horstuff
Bronze Member
Would a 447 be the "right" backhoe for a 3320, or could someone use a 448 with no adverse effects? Thanks.
proper backhoe for a 3320?
- Thread starter horstuff
- Start date
- Views: 19497
-
- Tags
- john deere 3320
GreatWhitehunter
Veteran Member
Both the 447 and 448 are compatible with the 3x20 series tractors. I have a 448 and love it. And someday if I get a 4x20 the 448 will fit that machine too. I believe theres another hoe also that will fit I think its the 48. I'd also look at the woods line of hoes.
Matt T.
Matt T.
GreatWhitehunter
Veteran Member
The JD hoes are rockshaft mounted. The 447 vs 448 is only around a foot and a half longer. I really doubt that JD would allow you to mount it to the 3x20 series if it is going to damage the tractor. Theres a few TNBer's with the 448 maybe they can further weigh in on this.
Matt T.
Matt T.
jeffinsgf
Veteran Member
I can't speak to the 447 and 448, but the 47 next to a 48 looks like a child's toy next to a tool. While the reach is not that much different, the overall structure is vastly different. The JD rock shaft mount is unbelieveably easy to put on and take off. It is a 2 or 3 minute job both directions.
My suggestion would be to get the biggest implements that JD recommends for your tractor. They won't suggest anything that could cause you problems.
My suggestion would be to get the biggest implements that JD recommends for your tractor. They won't suggest anything that could cause you problems.
JDCOMPACTMAN
Bronze Member
I Sell Far More 448 Hoe's On The 3120-3720's Than I Do The 447.Have Had 0 Issues So Far.
_M_
Member
I've got a 3320 with a 448. I'm quite happy with the combination. I'm glad I didn't go with the 447 as the extra reach and power of the 448 allows me to do more without repositioning, or at least reposition less often. The mount seems like it would be plenty strong for a 449 if there was such a thing.
GreatWhitehunter
Veteran Member
Bobby, I was in the same position you were. I posted a similar question here. I did get a few responses that the 447 was better suited to the 3x20 series. The posters suggesting this owned the 447 and really didn't give me any substanial reasons why the 448 was too much for the 3x20 series. I did more research and talked to deere. I just don't believe deere would allow you to use an attachment that would damage your machine. If you look at the reccomended attchment list on their site. I think you'll find they are conservative. I know on other models like the 3203 deere won't put a hoe on. So I'm sure they do alot of testing before there spec there attachments.
Matt T.
Matt T.
SFish
Silver Member
Horstuff:
I got the 447 to keep down weight and enertia for increased stability. I have 160 acres of very steep and rough ground to work, and the extra reach was not important for my tasks. However, I would like a little more power. If I were a flatlander I would have purchased the 448.
Steve
I got the 447 to keep down weight and enertia for increased stability. I have 160 acres of very steep and rough ground to work, and the extra reach was not important for my tasks. However, I would like a little more power. If I were a flatlander I would have purchased the 448.
Steve
slaveToHorses
Gold Member
I ended up with a 447 and think it is a better fit. So did my salesman although he would have happily taken the extra money
The rockshaft-only loading of the 447/448 was a big selling point for me and my tractor just barely handles the 447. So far, the folks I have talked to that have the 448, need to use the stabilizers to finish loading their hoes (on a 3x20). Maybe some of the folks here that have a 448 could talk to that. For me, having to use the stabilizers wouldn't be worth the 1ft extra reach the 448 gives you. Although extra reach is nice, especially when you don't have a swivel seat!
As far as weight and size, hanging off the back of the machine, in my opinion, the 447 is a better match.
The rockshaft-only loading of the 447/448 was a big selling point for me and my tractor just barely handles the 447. So far, the folks I have talked to that have the 448, need to use the stabilizers to finish loading their hoes (on a 3x20). Maybe some of the folks here that have a 448 could talk to that. For me, having to use the stabilizers wouldn't be worth the 1ft extra reach the 448 gives you. Although extra reach is nice, especially when you don't have a swivel seat!
As far as weight and size, hanging off the back of the machine, in my opinion, the 447 is a better match.
_M_
Member
I don't have to use my stabilizers to mount my 448 on my 3320. It's possible that the dealer increased my relief valve pressure to make this possible, although they didn't mention doing that to me. I agree that it's much more convenient to mount it sans stabilizers. Personally, having the 448, I wouldn't want anything less, even if I did have to mount it with stabilizer assistance. I'm sure the 447 is great too, I just know that many of my projects would have taken significantly longer had I had a smaller/less powerful hoe.
I also have very steep terrain. When I have the hoe mounted, there are times when I'm traversing a slope that I'll actually unlock the hoe and swing the boom to the uphill side (maybe even reach the bucket out) for better balance. It can really make a difference. I only do this while going quite slow. Would go slow in these circumstances even without the hoe mounted. I also sometimes lower the downhill stabilizer so it's just a couple inches off the ground. If I did start to tip, that would very likely stop the tractor from going all the way over. I think I could make the arguement that I could traverse a steeper slope with the hoe mounted than without when using it as I described above. Really have to pay attention to what's going on in that type of situation. I got this technique from a TLB operating book.
I also have very steep terrain. When I have the hoe mounted, there are times when I'm traversing a slope that I'll actually unlock the hoe and swing the boom to the uphill side (maybe even reach the bucket out) for better balance. It can really make a difference. I only do this while going quite slow. Would go slow in these circumstances even without the hoe mounted. I also sometimes lower the downhill stabilizer so it's just a couple inches off the ground. If I did start to tip, that would very likely stop the tractor from going all the way over. I think I could make the arguement that I could traverse a steeper slope with the hoe mounted than without when using it as I described above. Really have to pay attention to what's going on in that type of situation. I got this technique from a TLB operating book.
Last edited:
JEA
Member
I went with the 447 on our 4310 (equivalent to the 3320) because of weight,stress on the frame, etc. So far (1.5 years in) it seems quite a good compromise, and has worked out very well with this size frame.
JEA
JEA
hideaway44
New member
I have had my 3320 with the 448 for a year and have 165 hours on the tractor. Pretty stoney ground on my property, with many weighing in at 300 to 500 pounds, generally 1 to 3 feet below the surface. Have not had any problems mounting or dismounting the hoe, and it makes short work of the rocks when digging or trenching. I am slowly putting in a small access road through my 20 acres and the hoe has been invaluabe in stumping and smoothing the ground. Having not run a 447 I can't speak to its ability or capacity. I know that for my property I needed the most backhoe I could put on the tractor. I have not regretted this at all, and it is amazing what this tractor can do. BTW, I also have a 72" rear mounted snowblower and a 300CX loader. Just cleaned up from 16"+ snowstorm. I know that many like the front mount, but with my driveway I need the use of the loader to push back banks. Had a blast, can't wait for the next. Good luck on the purchase.
FM
FM
rockyridgefarm
Elite Member
Hi, just a couple of random points.
The 447 and 448 are both compatible. The hoes and tractors were designed for each other. Deere doesnt use a subframe, because it isn't needed. A subframe would reduce ground clearnce and many machines that use them can NOT have a mid mower at all. You not only can have a mid mower with Deere's hoes, but you can even mow with the hoe mounted. Everyone wants to do THAT! OK< but you could.
The RSA mount is far better than a subframe or three point mount for ease of install and strength while in use.
Don't use the stabilizers to mount the hoe. Please. This comes up from time to time. The problem is easy to resolve the correct way. Check the Deere FAQ for adjusting the Rock Shaft Arm height. It is just a matter of ttrning a nut.
The 447 is smaller, lighter, and costs less.
The 448 is longer (higher too), heavier, and costs more.
The 447 only works on mid chassis, the 448 can go on large chassis CUTs. If you might upgrade tractors the '8' is a safer choice.
When we trench, wee usually use two operators, one drives the other digs. It really goes faster that way. When there is only one operator, we always walk over the tire instead of dismounting. That is a big time saver too.
My freind has a Woods hoe. they are really nice. But I wouldn't give up RSA for that.
Oh, I have the 47. I probably should have gotten the 48. But I am very pleased with it and really have no regrets.
The 447 and 448 are both compatible. The hoes and tractors were designed for each other. Deere doesnt use a subframe, because it isn't needed. A subframe would reduce ground clearnce and many machines that use them can NOT have a mid mower at all. You not only can have a mid mower with Deere's hoes, but you can even mow with the hoe mounted. Everyone wants to do THAT!
OK< but you could.The RSA mount is far better than a subframe or three point mount for ease of install and strength while in use.
Don't use the stabilizers to mount the hoe. Please. This comes up from time to time. The problem is easy to resolve the correct way. Check the Deere FAQ for adjusting the Rock Shaft Arm height. It is just a matter of ttrning a nut.
The 447 is smaller, lighter, and costs less.
The 448 is longer (higher too), heavier, and costs more.
The 447 only works on mid chassis, the 448 can go on large chassis CUTs. If you might upgrade tractors the '8' is a safer choice.
When we trench, wee usually use two operators, one drives the other digs. It really goes faster that way. When there is only one operator, we always walk over the tire instead of dismounting. That is a big time saver too.
My freind has a Woods hoe. they are really nice. But I wouldn't give up RSA for that.
Oh, I have the 47. I probably should have gotten the 48. But I am very pleased with it and really have no regrets.
SFish
Silver Member
Hey Mike, I found your FAQ post for "How to adjust rockshaft height," but the link takes me to the TBN forums main page. I would like to make the process of mounting the 447 require less swearing and skinned knuckles. steve
slaveToHorses
Gold Member
SFish said:
I think it is in the manual too.
If you stand behind your tractor and look to the left, and behind the seat you will see a metal rod that runs back to the rockshaft linkage. There is a turnbuckle-style nut there with a backing nut. You use this to adjust the maximum lift angle of the arms. I forget the proper spec for the angle but if you go too far, then when you pull the rockshaft lever all the way back you will hear the pump bypassing. That indicates you are too far.
I had to adjust this to the maximum, then I had to adjust the pin receiver plates on the backhoe mount. I had to move them down a bit so the arms would lift it a bit higher.
Naturally you have to do both these adjustments while the hoe is off the tractor.
SFish
Silver Member
Thanks slaveToHorses. I presumed that what you describe must be the adjustment, but I thought I would ask here first. I have already moved the movable latch plates to their minimum position and the L pins still required a lot of persuasion to put in. My manual says to contact the dealer about the position adjuster, and they would not tell me how to do it myself. Steve
Here are some similar links:
