Interesting comments from JD dealer

[bandit67]

So since I have some time before I'm 'allowed' to get my next machine, I've been doing a bunch of research. I stopped by a local JD dealership and then called a few days later trying to get some info out of them. Basically, I was told that for the 'homeowner' work I want to do on a 2 acre mountain property at 8500' above sea level, the smallest hydro machine I should go with is the 3520.

Apparently, the 3xxx series are too big and heavy for my elevation until I get into the 37hp turbocharged model. Also, I apparently would be very dissatisfied with the much lighter 2520 at 26.5 hp, which size-wise, is more along the lines of what I want. Now, I know a few folks up here with 770's or 790's that are plenty happy with their performance. Could it be that the hydro tranny robs the machines of that much hp?

I have had a local Kubota dealer tell me that he thinks I'd be quite unhappy with the B26 TLB with its 26 hp engine and 4000 lbs of bulk at 8500', but that machine is easily 1000# heavier, or more, than a 2520 outfitted with FEL and hoe would be.

I had a 24hp subcompact hydro at 5500', so that translates to 18 hp at sea level, and it had plenty of power for its size, even to run the 60" MMM in tall grass. At 8500', the 2520 would equate to about 16 sea level hp, and weighs maybe 500 lbs more than my sub did. Back in 1991, I used a 14hp Yanmar compact gear tractor at sea level that was the same size as the 2520, and never found it to be lacking power.

So, either the salesman is trying to get me to buy a bigger, more expensive machine (which I'm not going to do), or he really is telling the truth that JD doesn't have a machine that would suit my needs, and the 2520 would be seriously lacking power at 8500' above sea level. He's basically saying that I'd probably only be happy with 30hp in a machine the size and weight of the 2520, which narrows the field to only Kubota offerings. Now, I don't really have a problem with that, but I wonder if you JD folks think I should take his word and just stop looking at the 2520.

 

[gordon21]

If you know people that are currently happy with a 790, then the obvious choices would a 790 or a 990. The 990 might be over kill for 2 acres.

Check around to see if there are any rental places that have a 790 or 990. You wouldn't need to rent one. The mere fact that rental yards have them would speak pretty loud. If they don't have them, what models do they have? You could check other cities within 300 miles that are the same elevation.

 

[putt_putt_green]

From what I understand, Turbos make a huge difference at higher elevations due to the lack of oxygen. You may want to do a search on turbos at higher elevations.

 

[bam747]

I'm confused about your math...

You said you had a "24 HP subcut @ 5500 feet which translates to 18 HP at sea level". You are also saying the 2520, rated at 26.5 HP at sea level "would equate to about 16 sea level hp". Your math seems to be reversed.

The general rule about naturally aspirated engines is that you LOOSE 3% of your sea level HP per 1000 feet of elevation.

This means the 26.5 gross HP 2520 (rated at sea level) will produce about 22.1 gross HP at 5500 feet or only 19.7 at 8500 feet.

HP @ Elevation = HP @ Sea Level * (1 - (.03 * Elevation in Feet/1000))

For practical purposes, turbo charged engines loose very little horse power due to elevation.

The bottom line is that if you think a naturally aspirated "X" gross HP tractor will meet your needs, but you live at significant elevation, just remember that you automatically loose that 3% per 1000 feet of your sea level HP for a naturally aspirated engine.

If you do not have the option of turbo charged 26.5 gross HP engine, and "need" that 26.5 gross HP at your 8500 feet of elevation, you'd have to buy a naturally aspirated 33.3 gross HP tractor.

And guess what the gross engine HP rating is on the 3320? Yep, 32.5 gross HP. But, the 3320 is NOT turbo charged, so it is effectively only 24.2 gross HP at 8500 feet.

The next step up is the 4520, which is turbo charged, and will therefore maintain most of its rated 37 gross HP even at 8500 feet!

The bottom line is that if you think a "naturally aspirated 26.5 gross HP" tractor of ANY COLOR will do what you want at 8500 feet, they will all have the same relatively poor performance due to the altitude.

 

[bandit67]

OK, so I clarified the 16 sea level hp of the 2520 in my original post - that would be at 8500'. What I've heard out here is more like 23-25% loss for every mile above sea level, so I was rough guestimating that I'd be down about 40% off of rated hp at 8500'. If I used the 3%/1000', that would put the 2520 at 19.7 hp.

I would THINK that 26 hp would be enough for an 1800 lb +/- machine, but according to the JD dealer, it won't. Lots of FEL work, some box blading, maybe 2 or 3 times per year field grass mowing, backhoe work, etc.

My main point was that a 14hp machine worked well for me at sea level years ago, a 24hp machine worked well at 5500' (my calcs say it equated to 18hp, but the 3%/1k' equates to 22 hp). If a 27 hp gear machine suffices at 8500', does the hydrostatic transmission steal that much power that a 26.5 will be unacceptable? How much power does the hydro rob?

The 790 is not an obvious choice because I want a hydro - gear is a bit tiring after a long day on a hilly property, and I'm not getting younger. I know because I've spent a couple of days using a gear drive rental on the property.

Putt-putt - I am well aware of the benefits of turbos at altitude, and that even a particular turbocharged engine will react very differently at altitude than at sea level, which is why I own a turbo diesel pickup instead of a gasser. And turbocharged engines do lose quite a bit of power at elevation compared to the same turbocharged engine at sea level, though no where near as much as a normally aspirated engine does.

I really don't want such a big machine as the 3520. I think I've found a couple of models of 27 hp turbo charged compacts, but they are from manufacturers with a much smaller distribution chain - I'd rather stick with a brand that is well represented in my area that can get me parts and warranty service within a reasonable amount of time.

If the 26.5 hp 2520 won't quite cut it, then I have to go with a 30hp model in the same size category from another mfr. But if the 2520 would do fine at 8500', then there are a number of models I can look at in that size-weight-power range.

 

[jcmseven]

Bandit,

Here is the scoop. I live at 4000'; and the top of my mountain, where I work a lot is 6300'. My 3720 laughes at this. My 4310 was laughed at on this, really struggling. My 4520, no problem. A 4115 I tried before going with the 4310, no problem. Any of the following will be fine: 2520, 3520 or 3720 would all do fine. Although the non-turbo 2520 will lose some power at altitude, it will not lose that much and will still have a favorable power to weight ratio a fact confirmed with the 4115 I used, which had 2 less horsepower and roughly the same chassis weight. I do not know if where you live is also steep or just high plateau, but as you can see we have both. 25 percent grades (or more) and some height, although slightly less than you have. This places more of a strain on the machine than does altitude and the turbo machines are better, but a small frame with high power such as the 2520 would be OK. I think the salesman is trying to get you into a more pricey machine than perhaps you want.

John M<

 

[RollTideRam]

I have done all the work you mention with a 2520. I'm at about 750' above sea level. I never ran out of power, in fact I did everything but bush hog at about 1600rpm. I used the bush hog at 2400rpm in stuff as tall as the back tires. You will probably stay in low range if it is that hillly, but the tractor will work, in my opinion. I traded my 2520 for a 3320 mainly for the loader capacity and the fancy seat. JC

 

[swines]

Go buy the Kubota. Their horspower is probably completely different than everyone elses...but, if it was me - I'd get a turbo for that altitude. If you try running a rotary cutter in tall grass or brush - you'll be cursing the person that convinced you to go with a smaller tractor... and, the hydro probably takes about 1/2 hp...away from PTO.

 

[ducati996]

You high altitude guys, I tell ya - makes for good training before climbing Everest -

I would just require a demo between machines to be sure -its the only way

 

[hemiguy]

Bandit

Too bad Deere no longer has an equivalent for the excellent 955. It would fit your needs perfectly at about 2000lbs (without attachments) and 33hp. The 3x20's, are about 3000lb and, from what I can see, have higher center of gravity - not an advantage if your property is very hilly.

I know you're looking for new, but a nice low hour 955 would have everything a 2520 would have +6.5 hp more. But, they don't sell cheap from what I've seen. I really think Deere needs a 30+ hp small frame tractor to compete with the Kubota B3030 and B7800.

With all of that said, I've found (at about 500ft around here) that my 2520 never lacks for HP when doing ground engaging and loader work but could usually use more traction. I have 240LBs of wheel weights but might eventually put fluid in the tires.

Good luck in your tractor search

 

[bandit67]

JohnM,

Thanks for the input. That's the kind of feedback I was looking for - it was very helpful. I just like the smaller size of the 2520. No doubt, a 3720 would be a great machine on this property's slopes, but the similarly sized L35 TLB I rented couldn't get into a few spots that I wanted to get to because of the varying slopes, and tight spaces between trees and fences. And yes, I do have some good slopes, and some more gradual slopes, but I can't imagine that a 2520 would completely bog down and not be able to climb any of the slopes.

I just think the 2520 size machine will suit me better in the long term, and I always have the option of renting bigger machines for a day here and there from the rental yard that is 7 minutes down the road. A 4' wide brush hog type mower should do fine for the 2 or 3 times each summer that I'd want to mow the field grasses - a bigger mower might be difficult to justify the expense for so few mowings over a 15 year period, not to mention the need for a bigger machine to mow with.

Something I dealt with on the last property with my subcompact is that 50% of the time, I was wishing I had something bigger, while the other 50% I was glad I hadn't gone bigger because I wouldn't have been able to get a larger machine into some of the spaces. It also became a real bummer when I got all of the landscaping done and for 6 months before we sold the property, had no where else to dig or re-landscape. If I buy too big of a machine, I might finish everything too soon. And believe me, the worst thing in the world is to have a completely finished property with nothing left to do with your tractor other than occasional mowing or snow removal.

 

[bandit67]

Bandit

Too bad Deere no longer has an equivalent for the excellent 955. It would fit your needs perfectly at about 2000lbs (without attachments) and 33hp. The 3x20's, are about 3000lb and, from what I can see, have higher center of gravity - not an advantage if your property is very hilly.

I know you're looking for new, but a nice low hour 955 would have everything a 2520 would have +6.5 hp more. But, they don't sell cheap from what I've seen. I really think Deere needs a 30+ hp small frame tractor to compete with the Kubota B3030 and B7800.

Thanks for the input on the 955. I'll have to do some research on that.

As for the Deere 30 hp to compete with the B3030 and B7800 - I completely agree. I mentioned that to the salesman, and he rolled his eyes and said he prayed that Deere wouldn't do that. They already have too many tractors, he said. Hmm, wonder why Kubota sells so many 3030's and 7800's? Pretty much turned me off to that dealer, aside from the fact that I told him I liked the smaller frame, and he tried to convince me that the only machine for me was the 3720.

 

[jcmseven]

I hope I was able to help somewhat with your decision. I really do think the 2520 would do fine. I really would have no concern about the power of this machine, it is fine. The ONE complaint I have is that it has only a two range tranny. This, to me, is a bit of a liability v. the major competition--Kubota. Having driven both machines, I still prefer the John Deere machine, but that third range is really a nice feature. John Deere as a company is a master of marketing and research. I will tell you from experience that if they felt Kubota or another manufacturer had them on a model or line they would come out with something new to compete. The fact they have left their 2520 unchanged of late indicates to me they feel their machine is the equal of anything in the class, regardless of advertised power ratings. They also though do not want to take sales away from their 3000 series, so they need to maintain some separation there. To me, there is nothing on the market that can compete in the mid frame size range with the 3720 tractor, and most likely the 3520 as well. But these machines are not for everyone. If I were to be perfectly honest, I do not currently need a 3720 for my property. I justify it based on my perpetual thought I will one day operate a side business doing light landscaping and gravel work, but my day job--as a doctor--just seems to keep interfering with this plan. I loved my 4520, but I felt silly having this machine for what I did, so I can certainly understand your desire to not go too big. It is a trap from which one cannot extricate himself.

John M

 

[swines]

You high altitude guys, I tell ya - makes for good training before climbing Everest -

I would just require a demo between machines to be sure -its the only way

10-4 on the demo - the best way to choose. I live at 5,000 feet elevation. I own a 3320 - works fine at this altitude including running a 5-foot rotary cutter over BIG 4-wing salt bush. Don't think it would power a larger cutter for the task while a 3520 or 3720 would. Have used a tractor near Cripple Creek, CO. - believe me....at that altitude a turbo is the only way to go.

The altitude really has more effect on PTO work than loader, back hoe, type work (intermittent) where you don't have the tractor under a constant load. If I did more PTO work I'd have gotten the turbo...even at my "lower" altitude.

 

[Mech]

I only live a few miles from you at 8600 feet and have a 790. It has plenty of power pullling a 5ft BB. I realize you don't want a gear tractor but I grew up on one and I'm pretty fast with it even doing loader work and I'm not young either. The only issues I have is the platform is a bit tight and if it is below about 80 deg I have to use the intake heater to start it. Don't think the turbo will help with that although the non-Yanmar engines may start easier at high altitude.

 

[bandit67]

Thanks Mech. Can you send me a PM with your selling dealer and salesman (if you'd recommend them)?

A friend in Conifer also has a 790 and also says it has plenty of power. I started on gear machines, and only had a hydro my last one, but after owning that, I'm not sure if I want to go back to gear again. My experience on both tells me I'll always be faster with hydro doing FEL work.

There are a lot of 790's in our immediate area though, so it must be a capable machine.

Oh, and the big thing with cold starting is the direct injection, which many of the newer machines now have. Not sure if the new 790's have it though.

 

[DrainPondDesign]

Since you have time it might be a good idea to talk to locals with tractors doing similar work at that elevation. (tractor owners like to talk?)

Our 1600' elevation is like sea level compared to you & our 3320 is at max throttle when blowing snow.

Customers will complain about not enough power but none complain about too much power so your JD dealer may just be trying to make sure that you are satisfied.

Good luck & test drive every one that they will let you.

 

[RollTideRam]

The 790 is direct injected. Also, the 790 and 2520 have the same engine. JC

 

[Mech]

A number of people, expecially in the Yanmar forum have talked about hard starting at this altitude. The compression is pretty marginal at 8000+ ft especially at lower temperatures. My experience with the 790 is anything below 75 deg which is most of the time at this altitude.. The Yanmar cold start aids work well but you can't start them up like a car. Have to give it 10-20 seconds of heat or in some of the older Yanmars the thermal start which ignites fuel in the intake is really good.

 

[Mech]

Since I had been complaining about the 790 starting hard at altitude and low temps I wanted to put out some new info. I have been keeping the block heater plugged in for the last month and the thing starts like a car. Starts immediately at any throttle position with almost no smoke. I have my front blade on with hydraulic angle and I'm ready for the first big snow.