3203 Update

canoetrpr · Mar 16, 2006

Wow... that's certainly not much of a price difference. I'm guessing the 3203 being new and all they are not discounting it much vs the 3120 is being discounted by the normal amount?

The 3120 is a very nice machine and with anything less than a few thousand difference in price the 3120 would be the way to go IMHO. Why get the toned down version unless you really are going to save a bunch.

I fully expect that as sales ramp up the 3203 will sell with prices in line with the Kubota L3400 - after all this was the gap in the line up that they were trying to address. I do think, as Neil points out that leaving out the hoe and possiblity of rear remotes is not a great idea on their part.

johndeere_2210 · Mar 17, 2006

I think Deere sends up a trial ballon to see where the price might fall, but agree with the above post, it might become tough to sell this unit if it's close to the 3120, minus features and there are a number of them.

ddivinia · Mar 18, 2006

I think they will have to drop the price a lot on the 3203. Perhaps they are looking at a 790 replacement. I think the John Deere marketing people are trying to keep up confused!

D.

thebigc · Mar 19, 2006

(
The 3120 is a very nice machine and with anything less than a few thousand difference in price the 3120 would be the way to go IMHO. Why get the toned down version unless you really are going to save a bunch.

)

I was ready to pull the trigger on a 3203/300 FEL when I decided to price out a 3120eHydro/300CX. $18,400 -vs- $19,350 respectively. So its a no-brainer for me and I'll be getting my new 3120 Monday or Tuesday. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

And looking at the specs, the 300CX runs rings around the 300. I guess that's where JD saves the money in the 3203; the hydraulics.

Donny

ddivinia · Mar 19, 2006

Good call on the 3120 - post pics when you get it. You are right, the 300CX is much better than the 300X.

D.

BigDamnFool · Mar 20, 2006

I found a few spare minutes on friday and went by JD dealer that will be closest to my new home. Had him price out 3203 w/300 FEL vs. 3120 w/300x. You should have seen the look on his face when the 3120 came out at $20 less than 3203. He had to show every other salesman in the place. He double checked to make sure he was right and then said I should definitely go with the 3120. Then thought how on earth would they ever sell a 3203. I left with quotes in hand and drove to Kubota dealer for some prices. And here the plot .. thickens... /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif
Tiny

rockyridgefarm · Mar 20, 2006

Sounds like you made the right choice. Even if the 3203 had been a little less than the 3120, you'd be glad that you went that way. Hopefully they will bring the price DOWN on the 3203; not raise the 3120 to fix the disparagence...

( And looking at the specs, the 300CX runs rings around the 300. I guess that's where JD saves the money in the 3203; the hydraulics )

Where are you getting that? Right now, I am only seeing 300 specs for the 790. I feel that the 300 willl look better on the 3203 than it does on the 790.

But for your situation, that is all a moot point. You did the right thing going with the 3120.

thebigc · Mar 20, 2006

( Where are you getting that? Right now, I am only seeing 300 specs for the 790. I feel that the 300 willl look better on the 3203 than it does on the 790.

)

Was looking at the specs on my dealer's computer. I didn't write them down or print them out but the numbers, especially considering the 3203 has 32hp. vs 29.5 for the 3120, pointed to diminished hydraulics. My dealer agreed and stated that's where Deere saves money. And the 3120 flows about 1gpm more in the implement pump according to the specs. Again, the numbers for the 300CX were so much better than the 300 I quickly forgot about the 3203.

I also wished my dealer good luck selling a 3203. I guess if you don't have much loader work involving heavy materials and want a cheap HST tractor the 3203 might be a good choice...

rockyridgefarm · Mar 20, 2006

( considering the 3203 has 32hp. vs 29.5 for the 3120, pointed to diminished hydraulics)

Um, these both have the same engine (Yanmar 3TNV84). One tractor is specified at 2800 rpm, the other at 2600 rpm.

Hydraulics is a different story (Source: owners manuals posted at Deere.com):

3120
Working Pressure 17237 kPa (2500 psi)
Pump Capacity (Main) @ Rated Speed 32.5 L/min (8.6 gpm)
Pump Capacity (Power Steering) @ Rated Speed 20 L/min (5.3 gpm)
Total Flow of Pumps @ Rated Speed 52.5 L/min (13.9 gpm)

3203
Working Pressure 14651 kPa (2150 psi)
Steering Pressure 10342 kPa (1500 psi)
Pump Capacity (Main) @ Rated Speed 28.8 L/min (7.6 gpm)
Pump Capacity (Power Steering) @ Rated Speed 21.6 L/min (5.7 gpm)
Total Flow of Pumps @ Rated Speed 50.4 L/min (13.3 gpm)

(Watch for 'How I shimmed my 3203 hydraulics' thread....)

Still - You Did The Right Thing.

But it is nice to nail down exactly what is and what isn't.

thebigc · Mar 20, 2006

Mike, thanks for doing the legwork on those specs. So I guess its a different pump here? 3120 shows 1gpm more implement flow but a little less steering capacity?

Anyhow, you're right; I did make the right choice. My 3120 showed up in my driveway a day early! Better on paper than a 3203/300 and a ten-fold improvement on my trusty 4100HST/410.

Donny