3032E vs 2520

[OUBrew]

I need some input...I am buying a tractor to do four main things:

1) finish mow my 2 acre yard
2) plow snow
3) plant food plots
4) landscape

I like the higher HP of the 3032E but there is no belly PTO for a mower. The 2520 is considerably smaller but looks to be more versatile. The 305 loader cannot be taken off but you can take the bucket off? That does not seem to be too big of a deal for me. I am worried about the mower. Do the rear finish mowers do a nice job? I think I will really need the extra HP with the food plots in pulling a chisel plow, disk, etc. Does anyone remove snow with the 305?

Thanks for your thoughts

 

[jenkinsph]

I would recomend in your case to consider a 2720 and a tiller instead of chisel plows and disks. This will allow you to put the power to the ground thru the pto instead of needing so much tractive force. You should be able to use R4 or turf tires and keep your lawn in better shape. With a smaller tractor there is not much point in looking at chisel plows.

The 2720 will give you better control in the winter with both wheel brakes too. A 3120 and up would work too but is more money. There isn't that much difference in hp between a 2720 and a 3032 to worry about.

 

[OUBrew]

Steve thanks for the thoughts. My hesitation with the 2720 is that it is about $4500 more for the base tractor and I have read it has too much HP for the smaller size. I like your idea on the tiller vs pull attachments. I guess I would like to have that option available.

I am worried about the snow removal

 

[JCB]

I doubt you'd like having a tractor with a loader always on as your primary finish mower.

The 2720 would be nice, but I think the size of your food plots, and what you plan to do with them will determine whether the 2520 is sufficient. Working the ground every year on 2 acres is about all I'd want to do with a 2520.

2520 and blower or blade (blower!) will be great for snow removal.

 

[Runner]

I have a 2520 with both a belly mower (62D) and a rear finish mower (Frontier GM1072R). In my opinion, the rear finish mower leaves at least as nice a cut as the belly mower, and, it's a lot easier to attach/detach when you need to use the tractor for other things.

I almost always mow with the loader on (minus the bucket) and have had no problems doing this. In fact, I like having the extra loader weight on the machine for better traction.

Bottom line, I wouldn't hesitate for a second to have a rear finish mower as my only mower for a lawn.

 

[OUBrew]

Thanks Runner...exactly what I was looking for

 

[jenkinsph]

Steve thanks for the thoughts. My hesitation with the 2720 is that it is about $4500 more for the base tractor and I have read it has too much HP for the smaller size. I like your idea on the tiller vs pull attachments. I guess I would like to have that option available.

I am worried about the snow removal

When buying such a small lightweight tractor it is preferable to harness the pto power to perform your tasks. Snowblowing with the pto would be preferred to pushing, tilling (which with a forward tine rotation) actually pushes the tractor along, wider cut mowers, all of these benefit by having more pto hp. If I recall correctly the 2720 is about 23 to 25 pto hp that isn't too much when utilized with the proper implements.

Snowblowing for heavier snows the fel and bucket for light snows, chains for traction and you are set.

Turf tires since most of the time will be spent mowing after you whip your place into shape.

Landscaping and maintaining the lawn will be much better with the 2720 and turfs because you will have less damage due to high floatation tires. This small but nimble tractor would be my choice in your application.

All of that said, I really prefer dedicated mowers and larger tractors for the real work, but you don't have to buy it all at once either. I add attachments and implements as I can.

 

[Rob-D]

I agree, the 2720 will run a lot of implements out the back. If you look at Deere's attachment brochure you can compare what each tractor will do. The 2x20 and the 3005 are weaker in the loader and if you do a lot of loader work not the best bets. I like the 2720, it will pull a 5 foot rotary mower or a 6 foot finish mower with no problems though and it has a couple more horses than the 3005. Don't get me wrong the 3005 is a great little basic machine.
Trouble is once you buy a tractor you get hooked on things you never thought you'd ever care about, then you wind up pulling stumps and moving big things. Sometimes people buy a small tractor and think they will dig a new foundation with it. You won't!
Take your time, shop around, look at all the brands and try all the tractors. Lift dirt, stone, back it up, go forward and check resale prices too. Hang out here for awhile it will save you time and money.
One thing about Deere's they hold their value, some name brands don't. keep that in mind too.
Rob

 

[AKfish]

My neighbor with a 2520 just came over today to "test drive" my JD 660 tiller. It's a medium duty 5' tiller and based upon the owner's manual will work on JD 850-870-950-970-1050-1070 series of tractor's.

So, his 2520 is right on the "ragged edge" of powering the tiller. We'll see how it does...

I think the 2520 would be a great finish mower platform to care for the 2 acres. As well, I think it would be a very good landscaping tractor for small parcels.

However, I don't consider the 2520 to be an ideal food plot machine. As well, if you have any significant area that you need to keep clear of snow and you live in a heavy snow location; the 2520 would not be high on the list to manage that work - IMO.

That said - when you estimate the hours/days that you will need the tractor to accomplish 75-80% of the yearly chores - which tractor is likely gonna fit the bill?

AKfish

 

[RoyJackson]

I agree, the 2720 will run a lot of implements out the back. If you look at Deere's attachment brochure you can compare what each tractor will do. The 2x20 and the 3005 are weaker in the loader and if you do a lot of loader work not the best bets. I like the 2720, it will pull a 5 foot rotary mower or a 6 foot finish mower with no problems though and it has a couple more horses than the 3005. Don't get me wrong the 3005 is a great little basic machine.
Trouble is once you buy a tractor you get hooked on things you never thought you'd ever care about, then you wind up pulling stumps and moving big things. Sometimes people buy a small tractor and think they will dig a new foundation with it. You won't!
Take your time, shop around, look at all the brands and try all the tractors. Lift dirt, stone, back it up, go forward and check resale prices too. Hang out here for awhile it will save you time and money.
One thing about Deere's they hold their value, some name brands don't. keep that in mind too.
Rob

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!

 

[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