Help - 4120 or 3520?

[Dicky]

Hi everyone. Right now I have an 01 4300 and am thinking of upgrading. I have 6 acres, some of which is woods that need to be cleared out and leveled and a few pastures which I generally do not mow. The lawn is handled by my LX277 AWS.

My delema is this. Is tha 4120 going to be too big? I test drove one the other day and it did not feel all that much bigger than my current 4300. Is it going to tear up the lawn more than the 4300? When I test drove it, I made a series of sharp turns at the dealership - it actually seemed to create less damage on the lawn. Is this because of the larger (wider) R3's or is this simply me trying to justify a tractor larger than I need. The thing that intrigues me about the larger frame tractor is obviously more FEL power, higher reach, ect.

The other consideration is any Tractor upgrade is going to require the folding ROP to be folded any time I go into the barn. My 4300 is fixed and clears by 3". Has anyone had their ROP cut down and rewelded so it is the same height as the fixed ROP?

Lastly, are there any performance chips available for the 4120 for more power?

Thanks!

 

[AKfish]

I think that you answered a couple of your own questions...

"or is this simply me trying to justify a tractor larger than I need --"
"performance chips available for the 4120 for more power?"

Nothing wrong with more HP. If you've got the checking account; there's a bigger tractor out there just waiting!

Once you clear up on the rest of your land, maybe you could do a little "custom" work on the side?

AKfish

 

[Cidertom]

I too had a 4300. I now have a 4520. Larger, it may not seem too much larger, but it is. You are sitting much higher and it is wider. As an example the 4300 I had had the folding ROPS. I could fold it down and get into the pig barn to clean it out. With the 4520 even with the rops folded, I can't get in there ( I'm the limiting factor at that point) . I don't know the measurements, but I suspect that if you were to find someone to modify the rops for you, that leaving it tall enough to protect you will still be too tall to just pull in. Comparing the two tractors you propose, look at the torque, not just the hp.

No, there is no chip to get the 4120 to be a 4720. That is a fairly frequent lament here at TBN.

 

[jdbower]

When I was shopping I was trying to decide between a 2000, 3000 or 4000 TWENTY series. On paper they didn't look that much different, but then I saw them on the lot... I'm glad I went with the 2520 for my property because I wouldn't be able to maneuver with the larger models. In fact, the only thing I may have done differently is to try to convince the wife that a smaller 2305 plus a larger 3000 or 4000 series would be a better choice - but I don't know if I can justify two machines

Moral of the story: Figure out the tightest spaces you need to get into on your property and if things are tight go with the 3000 series, if things are pretty open the 4000 series may be a better choice in case you need the extra mass.

 

[NoMo]

Hi everyone. Right now I have an 01 4300 and am thinking of upgrading. I have 6 acres, some of which is woods that need to be cleared out and leveled and a few pastures which I generally do not mow. The lawn is handled by my LX277 AWS.

Is that a typo or do you really just have 6 acres?

 

[Dicky]

No typo, 6 Acres, however, I build houses for a living as well as own another buisiness for which the tractor could be used.

 

[tuolumne]

No typo, 6 Acres, however, I build houses for a living as well as own another buisiness for which the tractor could be used.

By everything you've said, a 3520 would seem to be the better choice. Consider maneuverability in the woods, trailering your machine to jobsites, more weight on the lawn etc. I recently went through this same debate and I am very thankful that I chose the 3520. I have not found it lacking in power, lift height, etc. and I am thankful for a smaller machine in the woods and working on slopes.

 

[NoMo]

No typo, 6 Acres, however, I build houses for a living as well as own another buisiness for which the tractor could be used.

I'd consider two tractors- one for your business(es) and another for your home.

The one used for business purposes will likely have different tax, finance and insurance requirements than one used for both home & business. Plus, you could get the right-sized tool for each area... and two tractors!

 

[Dicky]

Its hard enough convincing my wife to let me buy one let alone two tractors.

Maybe the thing to do is to ask the dealer if he will let me demo it at my home to get a feel for how large it is. At the dealership, it honestly did not seem that much bigger.

 

[jcmseven]

Dicky, trust me on this, go with the mid frame. The 4120 will be too big and you will long for the mid frame.

John M

 

[wolc123]

I own a 4120 and like it a lot but I do think the 3520 would be a better choice for you. The 4120 is a big heavy tractor and it is quite a stretch to even refer to it as a CUT. Add a loader, loaded rear tires, and a rear implement and it's weight rises to more than can be safely towed with a pickup and small equipment trailer. However, if your building work requires loading tandem dump trucks on occasion, then the vastly greater hydraulic capacity and reach of the 400x/cx loader of the 4000 series vs the 300x/cx of the 3000 series may be in order. As per the performance upgrade, since most of the 4120's are still under factory warranty you do not hear much yet. Don't be suprised to hear in the next few years that someone figures it out, this ain't rocket science. Certainly you would think it could be done for less than the cost difference to the 4720, especially if you do it yourself. I can't wait to tare into my engine once the warranty expires although to this point I have not found a need for more power. Maybe I will trade the 6 foot rotary cutter for a 15 ft batwing mower if I can get the hp up enough.

 

[Greyfields]

I would favor the 4120 for the added hydraulic lift capacity. But I'm biased by my signature.

BTW, I am disking, bailing, mowing, brush hogging, harrowing and in two weeks will be seed drilling with a 4120. It's no stretch to call the 4x20 series utility tractors.

 

[HappyCPE]

I have a 4320 and I have not even come close to pushing the machine to its limit. Based on your acreage the smaller machine sounds like a better choice. Sometimes I find myself in a bind and wish for a 3720 or similar but I always liked Tim Allen's "Tool Time" solution to a problem!

For your business what specifically would you be using the tractor for? A 3520 is a fine landscaping tractor but if you are digging foundations [not basements] the 4120 w/ backhoe might be better.

 

[jcmseven]

Having had both frame sizes myself, I can say that although the 4000 series is the heavier duty machine, the 3000 series can do just as much, albeit a little more slowly in some circumstances. I truly loved my 4520, but when you take a 3800# tractor, add about 1000# in ballast, a 400x loader with a 4n1 bucket, a 6' box blade, etc., we are talking about a 6500# machine. This, of course, requires a 18" trailer with at least 4000# axles (mine was a 7K trailer) and wala, you have a nearly 10,000# load. My 2002 F250 pulled it fine, but with the mountainous roads, etc., it really was a load going up and down without crashing at times. The 3720 is a really capable tractor and can safely be hauled on a 7000# trailer and the total load comes to around 6200# with such a trailer, a fairly easy haul with a 1/2 ton, and a "don't notice it" haul with a 3/4 ton + with a diesel. I have even thought about going smaller, so that I could come in under the 5000 pound capacity of my wife's Acura MDX, so that I could pull some with that vehicle also. To me, a user who drives his equipment to various places to work this was THE most important factor. For some, perhaps yourself, this is less important. Also, as I have said, the main thing one gets with the larger machines is the ability to use larger attachments. My 3720 pulls a 60" box blade about the same as my 4520 pulled a 72". It loads with a 61" bucket about the same as the 4520 did with a 72", etc. As for PTO driven attachments, I can still use an 84" RFM with my current 3720 machine.

John M

 

[Dicky]

I really appreciate all of the comments and please keep them coming! For one thing, I already have a 10,000 lb trailer and a 3/4 ton GMC. I think I am covered there. I was ready to pull the trigger on a one year old 4520 that I have since found which I can get inexpensively with a 400CX and loaded tires. The urge to go bigger is strong. I started out with a 4100 and went to the 4300. The 4300 felt huge compared to the 41, but I would not want to go back. I am thinking it would be the same with the 4XXX series.

I'm thinking if I am not going to go bigger that I should just keep my 4300. Its paid for and has served me well. I just don't think I will be getting enough out of the newer 3000 series to justify upgrading.

 

[jcmseven]

Dicky,

I think the validity of your thoughts about the new 3000 series not being an upgrade over your 4300 depends on which one you get. A trade from a 4300 to a 3320 would not benefit you, for example. A trade, as you mentioned, to a 3720 is a large improvement. Although physically the same size, the 3720 is a much more powerful and thusly somewhat faster machine. There have also been some upgrades in the HST tranny and the hydraulics and capacities which have proven useful. I am not in any way trying to talk you out of a larger machine, just that the larger machine is not always a better choice, and this might be such an instance. I would love to have my 4520 back, but when I look at some of the logistical issues it caused me, it simply was not worth it to keep. The 3720 offers 98% of the performance at some less cost for me and is MUCH easier to haul and manuver around. As for the 3/4 ton truck,if yours is similar to mine, and it was a good tow vehicle, the weight of the 4520 loaded down is tricky on steep or tight roads.

John M

 

[wolc123]

I do not have the numbers right in front of me, but if you go to the JD website you may find that the hydraulic pump flow, loader lift height, 3 pt, and loader lift lbs of the 3720 are a lot closer to 75% than 98% of the 4120. That will make the difference in doing or not doing some big jobs like loading a high sided tandem dumptruck and lifting heavy pallets or logs. Since you have the tow capacity, the 4120 seems like the better choice, especially if you are paid by the job and not by the hour as it will nock a lot of work out 25% or so faster. For a guy with a little trailer/truck and a lot of tight spots the 3720 would be better but that does not seem to apply in your case.

 

[the_sandman_454]

I had to make this choice recently. After deliberation, I went with the 3520. I currently have about 35 hours on it. There are occasions when I tell myself I maybe should've gone with a 4x20 series machine. That feeling passes fairly quickly though when I remind myself the 4x20 would probably be too heavy to mow the lawn without tearing it up, would be harder to maneuver a few places, and it combined with the bigger implements would take up too much space in my pole barn.

Today I spent a couple of hours brush hogging in my woods, about 2 hours, and made 1 pass with my MX5 'hog. Ended up with close to 3/4 of a mile of trails. I ended up stalling the machine a couple of times, perhaps I need to check my slip clutch, since it might be a little too tight. Or it may have been my fault for not backing off the hydro pedals quickly enough. I attempted to cut everything the loader would push over, which worked surprisingly well.

I have yet to try any ground engaging equipment, but at some point a tiller and/or disc will likely be a consideration. Perhaps when I get into running one of those items, and/or wish I could run a wider one, I'll kick myself for not getting the bigger machine, but probably not. From my experience thus far, I think I'm overall quite happy with the 3520 due to it's mix of power and maneuverability.

 

[tuolumne]

....A 3520 is a fine landscaping tractor but if you are digging foundations [not basements] the 4120 w/ backhoe might be better.

Correct me if I'm wrong...I am using the same backhoe on my 3520 as one would use with a 4x20 series. The limit is not hydraulic capacity of the tractor, but the teeth and cylinders on the 448 hoe itself. I can't imagine needing to operate the hoe faster, but my skills are only beginning to get honed. I still operate at around 1500-1800 RPMs for better control anyway.

 

[HappyCPE]

Correct me if I'm wrong....

I'm not smart enough to correct anybody!
What I see is builders using surprisingly large machines to do residential work. I think that given the relatively high cost of labor in NJ that production is paramount, and larger machines win out. We also have some hard clay/shale soils locally and need big power. I almost never see an ag machine doing construction unless it is landscape related type work.