3032E vs 2520

[trook]

I am not so sure about the same size on those cutter comparisons.

When I bought my 790.....the dealer had a slightly used MX5 cutter available, at a very good price. I really wanted that MX5....but I passed on the cutter as it has a weight of 850 lbs.....and I felt it would be like the tail waggin the dog on my 790 (3005) size tractor.

200 lbs of extra weight is allot.....when swinging around on the back of these small tractors....IMO.

FWIW, I used my MX6 on my 4320 without the FEL today for the first time. Let me tell you, I will never do it again!! I spent more time on two wheels than I did on 4 wheels!! I thought removing the FEL would make the tractor much more maneuverable. Instead, I had to use the brakes to steer as much as I used the steering wheel. When I got home, I immediately placed the FEL back onto the tractor. Next time, I'll just remove the bucket and leave the FEL on the tractor. Front weights probably would have made a difference. How much, I can't tell you.

All I'm trying to say is that a heavy cutter, such as the MX5 on a 2000 series tractor, WILL be alot like the tail waging the dog. Your only choice, if you have a medium size cutter, if you want to maintain good control of the tractor is to either keep the FEL on the tractor or add as many weights as you can to the front of the tractor. :thumbsup:

 

[RoyJackson]

Roy.....I can recall driving a few GMC trucks with Allison tranny's in them(many years ago).

Yeah, I've seen 'em too...and the military uses (or did use) Allison transmissions in some of their deuce and a halfs and other medium sized trucks (up to 10 ton, I believe). I don't think you'd see a bus with a manual gearbox any more.
I work at a place that sells and services bus trannies. Although automatics and they do use fluid couplings (torque converters), they aren't anything like a tractor hydrostatic. Also cost upwords of a 100K...rebuilds are easily in excess of $25K.

 

[RoyJackson]

Hydro trannies are infinitely variable that's what gives them the edge in load pulling on tractors.

If that was the case, you'd see more hydros on large tractors. Those really big ag machines cost well over $100K, so it's not a price or cost of maintenance issue...it's a pulling power issue (figure 10% loss of power transmission in a hydro). Not that maintenance costs aren't important...they are.

I think a hydro is a more dependable box on a tractor. For one, it never needs a clutch. You may be kind to a clutch but it still wears just like brakes, you can't stop the wear. It's a given that the clutch will, at some point, need to be replaced. It's not a given that a hydro will fail, that's the difference.

Hydros overheat, which is their downfall. When those components fail, it's more expensive then replacing relatively inexpensive clutch (note the adjective "relatively").

I think big rigs run standard for fuel economy. I don't see why an 18 wheeler can't have a good auto box. What are we saying, no one can design one?

Same thing applies to 18-wheelers as large ag tractors...too much power loss. Those big trucks have ten to sixteen speed transmissions to keep the engine at maximum power.
Also, truck drivers and ag tractor operators are professional at what they do. Both get thousands of hours and/or hundreds of thousand of miles out of their equipment before requiring clutches.
In either of those examples, a 10% loss in power transmissions would be substantial.
Also, I don't see a market for hydros in large trucks or ag tractors in the foreseeable future. It would add to much cost for relatively little benefit (and that assumes hydro or automatic power losses are diminished).

"real trucks for manly men" or real women. I have a friend who can drive us all under the table.

Rob

I know several women who drive trucks for a living (or co-drive with their husband/boy friend/significant other). That "manly" comment is just a joke I've been using on TBN for years.

For the tasks we residential and small farmette owners use our tractors for, the difference between hydro and manual transmissions are insignificant. It's just a matter of preference.
I expect to get 1500-2000 hours out of my clutch (one caveat...I don't know how the previous owner of my 4400 was with a clutch. He was in his late 60's or early 70's when he bought it, so I assume he knew how to use a manual shift machine effectively). At my rate of use over the last 10 years or so, those 1500-2000 hours will take me about 10 to 15 years.

 

[RoyJackson]

FWIW, I used my MX6 on my 4320 without the FEL today for the first time. Let me tell you, I will never do it again!! I spent more time on two wheels than I did on 4 wheels!! :

If you thought that was fun, try rigging your ballast box to the 3PH before installing the loader.
If your ballast box is weighted per the loader manual, your front wheels will be off the ground...it'll be something like a dog dragging his butt across the floor to scratch his a**.

 

[Rob-D]

If you thought that was fun, try rigging your ballast box to the 3PH before installing the loader.
If your ballast box is weighted per the loader manual, your front wheels will be off the ground...it'll be something like a dog dragging his butt across the floor to scratch his a**.

OK, a little common sense here. Why would you ever do that with a light tractor? Obviously you did.

As for rotary cutters, why would you put one on without front weights or the loader mount? It's called addition, you figure out how much it weighs and you add ballast. I ran a 2720 with a 640 lb. Woods HC60 with absolutely no problems and went down the road with it hanging off the back. Again, it's called ballast, let's use our heads. Deere's implements say you can use the Frontier 5 foot rotary (RC2060/1060) cutter, which are probably Woods or close to them since Woods makes Frontier stuff, with the 2520 and 2720 machines. They show the 3320 as able to run the MX5 rotary cutter. If you're having trouble with a 4000 tractor and an MX5 then it's you and how you set it up. Especially when I ran a 2000 series with a cutter that's just 200lbs. less with no trouble.

Implements & Accessories - Product Catalog

Rob

 

[RoyJackson]

OK, a little common sense here. Why would you ever do that with a light tractor? Obviously you did.

Rob

Not quite, but close.
Both the loader and ballast box are stored in the garage. I backed the 790 up to the garage door (which was open) and hitched up the ballast box. When I pulled the rockshaft lever back, rather then the 3PH raising, the tractor's front end came up. Those tires were probably no more then a foot off the pavement when I pushed the rockshaft lever forward.
Bit of a senior moment there, but funny in retrospect.

I just added that "dog dragging it's tail" comment since it's a funny image when I wrote the post.
Now, if I had the tractor in gear when I raised the hitch, that 790 probably would have been "draggin' it's tail" for a few feet.

As far as your comments about ballasting...well, they're correct and ballasting (especially on the rear) has been the topic of many many threads. I ran my 790 with a 60" RFM with no front ballast for years. Same thing with my old 670. Some folks want to try mowing and cutting without the loader installed and, as trook learned, it doesn't work too well with a heavier implement.
Just part of the learning curve...

 

[Rob-D]

If that was the case, you'd see more hydros on large tractors. Those really big ag machines cost well over $100K, so it's not a price or cost of maintenance issue...it's a pulling power issue (figure 10% loss of power transmission in a hydro). Not that maintenance costs aren't important...they are.

Because they aren't rocking back and forth with a front loader like small tractors are. You go forward or backward with the push of a pedal and infinite ratios. How do you beat that with a 12 speed tranny? You can't. Does Deere diferentiate between hydro and stick as far as pulling power? No. Small tractors and hydros are a match made in heaven. Small trucks and automatics pull better than sticks. Check out an F150 and compare the two trannies. I don't drive big rigs and don't want to drive big rigs, boring, bouncy and low pay.

Hydros overheat, which is their downfall. When those components fail, it's more expensive then replacing relatively inexpensive clutch (note the adjective "relatively").

No, only poorly designed hydros over heat. Anybody here ever overheat a Deere hydro? I haven't and I've pushed them pretty hard.

Same thing applies to 18-wheelers as large ag tractors...too much power loss. Those big trucks have ten to sixteen speed transmissions to keep the engine at maximum power.
Also, truck drivers and ag tractor operators are professional at what they do. Both get thousands of hours and/or hundreds of thousand of miles out of their equipment before requiring clutches.
In either of those examples, a 10% loss in power transmissions would be substantial.
Also, I don't see a market for hydros in large trucks or ag tractors in the foreseeable future. It would add to much cost for relatively little benefit (and that assumes hydro or automatic power losses are diminished).

Yes, that's right efficiency, sticks get better mileage (in big rigs) but I have a small tractor that sips fuel and so do you so this is a non sequitur. It comes down to how easiy it is to use and clutches and the hydro wins hands down.

I expect to get 1500-2000 hours out of my clutch (one caveat...I don't know how the previous owner of my 4400 was with a clutch. He was in his late 60's or early 70's when he bought it, so I assume he knew how to use a manual shift machine effectively). At my rate of use over the last 10 years or so, those 1500-2000 hours will take me about 10 to 15 years.

That's right, you don't know, you might be replacing a clutch tomorrow. If it was a hydro you would not have that concern.

Rob

 

[Rob-D]

Not quite, but close.
Both the loader and ballast box are stored in the garage. I backed the 790 up to the garage door (which was open) and hitched up the ballast box. When I pulled the rockshaft lever back, rather then the 3PH raising, the tractor's front end came up. Those tires were probably no more then a foot off the pavement when I pushed the rockshaft lever forward.
Bit of a senior moment there, but funny in retrospect.

I just added that "dog dragging it's tail" comment since it's a funny image when I wrote the post.
Now, if I had the tractor in gear when I raised the hitch, that 790 probably would have been "draggin' it's tail" for a few feet.

As far as your comments about ballasting...well, they're correct and ballasting (especially on the rear) has been the topic of many many threads. I ran my 790 with a 60" RFM with no front ballast for years. Same thing with my old 670. Some folks want to try mowing and cutting without the loader installed and, as trook learned, it doesn't work too well with a heavier implement.
Just part of the learning curve...

Like I said, "obviously you did that." Personally I don't think I'd be telling people about that incident. Hopefully you won't be having them in critical moments.

Rob

 

[RoyJackson]

Like I said, "obviously you did that." Personally I don't think I'd be telling people about that incident. Hopefully you won't be having them in critical moments.

Rob

I'm of the age where I really don't care if people think I'm a dumb s**t or not...one of the few benefits of old age (I'm 60...the "New 40" to the Hollywood crowd).

One of the best things about TBN is sharing information and experiences...both good and bad (I'd lean the ballast box fiasco toward the "bad"). Folks learn from those experiences and hopefully, it may prevent someone from doing something that results in injury or equipment damage. My incident was a bit embarrassing, but that's all. If the 790 had been in the garage rather then just outside the door, it may have been more then embarrassing. And when Joe Sixpack is installing his loader and ballast box, he might think..."Oops...loader first!!! Then, the ballast box...don't wanna be a dumba** like that guy with the bull hat"
All in all, a win-win.

As far as your post #28, re-read the last two paragraphs of my post #23.

Reckon we've beaten this thread to death...

 

[Rob-D]

You're probably right Roy. It's all in good fun, just be careful.
Rob