JD 3520 vs NH TC35

[Fields_mj]

I need help choosing between a used John Deere 3520 and a used New Holland tc35. Both are about the same year about the same price in good condition and about the same distance from me. Both have loaders. Also available is a tc35da and a tc34da.

My initial thoughts are that the upside of John Deere is that it was made for a lot more years and it can use the 11.2x24 rear tires that I have for my Ford 1710.

What I like about the New Holland tc35 is that the loaders have the quick attach plates and they are rated for a higher lift capacity.

I don't put a lot of hours on the machines and I would use them to Bush Hog about 8 hours a year and also to plow snow and move logs and firewood with the loader (snow plow and forks for the loader).

I currently have a two-wheel drive Ford 1710 it's not in very good shape and the transmission is starting to have problems again and I don't want to jump another $1,500 into getting it rebuilt. I'm looking for something a little heavier because I would like to be able to lift an IBC Tote full of firewood. I already have the snow plow and forks that use a qa plate.

 

[WM75Guy]

Our TC40DA is my wife's tractor, we really like it. It is used to drag the arena before she rides. It is also my go-to tractor for lifting with the pallet forks and dirt work. The HST transmission is nice. The tractor has a little less than 1000 hours with very few problems. Simple stuff like a cruise control switch going bad or replacing a spring on the on the brake pedals. Parts are not an issue but like everything else, not cheap.

 

[spitter]

If you are looking to use it mainly for the loader and bush hogging, I would suggest to only by a Hydro. TC 35 is a Syncro Shuttle. The 3520 could either be a Syncro or a Hydro.

Next make shure the 3520 doesn't have a Proprietary loader and 3-point quick attach which would only allow you to by JD attachments.

A TC 34DA is a high horsepower class 2 tractor that uses a loader that will give you about a 300 lbs. less lift compacity than the TC35DA which is a low horsepower class 3 tractor.

Next checks the condition of the tires, blow by, hrs., etc.

Don't be in a hurry, do your research and you will be happier in the long run.

 

[super55]

I have a 2 older model John Deeres of similar size and do a lot of the tasks you are mentioning but if you have skid steer quick attach implements already then the NH would probably be the better bet because as mentioned above JD will have the JD quick attach setup.

Mine will lift an IBC tote of firewood but most of the time I use the 3 point pallet forks to move them. Even with ballast in the tires and wheel spacers moving all that weight on the front of the tractor especially in uneven terrain can really throw you around.

 

[Fields_mj]

I have a 2 older model John Deeres of similar size and do a lot of the tasks you are mentioning but if you have skid steer quick attach implements already then the NH would probably be the better bet because as mentioned above JD will have the JD quick attach setup.

Mine will lift an IBC tote of firewood but most of the time I use the 3 point pallet forks to move them. Even with ballast in the tires and wheel spacers moving all that weight on the front of the tractor especially in uneven terrain can really throw you around.

If I go with a JD, I'd plan on adding a skidsteer style quick attach, but that is extra $$, and does push the weight out farther.

For the totes, I'd plan on using the loader to stack and unstack them, but transport would likely be on the 3pt.

I've never used a shuttle shift. Only hydro and gears. My understanding is that shuttle shift is better or easier to use for loader work than the traditional gears, but hydro is easiest. I'm only concern about hydro is potentially damaging it by skidding heavy logs, or trying to pull a small plow or disk for a food plot

 

[71bronco]

I have a Kubota L3240DT with shuttle shirt. Bought in 2011. I love it and do with it exactly what you are planning. Brush hogging is easier with gears, just pick 1 and go. I've had no problems with loader work plus no whine of the tranny. Shuttle makes it easy.


Jeff

 

[jyoutz]

If I go with a JD, I'd plan on adding a skidsteer style quick attach, but that is extra $$, and does push the weight out farther.

For the totes, I'd plan on using the loader to stack and unstack them, but transport would likely be on the 3pt.

I've never used a shuttle shift. Only hydro and gears. My understanding is that shuttle shift is better or easier to use for loader work than the traditional gears, but hydro is easiest. I'm only concern about hydro is potentially damaging it by skidding heavy logs, or trying to pull a small plow or disk for a food plot

Why would you damage a hydro by skidding or plowing?

 

[super55]

If I go with a JD, I'd plan on adding a skidsteer style quick attach, but that is extra $$, and does push the weight out farther.

For the totes, I'd plan on using the loader to stack and unstack them, but transport would likely be on the 3pt.

I've never used a shuttle shift. Only hydro and gears. My understanding is that shuttle shift is better or easier to use for loader work than the traditional gears, but hydro is easiest. I'm only concern about hydro is potentially damaging it by skidding heavy logs, or trying to pull a small plow or disk for a food plot

If you driven a gear transmission a shuttle shift is an easy transition. I have tractors with all 3 transmission types and I prefer the shuttle shift/gear for 75% of the chores. The hydro really shines though when using the snowblower, baling hay and mucking manure out of the paddocks.

The big thing for me with hydro and pulling implements is hydro fade. When you get the fluid really warm the fluid viscosity starts to thin out. Granted my tractor has 3200 hrs on it but in 90+ degree days and if I am using heavy ground engagement equipment I will notice it after some time. The gear or shuttle shift its a non-issue. Plus I seem to get better fuel economy with the SS/gear because I don't have to keep the RPMs to keep maximum flow to the hydro pump.

 

[jyoutz]

If you driven a gear transmission a shuttle shift is an easy transition. I have tractors with all 3 transmission types and I prefer the shuttle shift/gear for 75% of the chores. The hydro really shines though when using the snowblower, baling hay and mucking manure out of the paddocks.

The big thing for me with hydro and pulling implements is hydro fade. When you get the fluid really warm the fluid viscosity starts to thin out. Granted my tractor has 3200 hrs on it but in 90+ degree days and if I am using heavy ground engagement equipment I will notice it after some time. The gear or shuttle shift its a non-issue. Plus I seem to get better fuel economy with the SS/gear because I don't have to keep the RPMs to keep maximum flow to the hydro pump.

I guess it depends on the machine hp regarding hydro fade. I’ve never encountered this when plowing or doing any ground engagement with my 60hp hydro tractor.

 

[oldnslo]

A hydrostatic is the least efficient at transferring power of the 3 transmission styles being considered.

A good hydrostatic trans is 80 - 85% efficient while gear systems should be in mid 90’s.

Like others have stated hydros shine for infinite speed adjustment but are less desirable for continuous heavy ground engagement type work but they will still get the job done.

The newer IVT or CVT are a hybrid of hydro to be a little more efficient

 

[jyoutz]

A hydrostatic is the least efficient at transferring power of the 3 transmission styles being considered.

A good hydrostatic trans is 80 - 85% efficient while gear systems should be in mid 90’s.

Like others have stated hydros shine for infinite speed adjustment but are less desirable for continuous heavy ground engagement type work but they will still get the job done.

The newer IVT or CVT are a hybrid of hydro to be a little more efficient

True, but even with the loss in pto hp, my machine still has 53 hp pto output, so I don’t worry about the loss. The same with ground engagement. My machine will rip through any hard ground with any of my implements, so I would rather have the HST. If a machine is on the marginal side of hp for the implement/job, then yes I could see wanting gears.

 

[Milo]

I bought a low hour 3520 and it came with bucket and JD quick attach. All my attachments are Skid Steer.
I looked at two options; buy the SSQA adapter to attach to the JDQA, or remove the JDQA and replace it with SSQA ends (Deere sells this). The adapter works but adds weight plus moves the weight further out. For these reasons I changed the ends to SSQA even though it cost a more than the adapter. I was able to sell the JDQA ends though.

As far as the tractor itself it has been completely trouble free, the only things I did was replace all fluids and filters when I got it. I use the loader about equally with a 72" bucket or grapple. The 300cx loader can lift that bucket completely heaped with stone which is enough for my needs.

 

[super55]

I guess it depends on the machine hp regarding hydro fade. I’ve never encountered this when plowing or doing any ground engagement with my 60hp hydro tractor.

I can only go off my experience. I have a 32 hp JD 4310 power-reverser (shuttle shift) and a 34 hp JD 4400 hydro that are only a year apart from when they were made. For task that require drawbar power like running a disc or small chisel plow the 4310 runs handles its so much better.

Big difference is when I hit the heavy stuff the gear trans will lug down and push through or maybe have to grab a lower gear but the engine can usually push through. With the hydro the transmission will go into relief long before the engine starts to lug down. I will say Hp does make a huge difference with hydros. I have a 48 hp JD 4700 hydro as well and that tractor has barely any of the "hydro whine" compared to the 4400 and is far stronger.