Purchase Advice/Opinions on 3x20 series

[radman1]

Craig B

I think the 4x20 series is probably a bit big for finish mowing. The 4x20 does not seem much bigger when looking at the specs. However, having owned both, the 4x20 series is certainly larger. The 3x20 can handle almost any finish mower you put on it. A 72" mower on the 3x20 series is going to mow just as fast as a 4x20 series. Going with RFM can also save $ on the CUT because you won't need mid pto.

I would again urge you to consider a wider box blade. 60" is about the same width as the rear tires. 66" or 72" would be my preference because it will extend beyond the tires. If you ever need to use the BB near a building, cement, fence ect, you will greatly appreciate the extra width beyond the tires. I have a 60" gannon on my Toolcat but it is the same width as the machine. I also have a 72" Kubota (gannon) and 80" gannon. The 60" was too good of a deal to pass.

 

[Craig B]

Radman1,

Thanks on the BB. Good info. I didnt consider tire width and getting close to my barn and metal building.

This is why I am asking on here!!!! THANK YOU

Anyone else??

 

[jcmseven]

Craig, I concur with Radman that the 4000 series is likely too big for finish mowing unless the lawn is a wide-open field. It is true the 4000 series looks only a "little bigger" on paper and from a length and width perspective, this is true. They are MUCH larger and heavier machines when seen side by side, though. I continue to disagree about the box blade, with continued qualification. The 3000 series tractors can easily handle a 60" or 65" box blade. They can pull a 72" box blade on flat ground if the material being pulled is not heavy. On hills or with gravel or road bond in the back or anything wet, the going will be tough. I agree the wider blade would allow for one to extend to areas beyond the wheels, but that is a huge box blade. I had a 2172 on my 4520 and when full of wet gravel it was a load for that machine on my hilly drive, and it had RimGuard both front and rear, rear wheel weights and 60 HP. They also weigh about 200 pounds more empty and the width can sometimes serve as a detriment more than a help. I personally have not found much increase in speed smoothing drives, etc going to a 6' from a 5'. Perhaps the compromise of a 65" would be your best choice. Any of the 3000s would handle that fine.

John M

 

[AKfish]

I am more interested in keeping it cleaned up so I think I will do it for a while. I will look into someone local giving it a little tlc and turning it into a good hay field.
Thanks
Craig

Craig,

It's a "no-brainer" if you're really just buying a tractor to maintain the 7 acres around your house... a 3000 series machine - (as both radman1 and jcmseven have opined).

So, the real question remains - 3320, 3520 or 3720.

IMO - if you're committed (in the short term) to maintain the 25 acre parcel - I'd go as big (hp) as you can in the 3000 series. The consideration being; maximum pto power for the larger mowers.

72" rotary cutter - MX6. And, depending on trees, fences, other obstacles - at least a 72" RFM. I'd go for an 84" cut if you can reasonably maneuver and do a good job.

Best of luck.

AKfish

 

[JDTank]

To bring this thread back a bit I have a similar debate. Right now I am trying to decide between a 3000 series tractor and a 4000 series tractor.

Originally I had decided a 4520 was the perfect tractor for my needs. It still is, however weight and width have begun to present themselves as issues. I live in B.C, which is known for large amounts of rain year round. Because of this, the ground is basically "permanently saturated" and never fully dries. The ground here holds an astonishing amount of water. So much so that it cannot absorb anymore, if it rains, it simply sits on top and floods to the sides. With a 4000 series tractor, this presents an obvious issue with weight. Just the tractor alone we are talking 3,700 lbs, add in fluid in the tires, wheel weights, a load in the bucket, you EASILY step over 5,000, if not 6,000 lbs.

The next problem is width. I have some areas of my property that desperately need addressing. I originally just "eyed" up these problems and assumed I could make a 4000 series unit fit in there. I have a space between a fence, and some pine trees, about 5 or 6 feet wide, that is OVERRUN by high grass, weed trees, and all kinds of stuff. It has grown, in some areas, to 4, 5 feet in height. Not thick, just high. A 4000 series is likely to wide to fit between the trees I want to keep and the fence.

Now obviously it would seem I have answered my own question in my debate, but what keeps drawing me back to the 4520 is power. 60HP, turbo power at that, would be very nice to have. I feel going overkill with power is a very good idea. You never know when you need more, and when you buy more engine than you ever plan to use, your never left with the feeling of underpowered equipment. My needs are actually quite basic compared to most on here it would seem, so that has re-sparked my interest in the 3000 series tractors. Never having driven one this small, I am unsure how they react, power wise, to certain implements.

Here is all I need to run:

Tiller - for approx half an acre to 1 acre of field to be turned over.
Grapple bucket - for fallen trees and scrap lumber.
Rear discharge finish mower - for approx 1 acre of grass.
Rotary Cutter - thinking MX5, tackling 1-2 acres of overgrown brush/high grass.
Pallet forks - unloading lifts of lumber, wood shavings for upcoming projects.
Loader - for everything one could imagine.

Based on this, would the people experienced in the 3000 series tractors say these units would be adequate for these implements? I won't go below a 3520 as I want that extra PTO power for the rotary cutter. I am just afraid if I step down to a 3000 series unit, I will end up feeling underpowered or tipsy all the time from the very narrow stance these units have. All the ground I will be working on is relatively flat, so not much chance of rolling anyway if one operates correctly.

I should say, I did recently run a 790 for 4 days, and I was unimpressed with this tractor. It is about the same size as the 3000 series units, and the current 3005 is its replacement, so I am a bit scared that the 3000 series would leave me unimpressed, just like this unit.

Sorry for the novel!

 

[RoyJackson]

I should say, I did recently run a 790 for 4 days, and I was unimpressed with this tractor. It is about the same size as the 3000 series units, and the current 3005 is its replacement, so I am a bit scared that the 3000 series would leave me unimpressed, just like this unit.

Sorry for the novel!

As great as the 790/3005 is, it's not really a comparision to the 3x20 series (except the now defunct 3120). The 3320 has a few more PTO HP (if you go with the reverser transmission!!) and is quite a bit heavier then the 790/3005.

 

[CompactTractorFan]

The 3000 series sound good for you. What tires are you planning on getting?

 

[JDTank]

Well, it's a debate.

R1's would be great for there high traction, but they would also do some damage on my soft ground here.

R4's probably wont have the traction I need on the soft ground and rainy days, but yet, they won't cause damage either.

 

[Angelus]

Now I have very little experience on a tractor, so take my comments for what they are worth. But having just gone through the process of purchasing a JD 3038e, here are my thoughts.

This was your list of chores:

Tiller - for approx half an acre to 1 acre of field to be turned over.
Grapple bucket - for fallen trees and scrap lumber.
Rear discharge finish mower - for approx 1 acre of grass.
Rotary Cutter - thinking MX5, tackling 1-2 acres of overgrown brush/high grass.
Pallet forks - unloading lifts of lumber, wood shavings for upcoming projects.
Loader - for everything one could imagine.

Seems to me that they break down into two categories:

A. Light-weight/maneuverable machine (tiller, finish mowing, brush cutting)
B. Heavy-weight machine (grapple, pallet forks, and general loader work)

This is a classic dilemma. You can't have both in a single machine. So decide which is more important to you and get the machine that is better for that task category. Or get two machines, each designed for the specific category.

Any 3000 series machine can till 1 acre, finish mow 1 acre, and brush cut 2 acres without a problem. And after you do a single brush cutting on the overgrown 2 acres, the subsequent cuts shouldn't require much horsepower at all. In fact, you might want to rent a brush cutter for the initial cut and buy a flail to have one implement to handle your finish mowing and any future brush cutting you might have.

If you choose a 3000 series tractor, you can add ballast or wheel weights or rimguard to gain weight to help with loader operations. But you can never remove the base weight of the 4000 series for the lightweight tasks. A 3000 series tractor will probably do all the same loader work that the 4000 will. You will just have to take smaller bites and this will take a little more time.

I don't see you as needing 60 HP. 30-40 HP should be enough to comfortably do what you want to do. Tractor weight is your real issue and should be your focus, in my opinion.

 

[foggy1111]

Not sure how fast you want to get 'er done......BUT......I have a 3320.....and I have 107 acres to manage.....and I feel I have a good size tractor for those duties.

I till about 7 acres each year. Mow about the same. Brush cut a few acres. Most of my land is tree covered and my new grapple will get those trees and brush stacked just fine. I could get to like more HP I suppose....but I have adequate HP and weight for 5 foot implements....and my hydraulics are adequate to pick up what needs to be done on my land.

If your implements need to be bigger...then you can use more HP....IMO.....but for five foot implements the 3320 seems ideal to me.

I got most of the PTO work done quite nicely with the 790 too....but IMO I did lack the wieght, tranny and hydraulics of the 3320 for serious loader and grapple work.

Different strokes for different folks? They are all good.