Buying Advice More 2000 series buying advice

MikeCorcoran · Jan 30, 2009

JD-idtes,

Am ready to purchase a series 2000 JD, either 2320 or 2520. Would appreciate any advice. I know the 2520 has dual hydraulic pumps(vs. 1) and a significantly larger engine.

Have 10 acres, rolling hills. Need to maintain hilly roads and rough cut mow meadow & hillside areas. I'll be using the FEL quite a bit and have no need for additional front attachments.

My current plan is to purchase a 2320 with the 200X loader. Is there any reason to get the CX instead of the X if no additional front implements will be used?

For the mower, I'd prefer a 5' rotary, but the JD docs indicate using a 4' with the 2320. 5' is OK with the 2520. Should I take their specs as is, or would the 2320 handle the 5' cutter in mild rolling hills with mostly weeds to cut, not brush? I'm also wondering about the toughness of the belly mowers. Can they handle occasional 1" softwood branches? Seems like the maneuverability and ease of seeing exactly where you're mowing would be great, but my use will be a bit more than grooming a lawn.

If I decide on the rear rotary, can the Imatch quick hitch be gotten w/o the auto PTO Autohitch? That seems like overkill in my situation.

Bottom line, is the $2500 additional cost for the 2520 worth it given my circumstance. I think not, but would appreciate any guidance.

Am moving up from a Ford 8N that got toasted in the San Diego wildfires in 2007 and am excited to be getting a new JD.

Thanks,
Mike Corcoran
Ramona, CA

ScottK · Jan 30, 2009

I have a 2320 and it is going to be more stable on hills than the 2520 since the 2520 has a higher center of gravity due to larger tires. I returned my I-hitch and got the larger (cat 1 27.5 inch) Harbor Freight quick hitch - much cheaper and no bushings required. The answer you wanted though is the autohitch is an extra. You can use the I-hitch without it.

Although I think the additional hydraulic speed is worth the price of the 2520, the hilly terrain negates that. I don't think the extra 3 HP makes a difference. I do wish for the 3-speed hydrostatic transmission on the 3x20 series, but that again is a larger tractor less suitable for hills or forest.

I don't use either cutter you're considering, but you can add weight (5 or 7 x 42 lbs) to the front of the 2320 if it is a balance issue with the larger 5' cutter. You can get the weights cheapest from Lowe's online and pick up at a local store.

I think the belly mower is really a finish mower, so it depends if you are going to use it for finish mowing also you will need to sharpen the blades more after going through brush. Plus you are going to lose ground clearance with the belly mower.

I may be mistaken, but I think the 200cx has more lift capacity than the 200x. Actually I thought the 200x was only for the 2305. Regardless, the cx is heavier and provides additional protection to te front of the tractor. Get the cx.

jcmseven · Jan 31, 2009

Mike,

I recently tested several 2000 series tractors including a 2720 which has more engine power than does the 2520. I will say without a doubt, for non-PTO ground engagement work the 2320 is as good, if not a little better than the 2720. I like the standard wheelbase and think it enhances performance. The machine has plenty of power but one has to use A range if any significant hills are involved. The 2320 goes pretty fast in A range, so one's speed is not significantly comprimised. I will say, I was impressed enough with the 2320 to buy it (two days ago) v. the 2520. As I have said before the 2520 and 2720 might have short lifespans in the lineup. My dealer, who is a part of a larger dealer network, said they met just two weeks ago and likely will not stock a 2520 or 2720 on the lots (of multiple dealerships). They will continue to stock 2320's and 2305's. The reason is that the "larger" 2000 series machines do not enhance performance much, if at all, and are overpriced (not just my opinion--but partly my opinion) v. just going with a lower HP 3000 series tractor. Their sales numbers reflect this finding, also. My dealer also sold a SIX foot RC to an owner of a 2320. He tried to talk the gentleman out of it, but he bought it anyway. He runs a bucket full of ballast and told my dealer it worked fine. Of course, I cannot recommend this for a 2320. The 4' is best if one is doing heavy duty trimming but the machine will power a five footer, if the cutting is lighter duty. I would go with the 2320 and not look back.

John M

cbturf · Jan 31, 2009

I have an opinion that seems to drift outside the others. Im my experience horsepower is a secondary consideration to the torque an engine creates. While it may do the job the 2320 has only 40.27 ft/lb of torque and the 2520 has 51.3 ft/lb of torque. When cutting weeds with the rotary cutter I guarantee that you WILL notice a 25% gain in torque, even more important as the blades start to dull a little. The tires are only 3 inches taller which means 1 1/2 inches more machine height, but they are also a little bid wider and the machine has a little more mass offsetting the small height differential. More weight also helps with traction and stability as you climb the hills with the cutter attached.

I just subscribe to the club that power is king no matter what you are doing...get all the power you can afford and you will be a happier man in the end.

JiminGa · Jan 31, 2009

just to muddy the waters a little more, a 3032e can be had for about the same price as the 2520...it's bigger, stronger, and heavier.

MikeCorcoran · Jan 31, 2009

Thanks for all the advice so far. I'm going to talk with my dealer today, if they're open and throw a few of my questions at him. I've purchased there before and been happy with his advice, but on a purchase this size I wanted some good, independent advice from some seasoned vets.

Mike C.

Birdmayon · Jan 31, 2009

I can't add much to the 2320 vs 2520 conversation, except that I've got a 2520 and use it on very hilly terrain with no problems. I went with that over the 2320 for the extra hp (the 2520 barely meets the PTO requirements for alot of implements, the 2320 falls short, per the specs, although I'm sure they'll handle more than the specs call out). I also read that there was a significant difference in hydraulic speed between the two. After having a super slow loader on my last tractor, I did not want to be disappointed in the future, so that weighed heavily on my decision as well. One caveat, I've never tried a 2320 so I don't know how much difference there really is.

You can get the Deere Imatch w/out the PTO auto coupler or whatever it is called. As another poster pointed out you can also go with an off brand quick hitch. I sold my Imatch and bought the Speeco version from TSC. There are alot of different opinions on which quick hitch is best so just do a search on this site and you can read for hours.

MikeCorcoran · Jan 31, 2009

Re: the hydraulics, one of the questions I forgot to ask was the dual hydralics impact on FEL raise/lower time. Well well, the answer is in the JD Implement brochure. Rise time for the 2320 is 4.73 sec. and for the 2520 3.19. Lift capacity is the same(both 200X & CX). I went out and measured the rise time for my current little Yanmar 155D and it's about 8.5 sec., so either JDs would be a significant improvement.

Thanks for the info on aftermarket quick hitches, didn't know they were out there.

Stopped at the dealer before he closed and they'll have a 2520 on the lot Monday for examination. It's sold but I can at least do a look and sit. I did sit on a 3005, and it's definitely bigger than I want.

Thanks again,
Mike C.

jcmseven · Feb 1, 2009

Mike,

While I cannot attest to the opinions and experiences of others, I can say I noticed little if any difference in the performance on my hills pulling box blades, etc between the 2320 and 2720, which has more power than the 2520. I actually felt the 2320 would maintain traction BETTER than did the 2720 in this case. The loader performance is slightly better on the 2520 than the 2320, but it is mainly speed, not lifting capacity. Ultimately, it will your thoughts on whether the minor differences (and I mean MINOR) are worth the substantial upcharge. Having had several JD machines in the past, all of them larger than either of these machines I strongly feel the 2520 would be hard pressed to be worth the additional money for daily use. The E series tractors are pretty basic, and though bigger, lack many of the niceties of the 20 series machines, and are not much heavier. This was based on recent experience using the machines back to back, so my memory is quite fresh.

John M

jcmseven · Feb 1, 2009

cbturf,

I appreciate your insight into the 2320 v. 2520 power differences. Unfortunately, the RPM differences are different at the rating point so we do not have a direct comparison. Since these engines typically make more peak torque at lower RPM I suspect if they both shared the same 2600-2650 RPM rating speed, the difference would be much closer. Thusly, if one could tune the 2520 to a 3000 RPM rating speed, I doubt it could make 50 lb. feet of torque. I would expect the 2320 to make around 45-46 lb/feet at the lower engine speed, making it a pretty negligible amount of difference. I was intrigued to find that the slightly more narrow tires of the 2320 seem to grip a little better in gravel or loose dirt than do the fat tires of the 2720 I tried. The 2720, which was ballasted, lost traction more easily up my drive pulling the same size box blade. I suspect to gain full advantage of that machine's power one would have to add substantially more weight. I can say also having tried a 2305 during my testing, the 2320 felt much more powerful and pulled the BB more easily, belying the fact it reportedly has the same engine and tuning (which I doubt--but cannot prove). I also subscribe to the more power club, but unfortunately it might not be as profound as it might seem, and two PTO HP difference for the price difference does not seem to be justified. I think JD has done a fine job of marketing in how they rate these machines--to make it seem as though there is more difference than actually is present. This comes from an owner of two 3720's, a 4520 and a 4310, the 4310 being the only one I felt slack on power. I really wanted to love the 2720, and I did like it, but there was no way I could justify the difference in price for what I saw as a very similar machine.

John M

ChuckinNH · Feb 1, 2009

Prior to buying my Kubota, I did test the JD 2320, and 2520 side by side, and threw in the 2305 for a very brief trial too. ( I already had a BX) My findings were substantially the same as jcmseven's. If a dealer that I wanted to do business with had the 2320 in stock set up the way I wanted it, I would be using one today. I was getting ready to start chemotherapy at the time, and had some jobs that I wanted to get done so I went with the Kubota.

MikeCorcoran · Feb 1, 2009

John & Chuck,

Thanks, great evaluations. I'll still take a look at the 2520 he's got on Monday, but
I'll see if he can get the 2320 set up the way I want. The counter-guy looked at stock for me yesterday and there are half dozen within a couple hundred miles. I'm sure the So Cal JD dealers do waaay less volume than most y'all are used to, so their in-store stock is limited.

Mike C.

cbturf · Feb 1, 2009

jcmseven said:
cbturf,

I appreciate your insight into the 2320 v. 2520 power differences. Unfortunately, the RPM differences are different at the rating point so we do not have a direct comparison. Since these engines typically make more peak torque at lower RPM I suspect if they both shared the same 2600-2650 RPM rating speed, the difference would be much closer. Thusly, if one could tune the 2520 to a 3000 RPM rating speed, I doubt it could make 50 lb. feet of torque. I would expect the 2320 to make around 45-46 lb/feet at the lower engine speed, making it a pretty negligible amount of difference. I was intrigued to find that the slightly more narrow tires of the 2320 seem to grip a little better in gravel or loose dirt than do the fat tires of the 2720 I tried. The 2720, which was ballasted, lost traction more easily up my drive pulling the same size box blade. I suspect to gain full advantage of that machine's power one would have to add substantially more weight. I can say also having tried a 2305 during my testing, the 2320 felt much more powerful and pulled the BB more easily, belying the fact it reportedly has the same engine and tuning (which I doubt--but cannot prove). I also subscribe to the more power club, but unfortunately it might not be as profound as it might seem, and two PTO HP difference for the price difference does not seem to be justified. I think JD has done a fine job of marketing in how they rate these machines--to make it seem as though there is more difference than actually is present. This comes from an owner of two 3720's, a 4520 and a 4310, the 4310 being the only one I felt slack on power. I really wanted to love the 2720, and I did like it, but there was no way I could justify the difference in price for what I saw as a very similar machine.

John M

I think that I may have not explained myself good enough. I will whole heartedly agree that the 2320 will pull a box blade with no problems at all. I was referring to the difference in the two engines and how more torque is better when you are trying to do mowing tasks like he described in the OP.

We all know that torque and horsepower are related to each other. Torque is the rotational force applied to an object and horsepower is the amount of work that an engine will perform. HP=(T*RPM)/5252 or to calculate T at a specific HP and RPM T=(HP*5252)/RPM

If we take the two published PTO HP numbers from the JD website you have
2320 T=(18*5252)/540=175.07 lb/ft of rotational force spinning your rotary cutter.
2520 T=(20.5*5252)/540=199.38 lb/ft of rotational force turning your rotary cutter.

This is a substantial difference and this is why you are only rated to run a 4 foot cutter behind the 2320 and a five foot behind the 2520. Like I said in my OP you will really start to notice the power difference when your cutter blades start to dull and you start ripping the weeds rather than cutting them or you are trying to mow when there is some moisture on the ground and your clippings try to clog up the deck. This is why I ignore horsepower and rely only on torque numbers, that way you can compare apples to apples regardless of RPM.

jcmseven · Feb 2, 2009

Mark,

Please let me make sure I understand you well. It has been many years since my pre-med physics class, but I recall that I did OK in it so I might make this inquisition: if we have our torque/RPM formula for a given RPM: HP*5252/RPM (which I think addresses my concern about rated speed variances). Using this formula it would seem the 2520 produces 26.5 x 5252/2600, or about 53.5 lb/ft. of engine torque at its rated speed. This bears out the JD numbers fairly well for its rating. The 2320 is rated at 3000 RPM, not at 2600. Thusly, 24.1 x 5252/3000 or 42.2 lb/feet of torque at its rated speed, slightly higher than that discussed in the JD literature, but close and correlative with the JD literature HP rating which was used in the formula. If one substitutes 2600 RPM for the 2320, that being 24.1 x 5252/2600 to match the RPM numbers more closely one gets 48.7 lb/ft. of torque at that RPM. Conversely, it would seem that if the 2520 were rated at 3000 RPM, rather than 2600, the formula should show 26.5 x 5252/3000 which would be 46.39 lb feet of torque at that speed. I hope that I am not missing something here, but if this is true, it would first seem to indicate that my previous posting was correct: the 2520 would not make 50 lb. ft. of torque at a 3000 RPM rated speed, The 2320 makes over 47 lb/ft at the same 2600 RPM rating and that the numbers can be manipulated to make the torque difference seem larger than it really is by changing the rated speed as that places a relatively large number in the denominator. If this is indeed true; and again, my simple-minded physics is quite rusty, the actual RPM/RPM torque difference for the engine is 8.9%, rather than 25%; and for rotational torque about 11% for PTO force, given the lower numerators on both, combined with constant PTO RPM for both. Please let me know if I am off target here, but I think my math is right. I also think the RPM rating difference must be considered when reviewing the JD literature as they are prone to rate engines at different speeds and not disclose it. I also have a confession; I calculated this earlier in the post, so if I am wrong here I would have been wrong before, and two wrong's do not make a right. This is not to say that I do not think the 2520 and 2720 are not great machines, but if one looks at the 2000 series lineup it becomes to me apparent that JD has done a nice marketing job. Nowhere in the standard pamphlets that I have did I see what the rated speed is (it is on the website); it merely says "at rated speed." This leads some consumers to think there is an enormous difference between these machines and really there is not, that I can see. I agree that the 2520 would be very marginally better in PTO work, but I bet not much and for non-PTO work I could see no benefit to the 2720 I tried v. the 2320. The loader is DEFINITELY faster in the 2520 and 2720, but even looking at the specs in those shows speed as being the main difference. In my review of the JD literature, the loader specs on each machine were essentially identical save the lifting speed.

John M

skidoo · Feb 2, 2009

You're all making it too complex and concluding HP is irreverent. HP is a measure of Work per unit time. The more HP, the more work per unit time can be done. Or, the same work can be done in less time.

The ratio of your torque on one to the torque on the other is identical to the ratio of HP on one to the HP on the other with rpm being equal.

Ignoring HP doesn't make sense. I would much rather have a torque of 175 lb/ft at 540 rpm (18 HP) than one that makes 500 lb/ft at 1 rpm (0.1 HP)....

AKfish · Feb 2, 2009

skidoo said:
You're all making it too complex and concluding HP is irreverent. HP is a measure of Work per unit time. The more HP, the more work per unit time can be done. Or, the same work can be done in less time.

The ratio of your torque on one to the torque on the other is identical to the ratio of HP on one to the HP on the other with rpm being equal.

Ignoring HP doesn't make sense. I would much rather have a torque of 175 lb/ft at 540 rpm (18 HP) than one that makes 500 lb/ft at 1 rpm (0.1 HP)....

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

The comparison between the different engines is being made upon a linear calculation using a "constant"; and does not provide an accurate calculation based upon a curvelinear method. That's OK; if all you want/need is a general or seat-of-the-pants estimate.

However, anyone who has looked at the torque curve of an engine recognizes that peak torque typically occurs well ahead of peak Hp. Increased rpm does not contribute to increased torque - but quite the reverse - less torque; but more Hp.

AKfish

cbturf · Feb 2, 2009

I will add one last bit to the discussion. Since HP is the amount of work that can be measured over a unit of time and that is our concern why not put a .6L 100 hp motorcycle engine in your tractor, that is absurd because it has no "usable" power like a 1.6L 23 hp deisel does. Furthermore, if horsepower was the main number wy do we not find any 3 Liter 1000 hp at 12000 RPM Indy car engines in the big road trucks. What we have is 13.5L 300 hp 1900 RPM torque monster engines. Torque is king and hp numbers can be manipulated by adding RPM without T. As you can see by looking at the fromula the as RPM increases towards the constant (5252) T and HP converge until they are equal at 5252 RPM, and then after 5252 RPM the HP number will be higher than than torque but the amount of brute force ability decreases. If you just have to compare HP numbers look at PTO hp since RPM is the same and you have your apples to apples comparison on all machines.

I did not mean to hijack the mans question with a HP vs T discussion but he asked my opinion and I gave it and explained why I had my opinion. And I am still of my opinion. I go through the same thing with my mulching machines, a bigger displacement engine at the same HP will produce more T.

It just goes back to the old hotrod saying "Theres no replacement for displacement!"

jcmseven · Feb 2, 2009

I, for one, am not enamoured with HP ratings. I make mention of them in my post mainly for comparative reasons. I, for one, do not mean to have "hijacked" the intent of the post, merely to make a point for anyone looking at a tractor in this size. I do not feel this concern is an esoteric one, nor not-applicable and realize it involves simple math, at best on my part. There ARE many variables which we do not know. We do not know what the respective actual engine torque curves might be, which one makes peak torque at which RPM, etc. We have no idea what driveline losses might be, friction losses, etc. THESE would perhaps be too detailed. I suppose my point when I tested the 2720 and 2320 over the last month of time is that my "seat of the pants" impression was either #1 the 2320 had more torque than advertised, or the the 2720 had less, or a combination of both. When I investigated this a bit more I found the rating speed for the two engines (and also for the 2520 discussed) are different. It appears the number printed by JD is a calculated number, but I assume that they actually ask Yanmar to place these examples of these engines on a dyno to verify their numbers, and potentially generate torque curves which we do not have. To me, this is a very important consideration, because if "torque is king" and we are comparing two similar engines in two similar machines and rating them at different speeds, why would that be done?? The only reason I can think of would be marketing purposes, to make one engine/machine APPEAR to have markedly more torque than another, which based on simple calculation might not be totally true. It is also interesting to me that this is not the case when rating the 3020 series and 4020 series tractors, as they are all rated at the same speed. Why are the 2000's different? I should note, though, that the economy tractors, such as the 3203, 3005, and E series machines, are all rated at different engine speeds, and their torque ratings are very close--but not exact, leading me to feel the predominant difference in their posted torque ratings is the manipulation of the engine RPM, if these are calculated, not actual. To me this VERY important to the purchase of any tractor, because one would hope that by paying additional money, one is getting more than 3-4 lb. ft. difference in torque, plus some additional niceties. It seems to have direct application here as well. I realize this point has been belabored, but I still would like to know am I missing something here on these ratings??

John M

Birdmayon · Feb 2, 2009

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.

cbturf · Feb 2, 2009

Yes you are missing something in the numbers. The T numbers are not calculated they are measured on a dyno and then you use the formula to calculate HP. I think that I was missing your real question all along! Either an engine makes power or is doesn't, you can not manipulate what it does with a calculator. Now you know why I took my schooling (mechanical engineer) and became a contractor and not a teacher.

Check these engine specs out:

http://yanmar.com/file.asp?F=211D3D719D7B4AEAA9BAFB925DCCE666.pdf&N=3TNV76-CSA.pdf&C=store_items
2320 engine
http://yanmar.com/file.asp?F=9B3BC455794741108361F4E7591DDE0D.pdf&N=3TNV82A-BDSA.pdf&C=store_items
2520 engine
Carol Shelby once said horsepower sells cars (tractors) and torque wins races (mows pastures).