested in what 3720 users report. Deere gives a fuel usage number of 2.8 gal per hour for it at rated speed, but I find that shocking. Heck my Komatsu dozer only burns about 2 - 2.2 gph! Indeed, Deere's numbers show the 4120 burning about 12% less than the 3720, though its rated speed is only about 8% less.

Just remember that the JD specs state the fuel usage at a 100% engine load. You would not be running your tractor at 100% load all the time, so your fuel usage will be much less. However, if you did, you need a bigger tractor.

 

[Rob-D]

Just remember that the JD specs state the fuel usage at a 100% engine load. You would not be running your tractor at 100% load all the time, so your fuel usage will be much less. However, if you did, you need a bigger tractor.

If you're running a 5 foot bush hog on a tractor that specs a 5 foot hog you will be running at PTO speed with a good amount of load. If the hardest job you do is bush hog I don't think this means you need a bigger tractor.

Just my two cents.

Rob

 

[JDTank]

If your talking about both tractors at full load, I would bet a 3520 would be more fuel efficient than a 3320. The turbo adds a lot of efficiency, engines that make more power, struggle less to do the work.

Resale is also something to consider. My local dealer has four 3320 cab units that have been there now for just over 7 months. They were traded in by a municipality, because they found them underpowered for there bush hogging needs. No one wants to buy them so they sit, meanwhile 3520 and 3720 models fly out the door faster than coffee on a cold morning.

This is just my experience of what I see around my parts. If you find a 3320 is what you want and your happy with it, than pull the trigger!

I will add, once you have a cab, life gets a lot more enjoyable!

 

[eagle107]

If you're running a 5 foot bush hog on a tractor that specs a 5 foot hog you will be running at PTO speed with a good amount of load. If the hardest job you do is bush hog I don't think this means you need a bigger tractor.

Just my two cents.

Rob

That is fair about a bigger tractor and yes, you will have a good amount of load brush hogging, but it should not always be at 100% load. It all depends on what you are cutting with the brush hog and depends on what you mean by " tractor that specs a 5 foot hog". Is the tractor at the bare minimum/low PTO HP, the middle PTO HP or top PTO HP rating for the bush hog spec, which can mean a lot on how much load you will put on your tractor. Cutting a field with high grass/weeds should not make your tractor run at 100% load with a PTO HP at the middle or top end of the bush hog's spec. Low or bare minimum PTO HP for the bush hog will produce a higher load for the tractor and burn more fuel (there other factor too, such as RPMs and etc.). If you are cutting brush and saplings, then you will also have more load. Case in point, my uncle used my 4520 over last weekend to cut his field, with no brush or saplings in it, using a 6ft brush hog. It took him 8 hours to finish and he burned 12 gallons of fuel which was 1.5 gals/hr. Based on the JD spec, my tractor would burn 2.99 gals/hr at 100% load. The tractor only burned about half the fuel, so the tractor looks like it might have averaged 50% load while bush hogging that specific field. By the way, my tractor has a turbo (nudge, nudge - just kidding, not looking to start a war).

 

[msmud]

Eagle107 provides some helpful real world numbers on fuel usage with his 4520 cab. His machine produces about 60% more gross and 70% more PTO hp than my 3038e, and burns more than twice as much fuel as mine, both running a 6 ft hog. This is a good illustration of how maximizing a tractor's work within its limits can lead to efficiency, as in the case of the 3038e. It'd take a 8 - 10 foot hog to wring the efficiency out of that nice cabbed 4520.

 

[eagle107]

Eagle107 provides some helpful real world numbers on fuel usage with his 4520 cab. His machine produces about 60% more gross and 70% more PTO hp than my 3038e, and burns more than twice as much fuel as mine, both running a 6 ft hog. This is a good illustration of how maximizing a tractor's work within its limits can lead to efficiency, as in the case of the 3038e. It'd take a 8 - 10 foot hog to wring the efficiency out of that nice cabbed 4520.

Ah, I was just trying explain that the JD fuel usage spec is based on a worst case scenario for a tractor being at a 100% load all the time; many things we do with these tractors are not at 100% load so you cannot use that spec as gospel. Yes, 8 - 10 ft brush hog will work better from "efficiency" standpoint; but, hey, if my uncle wants to use his 6ft brush hog to cut his field instead my larger one, then I say let him.

 

[BlackRaptor]

I have the dealer quoting the 3320 and the 3520 cab. I've pretty much made up my mind I want the 3520. it's a better balance when you add in the extra power requirements of the cab.

What i'm having them quote is 3320/3520 Cab 300CX loader 72" MMM 60 inch rear mount blower. 2008 2520 trade 250 hours 200cx loader 62D MMM.

 

[shortthrow50]

Deere calls these cabs COMFARTgard cabs. Pretty gross huh. Look for yourself off the webpage

 

[Martian]

Deere calls these cabs COMFARTgard cabs. Pretty gross huh. Look for yourself off the webpage

You have too much time.

 

[shortthrow50]

You have too much time.

yeah it took me .01 seconds to hit print screen and circle mispelled word. I guess i spend more time than john deere does editing for final submission to their website huh. Does everyone have thin skin on this website or what. Laugh a little