The 3120 gets bashed alot on this site and it does an injustice to anyone looking at purchasing one. The 3120 is as capable as the rest. The extra HP of the 3320,3520,etc, does not translate into more breakout force on the hoe does it? I have a 3120 and there is absolutely no complaints on its abilities. 0.5 hp away from being 30 does not place a stigma on this tractor. I cant let a fine tractor like the 3120 be misrepresented. /forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif
3120 gets no respect
- Thread starter Garrabo
- Start date
- Views: 15238
The 3120 gets bashed alot on this site and it does an injustice to anyone looking at purchasing one. The 3120 is as capable as the rest. The extra HP of the 3320,3520,etc, does not translate into more breakout force on the hoe does it? I have a 3120 and there is absolutely no complaints on its abilities. 0.5 hp away from being 30 does not place a stigma on this tractor. I cant let a fine tractor like the 3120 be misrepresented. /forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif
jcmseven
Veteran Member
G-
I do not think a 3120 is misrepresented as a bad tractor. I also believe there exists a market for the tractor, lest JD not make it. They have a very good marketing and sales department. The main problem I have with the 3120 is that it is priced very close to the more powerful tractors. I wish JD would delineate the pricing a bit more so they could sell more of them. I noted in a previous post that my dealer who sells a boatload of tractors says he cannot sell them well. The only explanation either he or I have for that is the lower HP relative to the cost. My dealer might be an anomaly, but I doubt it. Looking at other dealers in my area, they all seem to have some 3120's on the lot that they cannot move. That said, I think the 3120 is an excellent machine. If one does not have a huge amount of PTO work to be done, or might be interested in stepping from a small frame compact to a mid frame without spending a lot more money, or lives in a relatively flat area, I think the 3120 is a great choice. You are exactly correct in the fact that the 3120 has just as much hydraulic flow for attachments as the higher horse mid-frames. So thusly, if one has a backhoe and is digging all day, the 3120 would do just as well as a 3720 at less cost. I think that one has to look at the tasks a machine is going to do and buy accordingly. For me and where I live, a 3120 would struggle some, but say for my dad who lives in a flatter area, it would be fine. I posted in the general forum about six months ago about this very question: "how does horsepower affect performance?" and the answers were varied and points of view very interesting. It also was one of the more popular discussions in that segment, so obviously there is some debate. In short, I think the 3120, specifically your 3120, is a very nice machine. I am glad you have one and I know it does well for you. I feel JD needs to price the 3120 more competitively v. the higher HP mid frames so dealers like my friend can move some (thankfully he only preordered two). I also think that JD did a big disservice to the 3120 by coming out with the 3203. Interestingly, it has the 32 hp engine, I wonder why that would be?
John M
I do not think a 3120 is misrepresented as a bad tractor. I also believe there exists a market for the tractor, lest JD not make it. They have a very good marketing and sales department. The main problem I have with the 3120 is that it is priced very close to the more powerful tractors. I wish JD would delineate the pricing a bit more so they could sell more of them. I noted in a previous post that my dealer who sells a boatload of tractors says he cannot sell them well. The only explanation either he or I have for that is the lower HP relative to the cost. My dealer might be an anomaly, but I doubt it. Looking at other dealers in my area, they all seem to have some 3120's on the lot that they cannot move. That said, I think the 3120 is an excellent machine. If one does not have a huge amount of PTO work to be done, or might be interested in stepping from a small frame compact to a mid frame without spending a lot more money, or lives in a relatively flat area, I think the 3120 is a great choice. You are exactly correct in the fact that the 3120 has just as much hydraulic flow for attachments as the higher horse mid-frames. So thusly, if one has a backhoe and is digging all day, the 3120 would do just as well as a 3720 at less cost. I think that one has to look at the tasks a machine is going to do and buy accordingly. For me and where I live, a 3120 would struggle some, but say for my dad who lives in a flatter area, it would be fine. I posted in the general forum about six months ago about this very question: "how does horsepower affect performance?" and the answers were varied and points of view very interesting. It also was one of the more popular discussions in that segment, so obviously there is some debate. In short, I think the 3120, specifically your 3120, is a very nice machine. I am glad you have one and I know it does well for you. I feel JD needs to price the 3120 more competitively v. the higher HP mid frames so dealers like my friend can move some (thankfully he only preordered two). I also think that JD did a big disservice to the 3120 by coming out with the 3203. Interestingly, it has the 32 hp engine, I wonder why that would be?
John M
jcmseven
Veteran Member
G-
I do not think a 3120 is misrepresented as a bad tractor. I also believe there exists a market for the tractor, lest JD not make it. They have a very good marketing and sales department. The main problem I have with the 3120 is that it is priced very close to the more powerful tractors. I wish JD would delineate the pricing a bit more so they could sell more of them. I noted in a previous post that my dealer who sells a boatload of tractors says he cannot sell them well. The only explanation either he or I have for that is the lower HP relative to the cost. My dealer might be an anomaly, but I doubt it. Looking at other dealers in my area, they all seem to have some 3120's on the lot that they cannot move. That said, I think the 3120 is an excellent machine. If one does not have a huge amount of PTO work to be done, or might be interested in stepping from a small frame compact to a mid frame without spending a lot more money, or lives in a relatively flat area, I think the 3120 is a great choice. You are exactly correct in the fact that the 3120 has just as much hydraulic flow for attachments as the higher horse mid-frames. So thusly, if one has a backhoe and is digging all day, the 3120 would do just as well as a 3720 at less cost. I think that one has to look at the tasks a machine is going to do and buy accordingly. For me and where I live, a 3120 would struggle some, but say for my dad who lives in a flatter area, it would be fine. I posted in the general forum about six months ago about this very question: "how does horsepower affect performance?" and the answers were varied and points of view very interesting. It also was one of the more popular discussions in that segment, so obviously there is some debate. In short, I think the 3120, specifically your 3120, is a very nice machine. I am glad you have one and I know it does well for you. I feel JD needs to price the 3120 more competitively v. the higher HP mid frames so dealers like my friend can move some (thankfully he only preordered two). I also think that JD did a big disservice to the 3120 by coming out with the 3203. Interestingly, it has the 32 hp engine, I wonder why that would be?
John M
I do not think a 3120 is misrepresented as a bad tractor. I also believe there exists a market for the tractor, lest JD not make it. They have a very good marketing and sales department. The main problem I have with the 3120 is that it is priced very close to the more powerful tractors. I wish JD would delineate the pricing a bit more so they could sell more of them. I noted in a previous post that my dealer who sells a boatload of tractors says he cannot sell them well. The only explanation either he or I have for that is the lower HP relative to the cost. My dealer might be an anomaly, but I doubt it. Looking at other dealers in my area, they all seem to have some 3120's on the lot that they cannot move. That said, I think the 3120 is an excellent machine. If one does not have a huge amount of PTO work to be done, or might be interested in stepping from a small frame compact to a mid frame without spending a lot more money, or lives in a relatively flat area, I think the 3120 is a great choice. You are exactly correct in the fact that the 3120 has just as much hydraulic flow for attachments as the higher horse mid-frames. So thusly, if one has a backhoe and is digging all day, the 3120 would do just as well as a 3720 at less cost. I think that one has to look at the tasks a machine is going to do and buy accordingly. For me and where I live, a 3120 would struggle some, but say for my dad who lives in a flatter area, it would be fine. I posted in the general forum about six months ago about this very question: "how does horsepower affect performance?" and the answers were varied and points of view very interesting. It also was one of the more popular discussions in that segment, so obviously there is some debate. In short, I think the 3120, specifically your 3120, is a very nice machine. I am glad you have one and I know it does well for you. I feel JD needs to price the 3120 more competitively v. the higher HP mid frames so dealers like my friend can move some (thankfully he only preordered two). I also think that JD did a big disservice to the 3120 by coming out with the 3203. Interestingly, it has the 32 hp engine, I wonder why that would be?
John M
Great hypothesis, when I purchased my 3120 I knew nothing of the 3000 series I was there looking at a 4115. The dealer showed me the 3120 claimimg it was a better choice for the money. I'm glad I went ahead a went above what I was there for. (not to say the 4115 wouldent of been nice). Deere did a really good job on the 3020 series of tractors. The more I operate it the more it grows on me. I agree deere kind of messed up with the pricing vs HP thing, kinda puts the 3120 at lesser odds. But at any cost you cant go wrong with this tractor lineup. I will say that at 200 RPM my 3120 will soar up the hill in my back yard, pulls itself well. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
Great hypothesis, when I purchased my 3120 I knew nothing of the 3000 series I was there looking at a 4115. The dealer showed me the 3120 claimimg it was a better choice for the money. I'm glad I went ahead a went above what I was there for. (not to say the 4115 wouldent of been nice). Deere did a really good job on the 3020 series of tractors. The more I operate it the more it grows on me. I agree deere kind of messed up with the pricing vs HP thing, kinda puts the 3120 at lesser odds. But at any cost you cant go wrong with this tractor lineup. I will say that at 200 RPM my 3120 will soar up the hill in my back yard, pulls itself well. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
6or7dazeaweek
Silver Member
Garrabo: I posted that I went to the dealer to order the 3120 and ended up ordering the 3520....not because the 3120 was a bad machine or underpowered, but because the dealer told me that the 3120 "probably would run" a flail mower but perhaps at a reduced speed. Now, trying to corelate his words into should, or could, and looking at Deere's specs as to running a flail mower, I decided to go for the extra PTO HP of the 3520 for when I do get the flail mower. It was my future needs that dictated that I spend a bit more on the 3520 right from the gitgo.
If I had not had a need to run a flail mower, the 3120 would have been my tractor of choice. Now that being said, my dealer said that he thought the 3120 would be a hot seller in our area....but not so. He is selling two 3520's for every 3120....so pricing may be an issue here.
Now I'm starting to get anxious for the delivery of the new tool.
Jon
If I had not had a need to run a flail mower, the 3120 would have been my tractor of choice. Now that being said, my dealer said that he thought the 3120 would be a hot seller in our area....but not so. He is selling two 3520's for every 3120....so pricing may be an issue here.
Now I'm starting to get anxious for the delivery of the new tool.
Jon
6or7dazeaweek
Silver Member
Garrabo: I posted that I went to the dealer to order the 3120 and ended up ordering the 3520....not because the 3120 was a bad machine or underpowered, but because the dealer told me that the 3120 "probably would run" a flail mower but perhaps at a reduced speed. Now, trying to corelate his words into should, or could, and looking at Deere's specs as to running a flail mower, I decided to go for the extra PTO HP of the 3520 for when I do get the flail mower. It was my future needs that dictated that I spend a bit more on the 3520 right from the gitgo.
If I had not had a need to run a flail mower, the 3120 would have been my tractor of choice. Now that being said, my dealer said that he thought the 3120 would be a hot seller in our area....but not so. He is selling two 3520's for every 3120....so pricing may be an issue here.
Now I'm starting to get anxious for the delivery of the new tool.
Jon
If I had not had a need to run a flail mower, the 3120 would have been my tractor of choice. Now that being said, my dealer said that he thought the 3120 would be a hot seller in our area....but not so. He is selling two 3520's for every 3120....so pricing may be an issue here.
Now I'm starting to get anxious for the delivery of the new tool.
Jon
jcmseven
Veteran Member
It is interesting that the only two attachments listed in the attachment brochure for the mid frames for which the 3120 is not rated are the flail mower and the sickle bar. My neighbor ran a sickle cutter for two years here clipping the roadside with his 4210, which has 26.5 hp. Also, one thing of note: we talk about HP, but torque is really the name of the game. At about 56 lb-ft of torque, the new 3120 is 1 lb-ft. shy of the older 4310, which was one of the most popular tractors ever sold by JD. Interesting how power corrupts, as we did just fine on machines before that some now consider underpowered. I have to also admit this myself.
John M
John M
jcmseven
Veteran Member
It is interesting that the only two attachments listed in the attachment brochure for the mid frames for which the 3120 is not rated are the flail mower and the sickle bar. My neighbor ran a sickle cutter for two years here clipping the roadside with his 4210, which has 26.5 hp. Also, one thing of note: we talk about HP, but torque is really the name of the game. At about 56 lb-ft of torque, the new 3120 is 1 lb-ft. shy of the older 4310, which was one of the most popular tractors ever sold by JD. Interesting how power corrupts, as we did just fine on machines before that some now consider underpowered. I have to also admit this myself.
John M
John M
DayDreamer
Bronze Member
- Joined
- May 13, 2004
- Messages
- 52
Thanks for bringing this issue up Garrabo. As a 3120 owner with 60 hours of seat time, I tend to agree the 3120 doesn't seem to get any respect. The point that jcmseven made on the hydraulic flow rating being the same for 3X20's is important and one that influenced my buying decision when comparing it to an orange colored tractor.
One thing I've noticed is how little fuel the 3120 uses. The comparison per JD specs @ 100% load is listed below:
3120 - 1.9 gal/hr
3203 - 2.1 gal/hr
3320 - 2.0 gal/hr
3520 - 2.4 gal/hr
3720 - 2.8 gal/hr
The other interesting comparison is torque:
3120 - 55.6 @ 2600 rpm
3203 - 55.6 @ 2800 rpm
3320 - 61.6 @ 2600 rpm
3520 - 71.1 @ 2600 rpm
3720 - 84.3 @ 2600 rpm
Notice the 3203 gets it's number based on a higher rpm than the others.
The other models get higher torque numbers, but, they also increase their fuel usage. One nice part of being a 3120 owner is I'll make less stops for fuel. At the end of the day I'll get the some amount of work done than if I was using the higher end 3x20's. I use it with the 300CX FEL and the 448 backhoe to move lots of dirt and rock around. It hasn't failed me yet and I expect many years of trouble free service from it.
One thing I've noticed is how little fuel the 3120 uses. The comparison per JD specs @ 100% load is listed below:
3120 - 1.9 gal/hr
3203 - 2.1 gal/hr
3320 - 2.0 gal/hr
3520 - 2.4 gal/hr
3720 - 2.8 gal/hr
The other interesting comparison is torque:
3120 - 55.6 @ 2600 rpm
3203 - 55.6 @ 2800 rpm
3320 - 61.6 @ 2600 rpm
3520 - 71.1 @ 2600 rpm
3720 - 84.3 @ 2600 rpm
Notice the 3203 gets it's number based on a higher rpm than the others.
The other models get higher torque numbers, but, they also increase their fuel usage. One nice part of being a 3120 owner is I'll make less stops for fuel. At the end of the day I'll get the some amount of work done than if I was using the higher end 3x20's. I use it with the 300CX FEL and the 448 backhoe to move lots of dirt and rock around. It hasn't failed me yet and I expect many years of trouble free service from it.
DayDreamer
Bronze Member
- Joined
- May 13, 2004
- Messages
- 52
Thanks for bringing this issue up Garrabo. As a 3120 owner with 60 hours of seat time, I tend to agree the 3120 doesn't seem to get any respect. The point that jcmseven made on the hydraulic flow rating being the same for 3X20's is important and one that influenced my buying decision when comparing it to an orange colored tractor.
One thing I've noticed is how little fuel the 3120 uses. The comparison per JD specs @ 100% load is listed below:
3120 - 1.9 gal/hr
3203 - 2.1 gal/hr
3320 - 2.0 gal/hr
3520 - 2.4 gal/hr
3720 - 2.8 gal/hr
The other interesting comparison is torque:
3120 - 55.6 @ 2600 rpm
3203 - 55.6 @ 2800 rpm
3320 - 61.6 @ 2600 rpm
3520 - 71.1 @ 2600 rpm
3720 - 84.3 @ 2600 rpm
Notice the 3203 gets it's number based on a higher rpm than the others.
The other models get higher torque numbers, but, they also increase their fuel usage. One nice part of being a 3120 owner is I'll make less stops for fuel. At the end of the day I'll get the some amount of work done than if I was using the higher end 3x20's. I use it with the 300CX FEL and the 448 backhoe to move lots of dirt and rock around. It hasn't failed me yet and I expect many years of trouble free service from it.
One thing I've noticed is how little fuel the 3120 uses. The comparison per JD specs @ 100% load is listed below:
3120 - 1.9 gal/hr
3203 - 2.1 gal/hr
3320 - 2.0 gal/hr
3520 - 2.4 gal/hr
3720 - 2.8 gal/hr
The other interesting comparison is torque:
3120 - 55.6 @ 2600 rpm
3203 - 55.6 @ 2800 rpm
3320 - 61.6 @ 2600 rpm
3520 - 71.1 @ 2600 rpm
3720 - 84.3 @ 2600 rpm
Notice the 3203 gets it's number based on a higher rpm than the others.
The other models get higher torque numbers, but, they also increase their fuel usage. One nice part of being a 3120 owner is I'll make less stops for fuel. At the end of the day I'll get the some amount of work done than if I was using the higher end 3x20's. I use it with the 300CX FEL and the 448 backhoe to move lots of dirt and rock around. It hasn't failed me yet and I expect many years of trouble free service from it.
The problem is Deere probably doesn't have room to go lower on the 3120 price as it costs nearly the same for them to make as a 3320. When shopping it's hard to pass up the alure of the extra power unless you feel the 3120 has more power than you'll ever need. But most people do things with their tractor that requires power, so it makes a lot of sense to make sure you have enough.
When comparing fuel consumption, don't compare 100% load on tractors with different power ratings. The more powerful tractors are doing more work at 100% load than the less powerful ones. When looking at the 4320 versus the 4520 the 4520 is more efficient than the 4320 at any given power output, from lowly 5 horse all the way up to the 4320's max power. So the 4520 is more fuel efficient unless the operator chooses to burn that extra fuel... which is always a good option to have.
Another advantage of the more powerful tractors is the ability to run them at lower RPM for less noise.
The best way to pick a tractor is to decide how much PTO horse you need, how much FEL capacity, how much 3point lift, what implements you want to run... and then go find a tractor that meets ALL those criteria. Then look make sure the next model up isn't close in price /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
When comparing fuel consumption, don't compare 100% load on tractors with different power ratings. The more powerful tractors are doing more work at 100% load than the less powerful ones. When looking at the 4320 versus the 4520 the 4520 is more efficient than the 4320 at any given power output, from lowly 5 horse all the way up to the 4320's max power. So the 4520 is more fuel efficient unless the operator chooses to burn that extra fuel... which is always a good option to have.
Another advantage of the more powerful tractors is the ability to run them at lower RPM for less noise.
The best way to pick a tractor is to decide how much PTO horse you need, how much FEL capacity, how much 3point lift, what implements you want to run... and then go find a tractor that meets ALL those criteria. Then look make sure the next model up isn't close in price /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
The problem is Deere probably doesn't have room to go lower on the 3120 price as it costs nearly the same for them to make as a 3320. When shopping it's hard to pass up the alure of the extra power unless you feel the 3120 has more power than you'll ever need. But most people do things with their tractor that requires power, so it makes a lot of sense to make sure you have enough.
When comparing fuel consumption, don't compare 100% load on tractors with different power ratings. The more powerful tractors are doing more work at 100% load than the less powerful ones. When looking at the 4320 versus the 4520 the 4520 is more efficient than the 4320 at any given power output, from lowly 5 horse all the way up to the 4320's max power. So the 4520 is more fuel efficient unless the operator chooses to burn that extra fuel... which is always a good option to have.
Another advantage of the more powerful tractors is the ability to run them at lower RPM for less noise.
The best way to pick a tractor is to decide how much PTO horse you need, how much FEL capacity, how much 3point lift, what implements you want to run... and then go find a tractor that meets ALL those criteria. Then look make sure the next model up isn't close in price /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
When comparing fuel consumption, don't compare 100% load on tractors with different power ratings. The more powerful tractors are doing more work at 100% load than the less powerful ones. When looking at the 4320 versus the 4520 the 4520 is more efficient than the 4320 at any given power output, from lowly 5 horse all the way up to the 4320's max power. So the 4520 is more fuel efficient unless the operator chooses to burn that extra fuel... which is always a good option to have.
Another advantage of the more powerful tractors is the ability to run them at lower RPM for less noise.
The best way to pick a tractor is to decide how much PTO horse you need, how much FEL capacity, how much 3point lift, what implements you want to run... and then go find a tractor that meets ALL those criteria. Then look make sure the next model up isn't close in price /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
jcmseven
Veteran Member
Cargun makes a very good point. I had a 4310, which would be pretty close torque wise to the current 3120. I had to run the tractor at significantly higher RPM to accomplish the tasks that my current 3720 (or the one I had before) will do at a lower RPM. My impression is that the 3720 in my real world usage at MY place does not consume fuel at a faster pace than the 4310 I had did. In fact, I think it uses less fuel in most circumstances. Now, the 4520 I had would use a fair amount of fuel. It was not a fuel hog by any stretch, but it used a good bit more than any of the Yanmar engine JD's I have owned.
John M
John M
jcmseven
Veteran Member
Cargun makes a very good point. I had a 4310, which would be pretty close torque wise to the current 3120. I had to run the tractor at significantly higher RPM to accomplish the tasks that my current 3720 (or the one I had before) will do at a lower RPM. My impression is that the 3720 in my real world usage at MY place does not consume fuel at a faster pace than the 4310 I had did. In fact, I think it uses less fuel in most circumstances. Now, the 4520 I had would use a fair amount of fuel. It was not a fuel hog by any stretch, but it used a good bit more than any of the Yanmar engine JD's I have owned.
John M
John M
BloomingtonMike
Platinum Member
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2004
- Messages
- 788
- Tractor
- John Deere 3320
I think one tactic used to sell the 3120 is dress them up and have them ready to go with a 300CX, 3rd valve, mid pto, etc.
The lots around here have some 3120s fixed up and the 3320s sitting waiting to be customized. Solves two needs - one to allow the 3320s to be built to order for those with plenty of time on their hands and two to send to the field for those with the money and need but not a lot of time.
Another thing I have noticed with my local dealer - he is still selling 2210 instead of 2305s and 2520s - he has them and does not want to showcase the others until they are gone.
I went about an hour south and they had the full lineup.
I still think the 3120 is a great tractors - just too close in price to the 3320 - or was - It may be a wider price gap by now.
The lots around here have some 3120s fixed up and the 3320s sitting waiting to be customized. Solves two needs - one to allow the 3320s to be built to order for those with plenty of time on their hands and two to send to the field for those with the money and need but not a lot of time.
Another thing I have noticed with my local dealer - he is still selling 2210 instead of 2305s and 2520s - he has them and does not want to showcase the others until they are gone.
I went about an hour south and they had the full lineup.
I still think the 3120 is a great tractors - just too close in price to the 3320 - or was - It may be a wider price gap by now.
BloomingtonMike
Platinum Member
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2004
- Messages
- 788
- Tractor
- John Deere 3320
I think one tactic used to sell the 3120 is dress them up and have them ready to go with a 300CX, 3rd valve, mid pto, etc.
The lots around here have some 3120s fixed up and the 3320s sitting waiting to be customized. Solves two needs - one to allow the 3320s to be built to order for those with plenty of time on their hands and two to send to the field for those with the money and need but not a lot of time.
Another thing I have noticed with my local dealer - he is still selling 2210 instead of 2305s and 2520s - he has them and does not want to showcase the others until they are gone.
I went about an hour south and they had the full lineup.
I still think the 3120 is a great tractors - just too close in price to the 3320 - or was - It may be a wider price gap by now.
The lots around here have some 3120s fixed up and the 3320s sitting waiting to be customized. Solves two needs - one to allow the 3320s to be built to order for those with plenty of time on their hands and two to send to the field for those with the money and need but not a lot of time.
Another thing I have noticed with my local dealer - he is still selling 2210 instead of 2305s and 2520s - he has them and does not want to showcase the others until they are gone.
I went about an hour south and they had the full lineup.
I still think the 3120 is a great tractors - just too close in price to the 3320 - or was - It may be a wider price gap by now.
I bought a 3320 because that was the smallest tractor they sold with a.c..What I believe is with all the electronics on the machine, power wasn't any problem. If I could have bought the 3120 w/air I would have. I'm seeing JD coming out with cheaper machines now to compete against the other competetors. About time, and maybe we will be remembered as the people who still believed.
I bought a 3320 because that was the smallest tractor they sold with a.c..What I believe is with all the electronics on the machine, power wasn't any problem. If I could have bought the 3120 w/air I would have. I'm seeing JD coming out with cheaper machines now to compete against the other competetors. About time, and maybe we will be remembered as the people who still believed.
