Baling with a compact - minimum size?

[Soundguy]

So, let's get this straight. YOUR definition of a "utility tractor" would be it should be able to power a 10' rotary cutter?


(Can you say "Grasping at straws in a feeble attempt to make a weak arguenment w/ thesaurus in hand" )

i didn't say that at all.. I demonstrated a difference between 'can do something' and 'ideally doing something'. My 850 'can' power a 10' mower. It's about 15 hp and a couple thousand pounds away from being able to do it adequately.

No where in my post did i say that my definition of a cat 2 tractor was one that could pull a 10' mower. You are the one grasping there buddy.. Those words do not appear in any part of my message. Oh.. and no thesaurus needed thank you very much. You solely declaring my argument weak, does not make it so. The facts stand.. when the 3000 was out.. it was the smallest frame tractor ford had.. the 2000 was just a bit detuned.... It's larger brothers the 4000 and the 5000 are much closer to what we now call a utility tractor in hp, weight, and hitch capacity and category... with the 2000/3000 falling easilly into CUT range today, again.. with respect to hitch and hp/weight.

soundguy

 

[Farmwithjunk]

i didn't say that at all.. I demonstrated a difference between 'can do something' and 'ideally doing something'. My 850 'can' power a 10' mower. It's about 15 hp and a couple thousand pounds away from being able to do it adequately.

No where in my post did i say that my definition of a cat 2 tractor was one that could pull a 10' mower. You are the one grasping there buddy.. Those words do not appear in any part of my message. Oh.. and no thesaurus needed thank you very much. You solely declaring my argument weak, does not make it so. The facts stand.. when the 3000 was out.. it was the smallest frame tractor ford had.. the 2000 was just a bit detuned.... It's larger brothers the 4000 and the 5000 are much closer to what we now call a utility tractor in hp, weight, and hitch capacity and category... with the 2000/3000 falling easilly into CUT range today, again.. with respect to hitch and hp/weight.

soundguy

I'll give you one thing, you're entertaining me with your obscure theories and "clinical testing results".

The boat Christopher Columbus sailed across the Atlantic in was not any bigger than most modern day house boats or day cruisers. So, by your theory, would you say Chris 'scoverd America in a house boat or a day cruiser?

 

[slowzuki]

I don't have the numbers in front of me but the 2000 and the 3000 don't appear to be the same at all. Maybe I'm being tricked by tire sizes.

Anyways, yes, today they are not a big tractor, but in the mid 60's the hp wars hadn't started and tractors sort of topped out at 60-70 pto hp.

I don't want to get into a pissing match about it but most CUT's will not make it to say 5000 rated pto hours pulling a baler and rack vs most little 3000 type tractors would be fine to that age.

I'll gladly keep my CUT though as it does so many other things so much better!

Lets peer back to ford in 1965.. their smallest tractor was the 2000.. basically the same tractor as the 3000... move up and you got the 4000.. then the 5000.. etc.

I contend that a 3000 does not compair to what we call a utility tractor today.. but rather to what we call a CUT.. both in weight and HP.
soundguy

 

[Soundguy]

The 3 cyl ford 2000/3000 were very similar machines..

soundguy

I don't have the numbers in front of me but the 2000 and the 3000 don't appear to be the same at all. Maybe I'm being tricked by tire sizes.

 

[Soundguy]

I think that has more to do with tractors being made cheaper today then yesterday... smaller engines.. less overdesign.. etc. Loot at the ci to hp ratio on older tractors compaired to todays. More ci per hp then... IE.. more cast iron back then. " They knew how to build them' and took pride intheir work back then.. that is becomming less and less common now..


soundguy

I don't want to get into a pissing match about it but most CUT's will not make it to say 5000 rated pto hours pulling a baler and rack vs most little 3000 type tractors would be fine to that age.!

 

[Farmwithjunk]

I don't have the numbers in front of me but the 2000 and the 3000 don't appear to be the same at all. Maybe I'm being tricked by tire sizes

The 2000 and 3000 were basically the same chassis. Most (all?) 2000's were void of the options that made a 3000 a much better overall tractor. I've never personally seen a 2000 with live power, although I'd just about bet there were some. The 3000 had a good bit more power, more than the ratings would indicate. Some 3000's came w/o live power too, but generally speaking it was almost a standard feature. Most late model 3000's had the 8-speed tranny. Most (all?) 2000's had 6 forward speeds.

The 2000 came with 12.4X28 rears. SOME 3000's came with 12.4's, but 13.6X28's were optional, along with 14.9X24's.

The 3000 did LOOK bigger. Maybe it was just knowing the difference that made them appear larger, but over-all measurements were almost identical. Weights were very close. The 3000 had a few standard features that gave it a few more lbs.

I owned a 3000 gas (1973) for 33 years. Flat wore it out. (loader tractor all those years. I trashed the front end) I sold it and bought a 1970 3000 diesel. Kept it for 2 years. It had a few "issues" and my heart wasn't into rebuilding it, so away she went. But, had I known in 1973 just how much more tractor the 3000 diesel was over the gasser, I doubt I would have bought a gasser. At the time, I wanted a gas tractor for winter feeding. The thought was gassers were easier to start. The 3000 gas was a cold natured beast. 99 time out of 100, I'd end up feeding with my MF150 diesel. It would cold start when nothing else would.

 

[wolc123]

The Ford 3000 is certainly a CUT by my standards. I owned a 3000 gas and a 2000 diesel and there was no noticeble difference in the power of the (2) machines. Each struggled with a 5 foot rotary mower in thick conditions. The only difference was that I could get a lot more work done per gallon of fuel with the "smaller" deisel so, being the cheapskate that I am, I much preferred that tractor. The JD 4120 that I have today does better with a 6 foot rotary mower in the same field conditions and it is considered a CUT. Because I can run faster, with a wider cut, I can knock out the same mowing job in just over half the time it took with the Fords. The 4120 outclasses and outworks those old Fords in every category imaginable and is significantly heavier, wider, longer, and taller. In the old days (prior to about 1980) the CUT category simply did not exist. Heck, even my 8 hp Farmall Cub could not be called a CUT back then because no one had yet coined the term. I think the ability to run a 10 foot rotary mower in moderate field conditions is right in the ballpark of where a CUT looses the "C". Back to the original question, I would say that the 43 hp, gear, JD 4120 CUT is just about right to run a small, square baler. With a hydro (less efficient) you would want to go up at least to a 4320. Hp is not all that matters on a baler, and I do not believe a JD 3720 (also around 43 hp) is enough tractor to run a baler because it is simply to small and light.

 

[AKfish]

Certainly an interesting discussion... have learned some great information (historical) regarding older model tractors and how they might "stack up" against the newer models that are on the market today.

Appears that the newer tractors are certainly able to run a baler and pull a bale wagon - the remaining question is "how long and at what degree of efficiency/adequacy"?

I'd guess.... after hearing from several reknown "tractor lawyers" hereabouts that the "jury is still out" on that question!!!

AKfish

 

[Soundguy]

Each struggled with a 5 foot rotary mower in thick conditions. .

Well... I'm not surprised the 3000 struggled.. if it was some good tall lush thick grass... I know lush grass is harder to cut than stemy weeds. I've breezed thru 6' and 7' tall stemmy weeds yet had 2' of grass choke down my ex-nh 1920 (33hp ) and a 5' mower. Might i ask what trans you had? 4spd? maybee?

soundguy

 

[Diamondpilot]

Sounds like a lot of work to make $450 bucks gross profit, but I guess it's better than letting it sit.

Actually it was not, only maybe a hour of work each time. The guy that bought the bales picked it up so all I had to do was pick it up out of the field. If I did not have it baled I would have had to bush hog it so what the ****. This year there is no money in hay. I offered it to the guy just last week if he simply paid the cost of having it baled and he picked it up. He told me no thanks, he could get it delivered for about the same money. We have been blessed with rain this year, about every 3 days. I have seen some baling for the second time this year.

Chris