John 348 Square Baler - no go with a 4720?

[ddivinia]

I have been looking at baling equipment and I did the analyze needs tool on the JD website. It said 5x03 and 5x25 tractors and larger would work, but not my 4720. Any ideas why? Can't be a HP thing, thr 472- has more power than the recommened 5103. Figure it is a size thing? HST tranmission thing?

Thanks,
D.

 

[beenthere]

I'd guess the HST 'thing'. By chance, does the 4520 with gears get listed? If so, then it must be the HST.

 

[ddivinia]

4520 is listed as a no-go also.

D.

 

[bczoom]

Without pulling up the specs on each, think it might be related to tractor weight? In a hilly terrain, they might think the baler would push a lighter tractor.

 

[ddivinia]

I think it has got to do with weight, perhaps if I fill my tires or put wheel weights on it will be fine. I will be baling on flat terrain, so I bet I would be fine. I just don't want to mess up my new tractor!

I am still looking for used haying equipment - might find some winter deals on it.

D.

 

[cowboydoc]

If you're going to bale on flat ground, no hay wagon, and weight the wheeels you will be ok. Under no circumstances would I bale on hills or with a hay wagon. Even with my 6415 I get drug around on the hills at times with a hay wagon. It doesn't feel too good in your stomach when that happens. /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

 

[ddivinia]

That is good advice. No hay trailers or hills for me!

D.

 

[burnetma]

Several quick points here:
1. Do not confuse engine HP and PTO HP.
2. The 4720 transmission/PTO is a lighter duty assembly and will wear/break much more quickly.
3. Unlike many PTO accessories, a baler applies a great deal of reverse loading back through the PTO shaft to the tractor with every plunger stroke. This load can be heard in the engine note and on small tractors will actually rock the tractor. The heavier the hay and the higher the capacity of the baler, the higher the loading.
4. Although the JD 348 is rated at 35 HP, it is a high capacity baler and will actually use much more than 35 HP when baling at or near capacity. Farmers usually run these behind 80+ HP tractors as a normal course of business. They like these machines because they will swallow as much hay as you try to shove in it without clogging, slipping the safety clutch or breaking a shear pin. Thus you may find the weak link is your tractor PTO system.
5. The 348 is design to make 100,000 bales per year. I do not think that you need that volume. A 328 or 338 would be much more suitable for your needs.

I would strongly recommend that you consider a 328 or an older smaller capacity baler to use behind your 4720 for longevity and safety sake. The second option is to consider a larger (possibly older) tractor for haying.

Again, just my opinion. Good luck!

 

[Highlander]

Sure am glad someone exposed the shortcomings of the 4x20 series .....with 58hp/50 pto hp, I would have thought these tractors could be used in the field if necessary out in front of a square baler? So.....if they can't do this chore, why would someone need 58hp for hauling the garbage to the end of the driveway? I now own a 4300 HST and would like to upgrade in HP, but if this extra $$$ for the power can't be utilized, I know I won't be looking for one of these units! My problem is logistical, a larger 5X05 or 5X20 series just won't navigate inbetween the rows of perrenials in our garden while having the ability to pull a baler when need be! I would hope to have a bit of finese in manueverability from any tractor I own, including my next. Any other options from John Deere???

 

[cowboydoc]

I would repectfully disagree with the previous poster. I do this based on how well our 4600 has performed. The 4720 is built even sturdier than the 4600. It was also beefed up to accomodate the increased pto hp. I have driven the 4720 and it pulled everything great. Over the years when we have needed another tractor I have baled probably 3000 bales of hay with the 4600. It has over 2000 hard, hard hours on it and it is still holding up great. Knock on wood no major repairs. Yes the backpressure is hard on a tractor but I really think the 4720 would be up to the task for a small operation. The hydro is EXCELLENT for baling hay, lets you creep along or go faster, you can easily control the input of hay. I also have to disagree about going as fast as you can. We have a 348 high capacity and if you go too fast you will clog it. And yes a 328 or 338 would be better but if you already have a 348 I wouldn't go trade it. In my opinion the only shortcoming of the 4720 is going to be pulling a hay wagon. But just going out and baling on the ground I would put my money on the 4720 putting up as much hay as you wanted to do. Just do single windrows, bale the hay on the ground, and I just don't see a problem. If you were a major operation doing 100,000 squares a year no way, but a small operation doing a thousand or two squares it should be fine.