LD 3x20 series...Attachment width?

[TMR]

I am a bit confused by the JD web site...what size box blade or brush hog will overlap the tread pattern a bit?...say 2-4" on each side?...3x20 series.

I guess the question is what is the outside tread width with Industrial and with AG tires?

Thanks...TMR

 

[foggy1111]

The tire widths are a bit confusing as the wheels can be re-positoned for alternate widths. This is especailly confusing on the R1 tires as with them comes multi-position wheels.

The R4 tires / wheels have two posiitons....and the widest will provide just under 60" tread width (I think its 59.5). I have a five foot box blade and it just covers the wheel tracks. (same is true for 5' RC and 5' tiller)

Also, there are two tire sizes for the R4 tires (I have the larger ones) and I believe 2 sizes for the R1 tires too. I don't think this affects the width too much...but that is partly where the confusion comes in.

A six foot box blade may be better for the R1 tires, depending on how you set the wheels. It takes a little time with the tire sizes on the JD site to get good numbers. I have seen some charts posted by others.....

I prefer the five foot box blade as I use mine more for a quasi-ballast box when doing FEL work. I hang a few suitcase weights on it (about 300# on the "inside" brackets) and have a receiver hitch on mine. The size does not seem to interfere too badly when operating in close quarters.

 

[TMR]

The tire widths are a bit confusing as the wheels can be re-positoned for alternate widths. This is especailly confusing on the R1 tires as with them comes multi-position wheels.

The R4 tires / wheels have two posiitons....and the widest will provide just under 60" tread width (I think its 59.5). I have a five foot box blade and it just covers the wheel tracks. (same is true for 5' RC and 5' tiller)

A six foot box blade may be better for the R1 tires, depending on how you set the wheels. It takes a little time with the tire sizes on the JD site to get good numbers. I have seen some charts posted by others.....

I prefer the five foot box blade as I use mine more for a quasi-ballast box when doing FEL work. I hang a few suitcase weights on it (about 300# on the "inside" brackets) and have a receiver hitch on mine. The size does not seem to interfere too badly when operating in close quarters.

Thanks Foggy...I have followed your posts...you have similar environment that I have...total 120 acres with one mile of 60"+ trails and only 3-4 acres of "field".

My goal is to work the "woods"...particularly the 10-15' contiguous to the trails...and make some more trails and put in a couple of food plots...not particularly for hunting...just to watch deer. also will need to box blade some of the trails to smooth them out a bit.

Land is mostly gravel based so should be somewhat "workable...compared to clay.

I get nervous about frame size...is the 3x20 series good for the "woods" and is a 60" attachment wide enough for the 3x20 series...probably R4 tires since I think I will be driving over some pretty sharp "stuff".

Thanks...TMR

 

[foggy1111]

I had a JD 790 with R1 tires before buying my 3320 with R4 tires. It was really hard for me to go to the R4's as I thought I needed the traction.

About the only need for high traction comes with ground engaging stuff - a plow and a disc. I have a smaller width disc and have never wanted more for traction with the disc. I don't use a plow anymore....as my soil is too sandy underneath. I find using a tiller seems to take care of most of my needs in this area. So.....the high traction needs simply don't exist for me.....as I thought they might. (also the 3320 has much more weight and pulls far better than my old 790)

This may be different if you have a need in snow....but then there are always chains. :thumbsup:

That's my take on the R1 vs R4 issue. I'm happy.

 

[TMR]

I had a JD 790 with R1 tires before buying my 3320 with R4 tires. It was really hard for me to go to the R4's as I thought I needed the traction.

About the only need for high traction comes with ground engaging stuff - a plow and a disc. I have a smaller width disc and have never wanted more for traction with the disc. I don't use a plow anymore....as my soil is too sandy underneath. I find using a tiller seems to take care of most of my needs in this area. So.....the high traction needs simply don't exist for me.....as I thought they might. (also the 3320 has much more weight and pulls far better than my old 790)

This may be different if you have a need in snow....but then there are always chains. :thumbsup:

That's my take on the R1 vs R4 issue. I'm happy.

No snow work in my near term future...have a neighbor that plows for us and is very good and not very expensive. If I need to clear the snow in the future I would likely go with chains and a front snowblower...my neck is too old to look backwards

How much of an irritant do you think it would be if the brush hog does not overlap the tire tread? I just don't think I want 72" attachments??? Would strongly prefer 60"?

Thanks...TMR

 

[foggy1111]

No snow work in my near term future...have a neighbor that plows for us and is very good and not very expensive. If I need to clear the snow in the future I would likely go with chains and a front snowblower...my neck is too old to look backwards

How much of an irritant do you think it would be if the brush hog does not overlap the tire tread? I just don't think I want 72" attachments??? Would strongly prefer 60"?

Thanks...TMR

If I were doing allot of work around buildings and fences like a homeowner or farmer....then I think I would want to have the extra inches a six foot implement provides. That way you could get closer to the buildings and stuff.

For mowing in the woods and grush....as long as I cover my wheel tracks I am good to go. In fact I prefer that the implements don't protrude as much so I get through tight spots better in the woods.

I can likely mow a bit faster to make up for the reduced width and implements cost less too. For my purposes I doubt if time is saved with one or the other width...maybe a bit more time to mow my clover?

 

[TMR]

If I were doing allot of work around buildings and fences like a homeowner or farmer....then I think I would want to have the extra inches a six foot implement provides. That way you could get closer to the buildings and stuff.

For mowing in the woods and grush....as long as I cover my wheel tracks I am good to go. In fact I prefer that the implements don't protrude as much so I get through tight spots better in the woods.

I can likely mow a bit faster to make up for the reduced width and implements cost less too. For my purposes I doubt if time is saved with one or the other width...maybe a bit more time to mow my clover?

Thanks Foggy...I think the concept of the tractor making it between two trees and getting hung up on the brush hog is a real issue. I also do not have "volume" of work to do. One rule of my "woods" hobby is that I do it because I enjoy it...NOT because I "have to get it done"...that would become "work".

Seems like there are quite a few 30-40HP tractors in green and orange that have about a 60" tread width...to go to those that have say a 50" tread width would start to put me into tractors that may not deliver when I ask for more power and some extra weight.

BTW...you ARE my attachment "guru"...and I think you do much of what I hope to do...albeit you are on a larger scale ...Thanks...TMR

 

[jeffster]

I have a 3520 and I use different width implements depending on what I want. I mostly use this on my 5 acres with the house and 40 acres up the road that we have cows and a barn on. Now, for my box blade, I use a 60" and it is perfect and easily covers my tracks. I have a lot of fir trees on my 5 acres and it is awesome for fitting between the trees (and on that note I wanted a 4x20, but it would be too big). Also, I just cleaned the barn out the other day and the box blade works great for tight spots and am glad it isn't any wider or I would have issues. Now, for tilling I have a 665 and it is plenty wide. My neighbor has a 673, but I think the 665 is perfect for the 3x20 tractors. Hope this helps.

 

[TMR]

I have a 3520 and I use different width implements depending on what I want. I mostly use this on my 5 acres with the house and 40 acres up the road that we have cows and a barn on. Now, for my box blade, I use a 60" and it is perfect and easily covers my tracks. I have a lot of fir trees on my 5 acres and it is awesome for fitting between the trees (and on that note I wanted a 4x20, but it would be too big). Also, I just cleaned the barn out the other day and the box blade works great for tight spots and am glad it isn't any wider or I would have issues. Now, for tilling I have a 665 and it is plenty wide. My neighbor has a 673, but I think the 665 is perfect for the 3x20 tractors. Hope this helps.

I drove a 3320 today and spoke with the dealer. I think the 60" implements would work quite well with 3x20 series. Dealer tried to sell me on the 3320...vs 3520 or 3720 (all same frame)...maybe because he had 3 3320s and non of the other (w/o cab).

Very nice tractor. TMR

 

[jeffster]

Well, I had originally planned on buying the 3320. It was plenty for what I needed and wasn't a bad price. However, they had a special order 3520 that the customer backed out of and they only had another couple of weeks to sell it or they would have to pay for it from Deere (or so the story goes). Either way it was brand new and was cheaper than the 3320 I was looking at, so that was a no brainer. Most people seem to be buying hydros but I grew up on geared tractors so I had no issue going with the 3520 with the PR.

Also, FWIW, the 3320 is far and away the most common of the 3x20 tractors, at least here in the NW. I see 10 of those for every 3520 or 3720 I see. I have yet to ever see a 3120.