My new 3038E delivered

[6dog]

That is a sweet looking tractor! :thumbsup:

One things for sure, the bucket needs to come off for mowing. It bangs and clangs with every bump. I'll practice removing and replacing it soon.

Have you tried just taking the bucket off?

 

[RoyJackson]

One things for sure, the bucket needs to come off for mowing. It bangs and clangs with every bump. I'll practice removing and replacing it soon.

The learning curve for dropping the bucket is about 2 minutes. Just pull the lynch pins (and stow them), drop the loader to the ground and then use the dump function. The frame will pull away from the lower pins first, then as you continue, the upper rolls back right out.
I leave my bucket on a couple boards rather then the ground (my feeble attempt to minimize the rust potential). I also try to drop it so the front of the bucket is lower then the rear. If it rains, the rain can flow out of that bucket...not that I've ever seen any rust developing.

 

[joes_427_vette]

Joe,
Aluminum is better than cast iron for most parts, even in the rear axle.

Rob

I realize quality aluminum castings might be better than cast iron.. But sure to cost more for the manufacturer. The point I'm making is they double the hp. and the machine only weighs 500# more. One would think the frame would be much heavier. Would need to add some weight to cut the grass.

 

[Rob-D]

OK, I see your point. That's a lot of HP for 2100 lbs. Is that what it weighs?

I was just looking at implements and that tractor takes stuff the heavier 3320 doesn't. It's the over 30 PTO hp and not the tractor weight they use as a measure BUT only on lighter implements that need more hp like rotary rakes.
So I guess they figure it has a need.

Rob

 

[RoyJackson]

OK, I see your point. That's a lot of HP for 2100 lbs. Is that what it weighs?

I was just looking at implements and that tractor takes stuff the heavier 3320 doesn't. It's the over 30 PTO hp and not the tractor weight they use as a measure BUT only on lighter implements that need more hp like rotary rakes.
So I guess they figure it has a need.

Rob

Just something to compare...

The old 955 had 35 Engine HP and (IIRC) 28 PTO HP. They were pretty tough machines (as were all the x55 series Deeres). They were also pretty small (comparable to the 2xxx series new Deeres).

 

[Rob-D]

I agree Roy,
There's nothing wrong with HP, just as long as the machine is designed to handle it.

Rob

 

[joes_427_vette]

Weight is necessary in most cases. A feather weight tractor even with four wheel drive can scratch the surface but not dig in and get the job done. One of the reasons I like my D-15 AC. I can put a 6' shank plow behind it 6-8" deep and it has the traction to pull it without wheel spin. At a dollar + a pound it gets expensive to buy the wheel and front weights when the tractor / hp should have been designed for this.
If you bought it for snow removal and cutting grass it will work out fine.

 

[JD755]

Weight is necessary in most cases. A feather weight tractor even with four wheel drive can scratch the surface but not dig in and get the job done. One of the reasons I like my D-15 AC. I can put a 6' shank plow behind it 6-8" deep and it has the traction to pull it without wheel spin. At a dollar + a pound it gets expensive to buy the wheel and front weights when the tractor / hp should have been designed for this.
If you bought it for snow removal and cutting grass it will work out fine.

The additional horsepower can be useful for PTO operated implements, whether stationary or moving. A log splitter is one that comes to mind. Tractor weight is not so important there.

 

[RoyJackson]

The additional horsepower can be useful for PTO operated implements, whether stationary or moving. A log splitter is one that comes to mind. Tractor weight is not so important there.

Very true...unfortunately, the 3038 is one of the tractors that don't have off-seat PTO capability unless you put a weight on the seat or overide the safety switch.
I wouldn't overide the switch, so I'd keep a 50 lb bag of sand handy.

That "cost savings" of eliminating off seat capability was pretty **** stupid. All they needed to do was use the switch off the 790/3005.

 

[JD755]

Very true...unfortunately, the 3038 is one of the tractors that don't have off-seat PTO capability unless you put a weight on the seat or overide the safety switch.
I wouldn't overide the switch, so I'd keep a 50 lb bag of sand handy.

That "cost savings" of eliminating off seat capability was pretty **** stupid. All they needed to do was use the switch off the 790/3005.

It is very hard to understand some of the JD marketing decisions. I can see no cost savings since they already have a seat switch. Many ways to implement the function with that switch or even the two position "manual pull-up" switch on mine. I know not everyone uses the stationary PTO feature, but when comparing tractors to buy they do compare features and think about things they might want to do in the future. Since there would be no extra cost for JD to include the feature, seems like a dumb decision to not have it.

I figure not offering a mid-PTO even as an option on these tractors is to further differentiate them from the 3000 TWENTY series. Could be further enticement for someone to move up. Unlike the seat switch, that marketing decision is one I can understand.