Which Back hoe?

[crowlej]

I'm buying a JD 4300 with 430 loader and a back hoe... my question is which hoe the 47 or 48? the 48 offers 1' more digging depth (8'6" vs. 7'6") at a premium of about $1,000! Is it worth it? is it more HD than the 47 or only 1' longer?

 

[DarinRay]

crowlej,

If money isn't that much of an issue or should I say if you can come up with it I woudl invest in the 48 for sure. If you look at them side by side you will want the 48. That extra foot will make you happier when you need it and you will and more. /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif.

Darin

 

[cowboydoc]

Bigger is always better. I've learned over the years to always go with more than what I think I need. Always regret not going up in size. Better to spend the extra $1k now than to regret it later. If you look at them side by side the 48 is definitely more hoe than the 47.

 

[MJB]

I have the JD48 hoe on my 4300. I think that in addition to the extra foot of digging depth you get about a foot and a half more reach. I frequently use every inch of reach with my 48 so I could not imagine living with any less. If you can swing the bucks I would certainly go with the 48.

I love the smell of diesel in the morning. /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif

 

[dmccarty]

Crowlej,

Check the specs on how much each of the hows can lift, the digging force, etc. Reach can be important if you are digging a deep hole but its also very important if you are trying to dig out a large stump. I think there are more important differences between the 47 and 48 besides the digging depth.

I'm assuming that you can put a 48 on a 4300.

Later....
Dan McCarty

 

[crowlej]

Yes JD lists it as an option on the 4300 so assume the tractor and the hydraulics are up to the challenge.

Thanks for the reply

 

[crowlej]

How does the 48 work overall on the 4300? I thought maybe it would be too much for the size of the Tractor!?

 

[MJB]

The backhoe works very well on a 4300. It seems to be just the right size to me. I have seen a few of the larger frame (4500-4700) tractors with the 48 attached and the hoe actually looks a little small on these machines, in my opinion. I have the 18” bucket on mine, which seems to be a good compromise size as far as volume versus digging force. I run the tractor at about 1500 RPMs and the hoe seems to have plenty of power. I now have about 75 hours on my 4300 and I would estimate that at least half of that is using the hoe. I have alot of very soft ground on my land due to poor drainage and waterproof clay, so I often run the tractor with just the backhoe attached without the loader. The front end is a little light without the loader but I find that the unit has much better floatation and maneuverability this way. Hope this helps.

I love the smell of diesel in the morning. /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif

 

[Anonymous Poster]

<font color=blue>...so I often run the tractor with just the backhoe attached without the loader. The front end is a little light ...</font color=blue>

Michael,

Before you hurt yourself... very very unsafe... that backhoe upsets the center of gravity and balance drastically without that loader attached... /w3tcompact/icons/crazy.gif

If you pull the loader off... also pull the backhoe off.

 

[gvw]

I would agree that the 48 hoe on the 4500 -4700 is a bit on the small side -wish that they would make a bigger unit!!!