Buying Advice More 2000 series buying advice

[cbturf]

JCM, the 2320 and 2520 have different engines. More than likely, the peak torque for the 2320 is produced at 3000 RPMs while the peak torque for the 2520 is produced at 2600 RPMs, which is why they don't list the same RPM level for each in the literature. Maybe that is obvious but I noticed that you keep trying to compare both engines at the SAME RPMs which is not necessarily a valid comparison.

That was another thing that I was trying to say but didn't. The engines are NOT the same one is bigger than the other. Funny thing is that they have the same fuel burn rate at max power. You can also take the same engine and get more or less power by changing fuel curves and such but that is not the issue we were discussing.

 

[Runner]

Mike,

I use a 2520 with a 5 foot rotary cutter and a 72 inch rear finish mower on fairly steep slopes (20 degrees or so). I also use a loader with both the bucket and pallet forks and have used it to lift close to the rated capacity (1,000 lbs or so). I have never operated a 2320 and did not compare other brands because I'm a JD guy...

My opinion after using this rig for a couple of years is that I wouldn't want ANY less HP, torque or hydraulic capacity than what this machine has. It has handled all the tasks for which I've used it fine, but if I were buying one now, I'd spend the extra bucks and get the 2720 (it wasn't available when I bought my tractor).

I realize you can get more power and capability for only slightly more money by going to the 3000 series, but I wanted this size tractor since it is used mostly for mowing.

As mentioned, I routinely operate on 20 degree side slopes and have not felt any instability although I am careful about it and have the rear wheels on the wide setting.

One more thing, in my opinion, the biggest problem with this machine (the 2520) is that, like most tractors, it doesn't have enough weight to put the power to the ground without ballasting. Loaded tires would probably help the most, but I elected to go with the wheel weights, which help, but it could still use more weight.

Overall though, I'm very happy with the machine and it does what I ask of it.

Best of luck on your decision.

 

[ChuckinNH]

Runner, you do need that PTO horsepower with the implements you use, and a couple more hp would be handy for you. I think you would agree that the implements you use are on the outside of what a tractor that size, and weight can handle though. Weight, and overall balance wise, I doubt you would want to go larger even if you had the HP. Other than running implements like yours, or perhaps a 6" chipper I still think that the 2320 will do most of what is easily handled with this size, and weight tractor....

 

[Birdmayon]

Chuck, you summed it up nicely. I run out of traction with my 2520 far before I run out of power. I'm positive the 2320 would be able to handle the same tasks. PTO horsepower is definitely one of the few advantages of the 2520/2720 over the 2320.

 

[47chevy]

I have the 2520 with the 200x and 62d deck. I mow a ditch thats very steep, have slid down it a couple of times. I do remove the FEL when I mow, the turning area is a lot smaller. That has helped more than I could ever thought. When we were at the dealer we compared the 2520 and the 2320 and we went with the larger one. We have 4 lots and the 2520 is a bit too big but nothing thats a problem. Now with several acres I know the 2520 is a lot better choice than the 2320. The FEL with the 2520 is very well matched, its very handy. I do have my tractor for sale but with the economy we are trying to cut down on expenses.

Our tractor had issues with the deck falling out and it turns out that it was not assembled correctly when we bought it. The dealer has fixed that, also replaced the 3 pt arms with the new design that allows full Cat 1 implements.

Does the 2320 allow full Cat 1 implements or is it a limited Cat 1?

 

[jcmseven]

I REALIZE the 2320 and 2520 have different engines, and the nuances of both engines. My question was, and still is, we DO NOT know (until looking at the microscopic torque curves Yanmar produces in its literature) where each engine makes its maximum torque from any literature produced by JD. It appears actual peak torque for each engine is well away from its rated speed when looking at the Yanmar spec sheets provided. My question remains the same: why then would JD post these numbers as they did. unless they are trying to post the torque at the peak horsepower point, and if so, why would they do that if HP has little bearing on performance??? It seems the choice of 3000 RPM would not be a good choice necessarily for either engine. It seems they would have chosen the RPM at which peak torque is made for their literature. Why would they not have done so?? This is my basic question, and has been.

Thanks.
John M

 

[jcmseven]

To all:

I am very sorry to belabor this point above, but I really would like to know the answer, as it has been a question of mine for some time.

John

 

[skidoo]

I believe that the comparison is not being made too complex - rather the discussion is not complex enough.

Snip...

AKfish

OK, I'll modify my comment regarding the discussion being too complex. I think the answer is quite simple. HP, assuming the rating is sufficiently accurate, is the measure of power or amount of work that can be done per unit time. This is a very simple answer.

But, I agree, that the discussion is partially complex, and ignoring important factors resulting in erroneous conclusions. In that sense, I agree with you that the discussion is not complex enough to draw accurate conclusions.

For example, one of the factors ignored is power per weight and when it is important and how one "feels" relative to another. It is possible that a lighter model may "feel" more powerful with less HP. HP is consumed to move the tractor as well as perform other "Work". Moving the tractor is performing "Work" even though one may or may not consider it productive. Traveling on flat smoother hard ground, one is not likely to need the max HP. But, on an up hill slope, the "Work" being done is elevating all the weight of the tractor. Lets compare two 2520's, one with filled tires and one without. So, it will take more HP to move a the tire filled 2520 vs the one without filled tires at the same speed. Or, the 2520 with filled tires will slow down at max HP relative to the one without filled tires. There are many factors involved and ignoring some to fit ones perception of how it feels does not change what HP really is.

 

[skidoo]

Chuck, you summed it up nicely. I run out of traction with my 2520 far before I run out of power. Snip...

I don't. I have filled tires and when trying to travel up slope at max speed on my road, I have to balance the speed vs rated rpms to keep the travel speed up. If I press it too hard, the rpms drop and it slows down. If I don't press hard enough, I don't go as fast as desired either. There is a point reached where my max HP is the limiting factor.

 

[thendricks]

why then would JD post these numbers as they did. unless they are trying to post the torque at the peak horsepower point, and if so, why would they do that if HP has little bearing on performance??? It seems the choice of 3000 RPM would not be a good choice necessarily for either engine. It seems they would have chosen the RPM at which peak torque is made for their literature. Why would they not have done so?? This is my basic question, and has been.

Thanks.
John M

The JD lit posts the HP numbers at PTO RPM. The two units use different trannies so they have different engine RPM that corresponds to 540 PTO RPM. I really dont think this is a marketing ploy, just different gearing in the trannies. Does this sound correct?

After looking at the yanmar engine perf curves, it looks like the 2520 engine has a higher rated torque throughout the entire RPM band so i thinks its a moot point really. The 2520 will have higher torque and HP at any given RPM.