3320 which R4's..

[jd670]

I'm thinking of upgrading the R4's on my 3320. I currently have the 19.5(smaller) R4s. Thinking of going to the larger ones. Is there any advantage to the different tread design of the larger R4s over the smaller ones? I know the 43x16-20's are 2 1/2 inches taller than the 19.5's. That would give me some added clearence with the belly mower on. What are your guys opinions?

 

[greg_g]

I went with the taller ones for two reasons; ground clearance and cost. Higher price is almost certainly due to the heavy duty nature of their construction. It's my guess that the shorter ones are intended for those who intend to do a lot of backhoe work. Given that I don't own a backhoe attachment, I just couldn't justify the extra cost.

//greg//

 

[Deere Dude]

The big ones look cooler :thumbsup:

 

[jd670]

I agree, the big ones look cooler also. I was wondering about the backhoe stuff. My 447 probally wouldn't have long enough stablizers to reach the ground. I could always fix that. I just found that Galaxy also makes that tread patteren in the 19.5 size. Might have check them out.

 

[beenthere]

Are the larger ones 6 ply?
That is what I like about my R4's, as I am in the woods a lot. Also like the lower center of gravity which is an issue for me.

edit:
From what I can tell, the larger are 4 ply.
I'd be interested in where I can see a pic of the larger ones.

 

[GreatWhitehunter]

I've thought about the larger r4's for my 3320 also. But since the smaller ones have a higher load capacity it's kind of foolish to get rid of them for ones that just look cool.

Matt

 

[B58Hustler]

I have the 'bigs' and when compared to the 'smalls', here's some of my feelings.

If you load the tires you get about 100lbs more each.

The bigs use different wheels. The combination of different wheels with different offset, plus the extra width of the bigs will change your interference distance with the 3pt. sway links. (my reading is only 3/4" between the rim and the link,that's why I'm buying spacers).

The bigger diameter will mean a change to the tire size in the tractor's computer controller. The default size(circumference) in the computer is 2972 mm). The bigs size is 3287 mm. (essentially if you don't change it the tractor acts like its acceleration is in 10% overdrive(weak off the line)...I complained to my dealer after a couple of days use and the tech came out with his JD computer and made the change).

If you want the looks, not the functionality, and feel like laying out more coin for the new wheels...then the bigs are what you will probably get. But from a functional view I feel the smalls get the job done.

 

[greg_g]

I forgot to list one other benefit of the taller R4s, relative to ground clearance. Right now I sit high enough to carry 5 foot round bales with a conventional TPH bale spear. But even at max lift height, the bale doesn't come very far off the ground. I've run through ruts deep enough to bottom out the bale and pull it right off the spear. That tells me I have no business trying to move 6 footers. One solution would have been to get the type of bale carrier that lifts from the bottom rather than from the center, but that horse is already outa the barn.

//greg//

 

[jd670]

That was also a concern of mine to B58. Was mainly curious if the tread design is any better. Now since I found them in my 19.5 size.

 

[B58Hustler]

That was also a concern of mine to B58. Was mainly curious if the tread design is any better. Now since I found them in my 19.5 size.

OK, I see the second part of your question. I went to Galaxy's website and found the page on the Marathoner R-4 which is the model of the big R-4. I see the 19.5 listed with a 4ply rating. That being the case, I would say they would be a better riding and better grip than the standard 6 ply 19.5(as long as you keep the pressure around 15psi). Galaxy says they eject mud better and offer "great pulling power".

However, I agree with the other guys when they say if you're running a hoe the 6 ply would be better. Were you planning on loading them with anything?

 

[jd670]

Yes. My current tires are loaded with calcium chloride. I would load the new ones also. As for the plies, These Galaxy 6 ply really don't seem to have that strong of a sidewall to them. I had 6 ply skid steer tires on the front of my 4210 and never had sidewall issues. These Galaxy's seem to slice up pretty easy. i was clearing some brush Saturday and the valve stem broke off the front tire. After replacing the stem, I noticed all kinds of deep cuts in the sidewalls of the front tires. I was only clearing small briar patches. May move up to backhoe or skid steer tires all the way around.

 

[foggy1111]

I've got the larger size Galaxy's on my 3320. I like them as they have more contact with the ground for better traction (?) over the smaller tires. they also hold more fluid for ballast. But...the biggest reason to me is to get the increased ground clearance in my stump-forsaken land.

My 3320 has such better clearace than my "old" 790. I dont have the stump hang-ups I experienced with my old tractor. (knock on wood)

 

[VTjohndeere]

I have the smaller R4's on both my 3520 &3720 for two reasons. There is a higher load rating for the smaller 6-ply R4 versus lower load rating for the larger 4-ply tires. I have a 448 backhoe on my 3520 and it is ballasted to the max with fluid and wheel weights. Also, if you contemplate using rear tire chains (an absolute must in Vermont), chains cannot be used on the larger R4 tires due to tight clearances between the fenders and tires, hence the smaller R4 tires on the 3720 which is also ballasted to the max.

 

[GreatWhitehunter]

I have the smaller R4's on both my 3520 &3720 for two reasons. There is a higher load rating for the smaller 6-ply R4 versus lower load rating for the larger 4-ply tires. I have a 448 backhoe on my 3520 and it is ballasted to the max with fluid and wheel weights. Also, if you contemplate using rear tire chains (an absolute must in Vermont), chains cannot be used on the larger R4 tires due to tight clearances between the fenders and tires, hence the smaller R4 tires on the 3720 which is also ballasted to the max.

Your correct on everything but the tire chains. There's a member here who's up in the taconic foothills with the larger r4's with tire chains. So it can be done. http://www.tractorbynet.com/forums/.../100581-3520-arrived-first-impressions-6.html

 

[VTjohndeere]

As a followup to my use of chains on the smaller R4's rear tires, I use a heavy duty spiked chain design, which has a noticeable height to it. If standard cross bar link chains are used, I see where they might possibly fit onto the larger R4 tires. In my case, due to icy conditions and mountains, the spike chains are essential for me. Especially with a 3x20 cab tractor, I'd be very concerned about using this style of spiked chain on the larger R4 tires and having any looseness that could cause damage to the tractor fender or fuel tank. The open station 3x20 tractors seem to have a little less "stuff" under the fender that could catch on chains maybe could accomodate the larger R4 tires with chains better.