3320 In the woods?

[WIshane]

I have recieved some pricing on the 3320 with a loader that seems to be right around what I was hoping for. Is this machine going to be to small for what I need? I am comparing it to my old Ford 4000. The GM at my office has been using a 4310 with a FEL for this sam euse for about 5 years now and he has been happy. If I am not mistaken that is about a 32hp CUT also. My dealer has told me that a 3320 is a little questionable to go to a backhoe in the future thoughts?

 

[johndeere_2210]

The 3320 essentially replaces the 4310. I'm sure it would handle a backhoe well for a tractor that size. Now if the dealer is thinking compared to a 4000 series, yes it would be different, but I can't believe it would perform much less compared to a 3720 or even much better than a 3120. I believe you would have to go up the flag pole to see a real difference in performance, not a single model change.

 

[rockyridgefarm]

I have the 4310 with a hoe. it is a great setup. going with the 3320/330cx/448 would be great. Of course going to a turbo is even better.

What is your backhoe use? if you are doing very heavy, deep stuff, then maybe it isn't enough. I usually only need to go 2' deep....

 

[KennedyDiesel]

The larger R4's (unless you want ag) and fill them and you should be fine.

What's a 330CX? Typo or new loader?

I rented a 4310 to run a power landscape rake and felt it to be short in the HP dept. My 3720 has always handled the rake very well.

 

[JDGREEN4ME]

"of course going to a turbo is even better"

Why is a turbo better? I have debated (with myself) about this issue. My next tractor will be a 3000 Series either a 3320 or 3520 and I don't know if the turbo is worth the extra cost (to me) over the 3320. I will be moving up from a 4115 and believe the 3320 would suit me fine. Is a turbo that much of an upgrade?

 

[orlo]

Hi:

I have a 3320 that I bought last summer (I also have a 2305). I went with the 3320 since it had the largest displacement (1.6l) of all of the 3 series. The 3120, 3520, and 3720 all have a smaller (1.3l I think) block. I'd rather have a bigger naturally aspirated engine than a turbo due to less complexity. Also there was only a small difference between the 3320 and 3520 HP wise. The only thing I do that would benefit from more HP would be driving while mowing or running a high HP implement.

The hydraulic pump output is the same no matter what model you have and more HP won't help. It's based strictly on engine RPM and the pump (even pumping full at 2400PSI) isn't going to take full engine torque of even the smallest engine.

Not that I wouldn't love to get a 3720, but if you don't need the HP the extra money could be ill spent. Use that 2-5k for more implements.

Note that if I got a cab tractor I would have wanted at least the 3520. This is due to the non-advertised fact that having an A/C compressor and a much larger alternator is going to suck a couple (or more) HP (and torque) away from the engine. If I wanted a cab I'd always get the next size up tractor.

 

[orlo]

Just some info FYI. I got bored and wanted to calculate some things. Yes, I'm kind of an engineering nut.

This would be assuming the hydraulic pump works at 100% efficiency (It of course doesn't due to friction/heat) so the horsepower required by the pump would be slightly more than the horsepower output.

Anyway, at 2500psi and a 13.9GPM flow rate the 3320 is producing 20.27hp in hydraulic flow. This would be at the full rated speed, etc. Even the 3120 would have leftover HP at full hydraulic flow and pressure so any HP beyond that isn't going to help your hydraulics. (If you are moving or using PTO hp while doing that extra hp would come in handy. Also how often do we use full PSI. (Flow comes from engine RPM, pressure when loaded takes torque off the engine at that RPM).

My 2305 (A meager 5.2 GPM flow and a lower 2000PSI ceiling) only produces
6.07hp in hydraulic flow at full RPM and pressure.

For any closet engineering freaks out there here is how to convert:

HP = PSI * GPM * 231 / 12 / 33000

Notes:
231 cubic inches in a gallon
1 SAE horsepower is 33000 foot pounds of work per minute.

 

[orlo]

One last bit (I promise I'll shut up...

I did those calculations including the 5.3gpm for the steering flow so that HP drain would only apply if you were using full hydraulics and steering as hard as you could. with the 8.6gpm implement flow the 3x20 series produces around 12.5hp in hydraulic flow.

Ok, I'm going to bed. ;O)

 

[cruzr]

I have a 3320 with a 447 backhoe and am very pleased with its performance.
I use it mostly for digging up tree stumps, and trenching. Hydro. pressure is the same for all the 3000 series.

 

[papafoxtrot]

Hi:

I have a 3320 that I bought last summer (I also have a 2305). I went with the 3320 since it had the largest displacement (1.6l) of all of the 3 series. The 3120, 3520, and 3720 all have a smaller (1.3l I think) block. I'd rather have a bigger naturally aspirated engine than a turbo due to less complexity. Also there was only a small difference between the 3320 and 3520 HP wise. The only thing I do that would benefit from more HP would be driving while mowing or running a high HP implement.

Orlo,

I didn't quite belive your displacement statement above, as I thought all the 3X20 series had the same displacement engines just tweaked, in one way or another, for HP. The 31, 35, & 37 come in at 1.5 Liter while, sure enough, the 3320 has a 1.64L according to the JD specs. I wonder if that maybe isn't a mistake in the information though, as even the 3203 has the 1.5L motor with 32HP same as the 3320! Seems odd that one model in mid range would have a different motor when there is a HP rated motor in the displacement family. Any dealers out there with the word of authority on this issue?

 

[orlo]

All the specs do state the larger displacement. Also my dealer stated the same fact.
Regarding the 3203 they 'cheat' a little. The rated speed of all the 3x20 series is 2600rpm EXCEPT for the 3203 which they rev a little higher to 2800rpm.
That's how they get that extra HP out of the same block as the 3120 they make it peak 200rpm higher. Also note that the 3320 rated speed is it's maximum speed (for the operating range). Also even though the block sizes are the same, the engines in the 3203 and 3120 are different according to different Yanmar engine part #'s. (3TNV84 vs 3TNV82A).

 

[rockyridgefarm]

3120 - 3tnv84
3320 - 3tnv88
3520 - 3tnv84t
3720 - 3tnv84ht

the 3320 is larger displacement due to a larger bore size. (88mm vs. 84mm)

 

[papafoxtrot]

3120 - 3tnv84
3320 - 3tnv88
3520 - 3tnv84t
3720 - 3tnv84ht

Just flat out seems strange to me why JD would switch an engine configuration in the middle of a model line. I'm sure the block casting is probably the same though they bore it larger. I even get how the bore increase would get them the extra HP they were after, but there are so many other variables an engine manufacturer can play with today to get ponies out of an engine that having to stock two different sets of pistons, rings (even blocks) is a bit baffling, that's all.

 

[rockyridgefarm]

In the TEN series there were three engines.

3TNE82A
3TNE84
3TNE88

So, actually the TWENTY's have reduced the parts.

Isn't it funny how we will pay more for a bigger bored version, with almost no additional cost to manufacture?