turbo vs non turbo - JD 3x20

MikePA · Aug 8, 2005

a gold member bashing the new guys forum. Mike you fit in this slot buddy.

No one is bashing anyone. I apologize that you took my post that way. I merely questioned why you started this thread the way you did, i.e., "we should get something clear." This statement assumes others are confused. Who? Understanding context is important to understanding what's been written.

Other statements follow that indicate you're reacting to someone you feel the need to correct. Perhaps this is just your writing style. In my first post I welcomed you to TBN and asked the simple question, that went unanswered, what prompted you to start this thread.

"it has been incorectly suggested that 1.) turbos are as reliable as non turbos, 2.) turbos will outlast a non turbo because they are not working as hard. these are flat out false statements and no one should be led astray." Suggested by whom? Again, you seem to be reacting to someone.

"to say otherwise is not only mechanically counterintuitive but just plain false." Who said this?

It's not until this message that you indicate you've ordered the non-turbo version of the tractor and were explaining why. Perhaps I'm the only one, but had your first post started out the way this posts ends, e.g.,

"I WOULD INVITE ANYONE WHO HAS SOMETHING TO OFFER REGARDING THEIR EXPERIENCES AND HOW THEY ARRIVED AT THEIR CHOICES REGARDING THIS LINE OF JD's TO RESPOND." Here's why I didn't order the turbo model....

it would have been a lot easier to undertstand where you were coming from.

GeorgeC · Aug 8, 2005

Seasalt.
When you spend 25-28K+ for a tractor, I really don't think we are looking at it breaking down in the near future.
If you have reservations about turbocharging, that's fine, buy the non turbo engine, but the rest of us welcome turbocharging..
I think I can speak for the rest of us by saying that the turbo "boogieman" just doesn't enter our thought process, and never will. We want the best power and trust that our engines won't grenade like a Top Fuel dragster blower explosion.. I'll also go out on a limb and say that most of us can handle the excessive responsibilities, like sitting for an extra minute for proper cooldown.
Personally, I can guarantee you that your fears are unfounded, so stop lecturing about something you feel that you are qualified to lecture about. Most of us simply do not care.

seasalt · Aug 8, 2005

Thanks JerryG, that is exactly the kind of information I (and others can use). Please keep it coming. Like I mentioned earlier, I may be familiar with the machinery, but this is the my first actual tractor purchase. The two are worlds apart.
Thank you for your time.

seasalt · Aug 8, 2005

Mike,

Appology accepted. Thanks. I felt anyone who read this forum would know the context. In looking back I probably got a bit overly righteous after reading some erroneous suggestions were offered to the membership. Doesnt matter much now so lets leave it. We are on a whole new (but same in name) reason for the post.

What is your experience? Please include what led you to your decision, not just how you feel about it now (most people are best at justifying things they have already done), although I would like to hear that too.

seasalt · Aug 8, 2005

GeorgeC,

a.) junk is available at all price points, so your point is of no comfort to anyone.

b.) I welcome turbocharging too - you are refusing to read what I have said (repeatedly).

c.) you think you can speak for the entire forum regarding whether or not people think about the cost benefit of turbos before buying? Hmmm.

d.) sarcasim on the out on a limb /cool down comment was also unnecessary and reduces your credibility.

e.) you can personally guarantee me my fears (???) are unfounded. Fears of what?

f.) If you feel this is a "lecture" and/or you just "dont care" (again you speak for MOST of the forum here), then kindly buzz off and let this discussion attempt to flow productively.

g.) notwithstanding the forgoing, I also invite you to offer something of real value in terms of your selection process or operating experience.

Thanks.

hbaird · Aug 8, 2005

I am in no way an expert and know very little about turbo's. But can't you get the same power with more displacement a lot simpler and perhaps with more reliability? As I understand it a turbo charged engine is more efficient at boost but less than normal off boost. For steady state high power, turbo's are great, for varying power conditions, not so great. Larger engines are typically heavier. This can be a problem for trucks and Porches, but seems less so for a tractor.
Harold

jeffinsgf · Aug 8, 2005

I may have made my decision for all the wrong reasons, but a few months ago, I went with the normally aspirated 4410 over a 3520. My decision had nothing to do with the turbo/non-turbo issue. In driving around in cirlces on the dealer's lot, I couldn't quite get comfortable with the hydrostatic drive. I also liked the layout of the dash on the older model better, and my dealer had a very attractive price on the 4410, since it was an ePR model when most people want a hydro. I actually did not even know the 3520 was turbocharged until long after I had purchased the 4410. The turbo did not get much of a workout going around in circles, and I did not think to ask the dealer to hook up a 4 bottom plow for my test drive. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

I thought I would contribute the following to the discussion. The 4410, at 35 HP (29 at the PTO if I recall correctly) has all the power you could ask for in a tractor of this size. It is more than adequate for heavy duty rotary cutting. I have a chipper shredder and the tractor doesn't even change pitch when I feed in 5 inch limbs. I can pull a box blade overflowing with gravel, nudge the 3pt down a little and take even more in almost every gear and range (except transport -- I don't have the guts to try). I have pulled coffee table sized rocks out of the ground with 18 inches of soil on top of them with my backhoe. The hydraulics hit their limit long before the engine would ever start working harder.

My point is, for landscaping and maintenance of a small parcel (10 to 20 acres) all I would probably do with more HP is tear something up or hurt myself. The 4410 apparently is still available. In the new 3x20 series, it appears that it comes down to the 3320 as normally aspirated and the 3520 with the turbo, and both of them just the other side one way or the other of the power of the 4410. Adding the ever so slight power loss of an HST, I personally would probably go with the 3520.

Turbo vs. NonTurbo? Heck I don't know. My feeling is that Yanmar and Deere have designed both of those engines to work as they are designed and to do it for a long, long time. I might have been perfectly satisfied with 30 HP instead of 35. Now that I have 35, less might prove to be disappointing, and more seems completely unnecessary.

rockyridgefarm · Aug 8, 2005

A few observations...

Turbo complexity relating to machine's reliability. I work in a Dodge store. 1,000,000 miles on a Cummins without a major rebuild are the norm, not exceptional. The engines were designed for their configuration. Low end torque is NOT lacking...

The Yanmar 3TNV84T has already been field proven before showing up under a green hood. It has been available for some time and used in industrial and construction equipment applications. It was preceded by the 3TNE84T, and possibly other turbo engines...

I wandered over to Yanmar's site and peeked at the performance graphs for both the 3TNV84 and 3TNV84T. They look almost identical, except the scale is changed. Turbo owners should be experiencing a significant gain in boost over the entire rpm range.

The primary reason the the TNE series was replaced by the TNV is the increased stringency of emissions regulations. After careful study, I feel that the TNV series is slightly less efficient than the series that they replaced. Hence, Deere offering Turbo versions to overcome the power loss. The turbo's aren't gimmicks and should prove to be a very reliable and enjoyable setup.

A Deere buyer right now might still get the most bang for his buck if he can latch onto a 4410. The 3120 is a slightly detuned 4310 (3TNV84 vs. 3TNE84), the 3320 is slightly lower powered than a 4410 (3TNV88 vs. 3TNE88). If the other features are acceptable the 4410 would be the best buy of the bunch. Other factors to consider are whether the higher emissions are a problem, and altitude. At high altitudes, there is no denying that a turbo is worth every penny, even if it did mean higher maintenance and greater fuel consumption.

hobbyfarm · Aug 8, 2005

( the turbo "boogieman" ) /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif

Ohhhhhhhh, I'm skeerd.
/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Egon · Aug 8, 2005

Tristan Jones always complimented the Yanni in his last few books! /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Egon

Jomo45 · Aug 8, 2005

Jeffinsgf,

Thanks for adding some balance to the discussion!

My experience with my 3320 has been exactly as you have seen with your 4410, no power issues at all. I'm sure some folks will need the extra power of the 3520, or 3720, but most simply will not.

Cliff_Johns · Aug 8, 2005

Thanks for starting this thread Seasalt. It has elicited a lot of good discussion (and some confusing sidelines). I feel like I know a bit more about Turbos now. I didn't get the impression at all that you were saying anything bad about having a turbo tractor only that all things have tradeoffs and you named a few. I appreciate you observations. (And welcome to the tomatoes and rotten babanas side of the road)

If there are more parts, then there are more parts to break, come out of adjustment, lose seal, or fail in some other way. It's pretty simple logic really. That those parts are very unlikely to fail may be true, but the fundamental logic still applies. More parts means more parts to maintain.

As for the fuel efficiency, I admit, I don't really fully understand the engineering involved, but I do believe that it is a complicated equation and I'll leave it to experts to figure that out. I figure that my diesel is so efficient compared to gas engines, that I don't care about the turbo vs. non-turbo difference. If I was running a thousand hours a year, you bet I would care.

My tractor has all the power I need for my applications, so I have no need for the Turbo torque advantage, but again, if I was doing work right at the edge of my tractors torque curve and wanted more when I needed it, then I would sure take a look.

Thank you for your observations. Make sure you avoid those 'maters. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Cliff

rockyridgefarm · Aug 8, 2005

Me too, what Cliff said!!

seasalt · Aug 8, 2005

Exceptional input by all. Very valuable for me personally as I consider a big decision.

BTW - A big thanks to ALL who have offered thoughts, from whatever prospective. Love it or hate it this thread has apparently gained traction with the membership and has garnered more views and replies than any in a month of sundays! (that cant be bad).

Thought about starting a new post to move formally into the value comparison phase. Maybe good maybe bad. Given the blood and guts of this thread trail I will try to rename the next post accurately so as to attract those who may be interested without burdening those who dont need the history. Anyone who wants to look back can find the body parts buried here.

**** the tomatoes, ONWARD (through the fog)!

Here goes nothing....(please see the next post)

GeorgeC · Aug 9, 2005

( GeorgeC,

a.) junk is available at all price points, so your point is of no comfort to anyone.

b.) I welcome turbocharging too - you are refusing to read what I have said (repeatedly).

c.) you think you can speak for the entire forum regarding whether or not people think about the cost benefit of turbos before buying? Hmmm.

d.) sarcasim on the out on a limb /cool down comment was also unnecessary and reduces your credibility.

e.) you can personally guarantee me my fears (???) are unfounded. Fears of what?

f.) If you feel this is a "lecture" and/or you just "dont care" (again you speak for MOST of the forum here), then kindly buzz off and let this discussion attempt to flow productively.

g.) notwithstanding the forgoing, I also invite you to offer something of real value in terms of your selection process or operating experience.

Thanks. )

A. Agreed.

B. I read everything you have said.

C. I can't speak for the entire forum, and I shouldn't have said that.

D. I can be scarcastic, that's just me, so I apologize. If you feel that jeopardizes someone's credibility, then I guess my opinion does not count.

E. Fears that turbocharging will reduce your tractor's life span

F. Now who is being scarcastic and suffers from reduced credibility. It works both ways..

G. Agreed. Lets start over and both of us can cool down our opinions a bit. I personally would rather have more power than less any day of the week. I certainly don't see the 3000X20 X 50-70 series as a tractor that is turned up a whole lot.
I look at this price thing backwards.
I do see the 3320 and the 3120 as not enough HP to warrant the price difference, since the whole package can revolve around HP at some point and in my opinion, is not worth it to me. For a few bucks more, you get a lot more potential.
If the use of the tractor doesn't warrant the extra HP, then that's fine, but for my application and sense of tractor worth, I want more.
Also, IMHO, I believe resale of the turbo models will also dictate that the extra money for the turbo models will return in full.

seasalt · Aug 9, 2005

GeorgeC

OK fair comments. Thanks. No hard feelings. Going forward how did you arrive at the selection of the 3520 vs the 3720. I am 60/40 toward moving up to a turbo model, based on what our forum has offered. That is 1500 bucks - fine. I am 40/60 on going the extra 1700 above that to get the bigger torque lift of the 3720. Can you help me with thoughts in terms of resale -one vs the other, and how the tractor(s) behave comparatively in real world settings. Anything else I have forgotten other than the standard "more is never regretted, but less is always remembered". Using that I might never stop going up!

I think I am probably looking at details in more depth than many others, but that is me. Resarch is my strong suit. Final selection is not. (As usual I can coach others more easily than myself - Maybe you can too).

Thank you.

KennedyDiesel · Aug 9, 2005

Too much power is just enough...

Seriously, intercooling a turbo diesel does wonders for performance, and longevity as it keeps intake temps nice and cool.

Andy3520 · Aug 9, 2005

Kennedy makes a very good point. At least go with the 3520. You just can't put a price on the beautiful sound of a turbo spooling up. Even if your just mowing lawn. I imagine the 3720 is even better right John?

JDFANATIC · Aug 9, 2005

Now this post has taken a turn for the better... Let's get to the thought processes and reasons behind them so that others can use the insight on their next purchase or purchases! /forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

seasalt · Aug 9, 2005

Thanks guys. Dont forget to consider moving your thoughts to the next step post entitled JD 3x20 cost vs. benefit comparison + street prices. Now that we have some alignment, that might just turn out to be one of the most useful posts we can share thoughts on - a good mid frame machine - just updated - but with a confusing choice between stablemates as the only difference is power power and more power.