Ordering 3520 have a question

[concord maple]

Order placed 2 days ago.
John Deere gave the dealer a date of Aug 20th delivery ahhh sooo long. ha-ha

I know some people will not agree with what i decided but the payments and numbers worked better for me.
I ordered a 3320 cab not a 3520. I got to demo one and it was perfect for me. had more than enough power and the price came in where i was more comfortable.

2012 John Deere 3320 Cab
300CX loader 73" bucket
72" 7Iron MMM

Will add rear remotes later when i have the need for them. No more freezing my butt off in the winter t-shirt and hot coco snow removal coming my way

BlackRaptor,
I ordered the same tractor (3320 cabbed) on June 18th and it was being shown for delivery July 31st. Tractor came in last Thursday (July 5). The invoice showed it was built the day after it was ordered, so it was built June 19th. I think you might have it within 2-3 weeks.

 

[BlackRaptor]

You just made my day

 

[CompactTractorFan]

View attachment 273162View attachment 273163

I'm not sure if anyone is interested or not but i figured i would post them.
Here is the 2520 with a 61" bucket sitting next to a 3320 cab that has a 73" bucket and the larger R4's. Too bad for me this one was already sold haha.

Nice comparison. :thumbsup:

 

[Martian]

Good decision on the smaller bucket. Not sure why the larger one comes standard? Congrats on a nice new tractor though!

Brian, if you are interested in JD's 4 in 1's, they sell all the same Frontier (green) loader implements with the JDQA under the WorksitePro (black) name with SSQA. Might be worth a look.

 

[meburdick]

Good decision on the smaller bucket. Not sure why the larger one comes standard? Congrats on a nice new tractor though!

Brian, if you are interested in JD's 4 in 1's, they sell all the same Frontier (green) loader implements with the JDQA under the WorksitePro (black) name with SSQA. Might be worth a look.

Unless I missed something in the thread, I think you mis-read... he ordered the 73" bucket.

The reason that the larger buckets come "standard" is because most folks want their loaders for moving material. And, more material at a time is better (most times). Another very common use for a loader is moving snow or other similar material that the tractor might not easily drive through. In those cases, you want a wider bucket to move enough material so that the rears will have a clear path.

For those folks that are looking to dig below grade or move very dense materials, a smaller bucket makes sense.

 

[MtnViewRanch]

Good decision on the smaller bucket. Not sure why the larger one comes standard? Congrats on a nice new tractor though!

Brian, if you are interested in JD's 4 in 1's, they sell all the same Frontier (green) loader implements with the JDQA under the WorksitePro (black) name with SSQA. Might be worth a look.

Martian, thanks for the info, I need to check that out once I get cought up with work.

 

[Martian]

Unless I missed something in the thread, I think you mis-read... he ordered the 73" bucket.

The reason that the larger buckets come "standard" is because most folks want their loaders for moving material. And, more material at a time is better (most times). Another very common use for a loader is moving snow or other similar material that the tractor might not easily drive through. In those cases, you want a wider bucket to move enough material so that the rears will have a clear path.

For those folks that are looking to dig below grade or move very dense materials, a smaller bucket makes sense.

Whoops, looks like I misread I had a 3120 before my 110, and it had the 60" bucket. His 3320 with cab will be more equivalent to my OS 3120. No way would I be getting full loads of gravel with that size bucket. My 110's bucket is a 72"! There are plenty of times when it's working hard with that size bucket and it's a much larger more powerful machine. Unless all your doing is light material (snow/sand MAX) I'd get the smaller bucket. Don't take this the wrong way, just trying to help. But take a look at the buckets and size difference between the two. Picture doesn't really do it justice, but I'd be weary of the larger bucket.
View attachment 273524

Martian, thanks for the info, I need to check that out once I get cought up with work.

My pleasure Brian. I'd like a 4 in 1 as well, and the Deere was the first choice for my 110 for OEM reasons, but sticker shock has me. Here's a well used one on eBay for $1,200:
JOHN DEERE 110 4 IN 1 LOADER BUCKET PART NUMBER LVB25343 | eBay

 

[meburdick]

Whoops, looks like I misread I had a 3120 before my 110, and it had the 60" bucket. His 3320 with cab will be more equivalent to my OS 3120. No way would I be getting full loads of gravel with that size bucket. My 110's bucket is a 72"! There are plenty of times when it's working hard with that size bucket and it's a much larger more powerful machine. Unless all your doing is light material (snow/sand MAX) I'd get the smaller bucket. Don't take this the wrong way, just trying to help. But take a look at the buckets and size difference between the two. Picture doesn't really do it justice, but I'd be weary of the larger bucket.
View attachment 273524

I agree on giving the bucket sizes a lot of thought and understanding what works well where...

So, there's a couple of things that I think are worth mentioning...

1) I think most first-time buyers (myself included) go with the premise that they want the largest bucket available, especially when they see that the price difference from one to the next is comparatively small.

2) Having the larger bucket tends to not be an issue because they aren't regularly using it to move *heavy* material (like gravel).

3) After using the loader for a while, you realize that you can't "fill" the bucket, so having a larger bucket that you partially fill will move more material in one pass. Plus, by not trying to fill the bucket, you end up with a manageable amount of material that you can move without spilling.

4) If you find yourself doing a LOT of loader work, get a second bucket and go smaller in size. Having the choice will end up being very helpful.

5) Having the larger bucket (read: wider) means we can drop the loader and drive... And clear a path that the tractor will fit through. And, for a lot of us, that's a need.

 

[Martian]

I agree on giving the bucket sizes a lot of thought and understanding what works well where...

So, there's a couple of things that I think are worth mentioning...

1) I think most first-time buyers (myself included) go with the premise that they want the largest bucket available, especially when they see that the price difference from one to the next is comparatively small.

2) Having the larger bucket tends to not be an issue because they aren't regularly using it to move *heavy* material (like gravel).

3) After using the loader for a while, you realize that you can't "fill" the bucket, so having a larger bucket that you partially fill will move more material in one pass. Plus, by not trying to fill the bucket, you end up with a manageable amount of material that you can move without spilling.

4) If you find yourself doing a LOT of loader work, get a second bucket and go smaller in size. Having the choice will end up being very helpful.

5) Having the larger bucket (read: wider) means we can drop the loader and drive... And clear a path that the tractor will fit through. And, for a lot of us, that's a need.

I understand where your coming from, but I respectfully disagree. After owning and operating tractors my entire life I can tell you what's going to work and what's not. A bucket that is larger than the width of the rear tires greatly decreases operating strength. Though the breakout specs are much better on the FEL of my 110, I use the BH because per square inch, there is more pressure to uproot a stump because of the smaller bucket size. I still would like smaller buckets than what I've got, like a 6" trenching bucket or even a ripper as will put the pressure in a more concentrated area. If I need a larger bucket, I'd buy a larger tractor.

 

[meburdick]

I understand where your coming from, but I respectfully disagree. After owning and operating tractors my entire life I can tell you what's going to work and what's not. A bucket that is larger than the width of the rear tires greatly decreases operating strength. Though the breakout specs are much better on the FEL of my 110, I use the BH because per square inch, there is more pressure to uproot a stump because of the smaller bucket size. I still would like smaller buckets than what I've got, like a 6" trenching bucket or even a ripper as will put the pressure in a more concentrated area. If I need a larger bucket, I'd buy a larger tractor.

I completely follow, understand, and agree with the examples you're giving. At the same time, they give me reason to not include you in groups like "first-time buyers" or "most people". Your experience with the machines and the variety of ways that you use the bucket specifically give you a tremendous amount of perspective for those of us that haven't / don't use the machines in the same ways. And that makes your comments valuable.

I was attempting to add to what you were saying by pointing out *why* so many of us go with the larger buckets, thus giving folks even more food for thought when making their own choices. If one knows the point AND the counterpoint, they can see both sides... And, for me, that means I will usually make a better-informed decision of my own.