Help - 3320 vs 4120

Flyinghunter · Dec 16, 2006

Greetings all. I am new to the forum and this is my first post. I would appreciate your advice. I live on 50 acres and primarily use an old 2040 to boxblade a 1 mile long gravel drive, bushog around 20 acres, maintain trails and plant food plots. I've decided to go with a new tractor. My dealer quoted me $16,000 for an E-Hydo 3320 w/R4's and cruise and $19,700 for a 4120 w/the same specs. My dealer thinks the 3320 is a little small for the job. I'm leaning toward the 3320 because I like the smaller (more maneuverable) size and think the horsepower will get the job done. Also, this will be a keeper ie.. till death do us part.I plan to make this purchase in the next week or two. In advance, thank you for your help in deciding.

radman1 · Dec 16, 2006

My pick is the 4120 for that many acres and 1 mile of road maintenance. The extra hp and weight would be great. For mowing 20 acres, the 3000 series have smaller tires and stance are more tiresome on uneven ground. The overall length and size of the 4000 series to me is close enough to the 3000 series that manuverbility won't be an issue with those jobs. My only complaint with the 4000 series is the louder engine noise but that is for you to decide.

wolc123 · Dec 17, 2006

I suggest that you go with R1 tires because you do not mention lawnmowing as one of your uses. R4's will severely handicap your tractor for your "foodplotting" use. These tires give poor traction in mud, snow or tilled soil compared to R1's. They compromise traction in order to minimize turf damage for people who must also use their tractor on the lawn. R4's are slightly more puncture resistant in the woods, but this advantage is small compared to the traction disadvantage. Also get the rear tires loaded to further improve traction and stability especially with a front loader. The 4120 is offered with 28" rear R1's or 24" rear R4's. Those taller R1's will be a big advantage for all of your listed uses. The 3320 would have an advantage over the 4120 due to its lighter weight for lawnmowing or trailering but since you don't mention these, the 4120 wins no contest.

jcmseven · Dec 17, 2006

I have had both a large frame: 4520; and mid frames: 4310 and two 3720's. For where I live a 3720 is a better machine. I have many tight areas which the 3720 can fit into. It is true, the 4120 in your case would be about as manuverable, but it is not as easy to see around as the smaller machine. The 3320 would do everything you listed--but not as fast as the 4120 and the large frame machine really does ground breaking work and work requiring of frame weight a fair bit better than a 3320 would. To me they also ride much better and seem more stable when doing loader work. If you are planning to keep the machine, by ALL MEANS, go with the 4120. It is the machine for your needs without a doubt. For me, I trade more often than I should but through experience have realized the mid frame machines have their place--just not at YOUR place.

John M

BleedGreen · Dec 17, 2006

IMHO you should go with the 4120 - hands down...

To begin with, if you are looking at the 4120 (43.1 gross HP), you should be comparing it to the 3720 (44 gross eng HP) or at least the 3520 (37 eng HP) and not the 3320.

List price on a 4120 w/R1's and eHydro = $23,234.00 Same for 3720 = $22,159.00 and the 3520 = $20,094.00

For roughly $1,000.00 additional (or 3K with the 3520) you get so much more tractor!!!

Engine 4120 - 4 cyl, 148.9 cu. in. (2.44 liter) Deere PowerTech
Engine 35/3720 - 3 cyl, 95.1 cu. in. (1.5 liter) Yanmar

Torque 4120 - 95 ft/lb / 3720 84.3 ft/lb / 3520 - 71.1 ft/lb

Rated Eng Speed 4120 - 2,400 rpm / 35 & 3720 - 2,600 rpm

Fuel Consumption @ 100% Load 4120 - 2.46 gal/hr / 3720 - 2.8 gal/hr / 3520 - 2.4 gal/hr

Hydraulic Output 4120 - 17.1 gpm / 35 & 3720 - 13.9 gpm

The Deere PowerTech engine should outlast the Yanmar hands down - as well as outperforming it at a lower rpm while using less fuel. Also, the 4120 has a flanged rear axle and a planetary Final Drive, whereas the 35 & 3720 have a helical gear Final Drive - and the 4120 only weighs 600 lbs more! Add in the extra 3 1/2 inches of wheelbase & 13 inches of width and the 4120 is a much more stable and smooth riding tractor!

Well, it is just my two cents - but if this is gonna be the last tractor you own - I would highly recommend the 4120... Thanks for reading!

Jomo45 · Dec 18, 2006

Thanks for the great post Bleedgreen!! I'm not even remotely in the market for a new tractor, but I appreciate the excellent comparison!! (I wasn't aware just how much more tractor the 4120 is)

Flyinghunter · Dec 19, 2006

Thanks everyone for the feedback and help. I plan on placing an order for the 4120 this weekend at the local dealer. For those interested, I received a quote for $19,750 for the EHydro-4120 w R4's (as I do plan to mow with a RFM), front grille guard, and imatch attachment. I plan to counter with $19,500 if he fills the rear tires as this seems what many recommend. I'm wide open for any last minute tips. Merry Christmas to all.

Kahuna · Dec 19, 2006

I bought a 3320 this fall and am totally satisfied with it. The 3320 has plenty of power for what I need and what I like is that it is so much more manouverable that a larger tractor. I would have liked the 4520 with a cab but I couldn't justify the extra $12,000 for that package. I got the 3320 e-hydro, cx loader with heavy duty bucket, I-match, optional cruise control, R4 tires, grill guard, and rear work light for $18,900. The loader itself was around $3400. The 4120 would be a good machine but I wouldn't write off the 3320 either. It will carry and pick up anything I can put into the bucket. I run a MX-6 mower and it seems to do fine although it is only rated for a MX-5. I guess it comes down to whatever your checkbook can carry. I know many people think bigger is better (as do I most of time) but the 3320 is a good machine and should be considered. I was doing some loader work and I am only burning a gallon of fuel per hour. Just a note, we had a cold spell (for Illinois) and it got down to 8 degrees. The 3320 fired right up with no hesitation. I also farm so have had a lot of diesels, none of my other tractors would ever start that well.

wolc123 · Dec 19, 2006

So you will use it on the lawn, that changes things a bit. The combination of lawn mowing and no front loader means you should not load the tires. When and if you decide to add a loader, you may also load the tires. A 3-pt ballast box would be a better option because it is best to minimize tractor weight for lawnmowing to minimize turf damage. It sounds like you are on the right track with the R4 tires based on this new info. Since you will be using a RFM instead of a MMM, the 4120 is still the better choice for your uses. A MMM would tilt the scale towards the 3320 which has a little better lift mechanism for this type mower. If I were in your shoes, I would go with a 4120 with loaded R1's and a seperate machine (zero turn mower) for lawmowing. I dont know what your ground is like, but if mud is ever a issue, those R4 tires are a real handicap for agricultural type work involved in foodplotting. A 4wd with R4's develops about the same traction as a 2wd of the same weight with R1's, kind of a waste of an expensive drive mechanism. You must be aware of this when choosing implements and downsize accordingly. If you are only doing a few acres it shouldnt be a big deal.