3320 vs 4005 Longevity

[Ursa Major]

I understand these are completly different tractors and I have researched both extensively. I am in the market to upgrade from my 2305. My use would be a mix of loader functions (mainly snow removal), some pto use (rotary mower and rototilling) and limited one bottom plowing (an acre or less).
Part of me really likes the 'old school' idea of base simplicity with the 4005 for its gears, extra horsepower and straight forward mechanics. Another part of me has really taken a shine to this hydro tranny I have with the 2305.
I had for several years a 8N Ford that I loved. I plowed and mowed well with it despite clutch/pto issue and its high range gearing. I also didn't mind shifting. Mind you, there was no loader involved.
I read here quite often. I've come to respect many of you for your informative posts. AKFish, Roy and others whose screen names I've forgoten come to mind as 'old schoolers' who know/knew their way around gears. As well, some of you make a great case for hydros/shuttles. I guess what nags at me is the longevity of high tech electronics and/or the feasibilty of farm based repairs. Is the 4005 truley the proverbial "tank" that I can rely on for decades? Is the 3x20 series parts/service going to be here for some time, and can the electronics stay healthy for decades? I hate to say it but I am on the fence.
I look forward to your comments.

 

[JDGreenGrass]

I would just have to buy the 4005. But that's me.

 

[AKfish]

Well... that is a dilemma, indeed! I truly enjoyed my JD 970TLB. Very capable, reliable, fuel efficient as all get out.

It also had a fully snychro tranny which the 4005 does not have. I discovered that the fully synchro tranny was really a "leg up" for loader work versus the partial synchro (1st and reverse) tranny. With a bucket full, I could shift into 2nd or 3rd on the go - especially helpful with a distance to travel before dumping. The eHydro on the 3320 will greatly outperform the collar shift on the 4005 for loader work - IMO.

Don't know the specs for torque on the 2 engines. If I had to guess.. the 134cu.in. (same basic engine as my JD 110) in the 4005 should be a stronger "puller" than the 92cu.in. in the 3320. 'Course if you went up to the 37hp - 3520 - and a turbo maybe the torque specs would be closer.

Tie game here - 1 all.

I was very skeptical of the plastic body parts on the newer tractors. However, after 3 1/2 years of pretty tough work with my "plastic" 110 - I'd have to give the nod here to the 3320 for "longevity" of body components. I noticed after a few years that the joints or seams in the metal fenders, etc. on my 970 that they were beginning to rust. It would have only gotten worse...

2 to 1 score - favor 3320.

Electronics and computer control versus the old school controls. This question is likely a matter of what you enjoy/don't enjoy working on... I used to build computers from basic components and troubleshoot 'em. And I grew up "wrenching" on old beater farm tractors and cars/trucks... so, it's a "toss up" on my score card. Computer controls and digital interfaces are here to stay. Not gonna go back. The future for either tractor and part's support for each is something that no one can answer - IMO.

3 to 2 game - 3320 ahead.

Ergonomics - user friendly, comfort operating. That's a question that can only be answered by the person using the machine. Toss up.

4 to 3 score. Too close to call - likely go extra innings! Gonna require several visits to the dealer for a final score... :thumbsup:

AKfish

 

[om21braz]

IMHO, after using a e-hydro, it would be very hard for me to go another way. For precise control in tight spots, loader work in general, and the simplicity of use - hydro is hard to beat. Only if using ground engaging equipment much of the time, would I reconsider the options. Plus, if the past is any indicator, I would expect John Deere to be one of the companies to have parts available - but they won't be cheap.

 

[jwinner]

I've mainly lurked but I decided to post so it's a long one! Hah. I used to have a 790, but I sold it recently and just bought a new 4005. It's supposed to be delivered tomorrow actually. I don't see much about the 990/4005 on here, and I've browsed for three years or so. I think the gear tractors are something you just accept as part of doing a job, until you use hydro and then it spoils you. I avoid them for fear of no longer appreciating my machines and wanting the more expensive models! I paid about the same for the 4005 as the 3320 cost, and I got considerably more tractor with a nice 4 cylinder engine. The 790 was great for most things, but it just did not want to skid logs out of the woods all that well, and it hated to try and pick them up with forks. Needed something bigger with more loader capacity. Gears never really bothered me, but I will be glad for the 3 range collar shift versus the 2 range on the 790.

I guess my advice would be - I would be leery of getting a 4005 unless you have used tractors with a loader where you had to clutch and shift, and you are OK with that. I think repetetive loader tasks will be the biggest question between the two. It's all about what you want and what you can afford too. I would have bought a shuttle shift 4520 if I could have afforded it, but my wife already balked at the 4005

A little anecdote though I will admit it's not exactly applicable here. We also have diesel JD 997 mowers. Had one with about 30 hours on it that started wanting to go in circles all the time. Turns out those hydrostatic zero-turn radius mowers have an independent hydraulic pump for each of the two wheels. One of them failed after 30 hours. $5,000 for the pump. (covered under the warranty thank the Lord!) The whole machine was $15,000, so the two pumps "supposedly" would have accounted for 2/3 the value of the whole machine. The moral of the story is, the fewer pumps the better? Or maybe the moral is, everyone has a lemon once in a while. Of course, then there is our JD 5310 that the wheel fell off of a few days after delivery, oh and now the cab leaks and the A/C stopped working and no one wants to pay to fix that. So far the New Holland is doing much better...but I like the green paint better than the blue

 

[YesDeere]

I went from a 790 to a 4310. I don't think I could ever go back now. Loader work on the 790 was tedious. Those back to back storms two winters ago were the straw that broke this camels back. I did like the gears for tilling and mowing open areas though. "you pay your money and take your chances" my dear departed grandfather would say.

 

[RoyJackson]

"Old school", eh?

For the long term, I'd go with the 4005/990. Simple and powerful machine...not much to break and any diesel mechanic could work on it (if you have the tech manual).
Heck, if I could have found a used 990 a year ago, I doubt I'd have a 4400 now..but used 990s aren't found for sale too often...

BTW, AK...I'm pretty sure the 990/4005 tranny is the same one used in the 970, hence synchonized gears.

 

[ctlguy]

the 4wd 970 had a synchromesh trans std, was an option on 2wd. The 4005 is strictly a collarshift w/ out synchro.

 

[jwinner]

the 4wd 970 had a synchromesh trans std, was an option on 2wd. The 4005 is strictly a collarshift w/ out synchro.

The 990/4005 is partially synchronized. You can shift on the go between forward gears within the same range. To change ranges or shift between forward and reverse, you are supposed to stop first.

 

[AKfish]

The 990/4005 is partially synchronized. You can shift on the go between forward gears within the same range. To change ranges or shift between forward and reverse, you are supposed to stop first.

It's my understanding that you can ONLY shift between 1st and reverse (they're in a up/down direct pattern in the transmission) without stopping. Of course, if you're in B or C range then you'd be shifting from 4th or 7th gear to 2nd and 3rd reverse gear.

You have to stop if you shift out of 1st into say; 2nd or 3rd.

Back in the day - used to time it for the "feel" of the momentum of the tractor and shift those big Ag tractors without stopping all the time. Once in awhile; you'd get out of synch and it would grind pretty bad...

AKfish