# JD 328 or Massey 1840 baler for my new JD 4066r



## Larkspur (Sep 5, 2015)

Hi everyone.

I'm new to the forum, and new to hay baling in general. I have around 40 acres to work with and have bought a JD 4066r tractor. I'd like to buy equipment to make hay, and would appreciate your opinion on a baler. I've received a couple of quotes, one for the JD 328 (~22k) and a Massey 1840 (~26k). I've got a couple of specific questions.

First, I know the 328 will work with my tractor, but not sure if the Massey would work. Anyone run a Massey with this size tractor? and second, does the price seem reasonable? Any strong opinion one versus another? I'm new and am not partial to any color or manufacturer.

Thanks.


----------



## FarmerCline (Oct 12, 2011)

That's not really a fair comparison between balers. Your comparing the lowest capacity JD baler to the highest capacity MF. The JD 348 would be comparable to the MF 1840 and the MF 1835 would be comparable to the JD 328.


----------



## Larkspur (Sep 5, 2015)

FarmerCline said:


> That's not really a fair comparison between balers. Your comparing the lowest capacity JD baler to the highest capacity MF. The JD 348 would be comparable to the MF 1840 and the MF 1835 would be comparable to the JD 328.


I think that the MF dealer recommended the 1840 was that it's within $1500 of the smaller baler when equipped similarly. I'm a bit concern that the 50 pto HP requirement is a bit much for my tractor. I live at around 7500 feet, and I'd doubt that the JD 4066r make anywhere near it's rated HP up here.


----------



## FarmerCline (Oct 12, 2011)

Larkspur said:


> I think that the MF dealer recommended the 1840 was that it's within $1500 of the smaller baler when equipped similarly. I'm a bit concern that the 50 pto HP requirement is a bit much for my tractor. I live at around 7500 feet, and I'd doubt that the JD 4066r make anywhere near it's rated HP up here.


 I just looked up the specs on your tractor and I think you would be much better off to stay with a smaller capacity baler than the 1840. You might could squeak by hp wise maybe, but the baler is going to weigh almost as much as the tractor which is not a good thing safety wise and would be hard on the tractor not to mention one heck of a rough ride from the baler shaking the tractor to death.


----------



## Thorim (Jan 19, 2015)

Well the recommended minium pto hp to run a mf 1840 is 50 hp... The jd 40664 is rated at 54 hp at the pto From the research I've done you shouldn't expect to much of a drop off in hp as that engine is turbo charged which increases the air intake which helps off set the reduction of oxygen at higher elevations which what causes the decrease in hp

Re: horsepower loss vs. elevation



> As far as altitude goes, every single foot is included, including the first thousand simply because the barometric pressure is less as your elevation increases. Whoever thought that the first thousand feet of elevation was equilivant to sea level must have had altitude sickness....
> 
> There are some 45-50HP turbocharged tractors, both John Deere and kubota make turbo models once you get over the mid 40's in horsepower. They all use wastegated turbos so your turbodiesel will perform virtually the same as it would at sea level, ie the 3% loss for each 1,000 foot elevation is negated.


http://www.tractordata.com/farm-tractors/007/5/7/7575-john-deere-4066r.html

http://www.tractorbynet.com/forums/kubota-buying-pricing/62842-horsepower-loss-vs-elevation.html

https://www.muttonpower.com/p-10517-john-deere-4066r-compact-utility-tractor.aspx


----------



## MFSuper90 (Jun 26, 2015)

I have a Massey 1839 which is the older 1840. Heck of a baler. I used to run a John deer 336. Both are good bales but once I went in line there was no going back. Speed, uniformity, and ease of service put Massey head and shoulders above everybody else.

As far as horsepower goes my 1839 book says that 35 pto horsepower is required. However your tractor may be a bit light for the heavy plunger.

My advice would be to look around for a gently used 1839 and use the money saved to buy an older heavier tractor to run it. Just my two cents tho


----------



## deadmoose (Oct 30, 2011)

Your tractor will make hay, but will not like it. CUTs are not designed to work like a farm tractor. That said, someone not far from you on here makes hay with a smaller Kioti (maybe painted as a Bobcat?) with an inline massey and seems to do ok. I dont believe he pushes near your acreage though.


----------



## deadmoose (Oct 30, 2011)

How are you going to pick up your bales?


----------



## deadmoose (Oct 30, 2011)

With your budget, maybe spend half on a farm tractor and the other half on a used baler?


----------



## bglz42 (Oct 5, 2009)

Don't have experience with the Massey, but I love my 328. Formerly ran it on a 5045D and had no problems. Now I use a 5083E. Good baler, simple and proven design.


----------



## Vol (Jul 5, 2009)

The mid-size inline would be more appropriate for your situation.....1840 is major overkill. Either a used 1835 or 1837 or a new 1836 or 1838 would be much more appropriate. You should be able to find a good used mid-size inline for almost half of the new 1840.....the MF/Hesston balers are great balers.

Pretty sure the midsize balers require about a third less hp to operate.

Regards, Mike


----------



## Teslan (Aug 20, 2011)

Good inlines are hard to find used here on the Front Range. Generally if they are used there is a reason for it. But for 40 acres might be worth looking. I agree that the 1840 is overkill. A MF dealer should be able to order you a smaller small square if you want new. Your closest I think in Larkspur is Wagner Equipment in Aurora. I deal with G and M implement in Greeley. Don't limit your choice to MF or Deere. Look at NH also. If you had a bigger tractor I would recommend a certain NH BC5080 that is for sale at the Deere dealer in Greeley for $19,000. They would go down also. It used to be mine. But your tractor wouldn't handle that very well.


----------



## somedevildawg (Jun 20, 2011)

1835/1837 Massey


----------



## Larkspur (Sep 5, 2015)

deadmoose said:


> Your tractor will make hay, but will not like it. CUTs are not designed to work like a farm tractor. That said, someone not far from you on here makes hay with a smaller Kioti (maybe painted as a Bobcat?) with an inline massey and seems to do ok. I dont believe he pushes near your acreage though.


 The 4066r is definitely smaller than ideal, I agree. I can only afford one tractor for all that I'll do out here. I have narrow roads that needs to be plowed in the winter. A larger one is would make it a tight squeeze. Plus, I do need the cab in the winter, and the next sized up JD and Kubota is way out of my price range.



deadmoose said:


> How are you going to pick up your bales?


I think I'll tow a trailer behind my pickup truck and just pick them up manually. At least that's the plan. I don't think my tractor is large enough for a baler and a trailer anyways.



deadmoose said:


> With your budget, maybe spend half on a farm tractor and the other half on a used baler?


I've been searching for about 6 months, and couldn't find a decent used baler for sale in my region. Seems there is not much of a used market in the Frontrange.


----------



## Larkspur (Sep 5, 2015)

Teslan said:


> Good inlines are hard to find used here on the Front Range. Generally if they are used there is a reason for it. But for 40 acres might be worth looking. I agree that the 1840 is overkill. A MF dealer should be able to order you a smaller small square if you want new. Your closest I think in Larkspur is Wagner Equipment in Aurora. I deal with G and M implement in Greeley. Don't limit your choice to MF or Deere. Look at NH also. If you had a bigger tractor I would recommend a certain NH BC5080 that is for sale at the Deere dealer in Greeley for $19,000. They would go down also. It used to be mine. But your tractor wouldn't handle that very well.


I agree. The used market here is not that great. One of the reason That I've looked at new equipment is that I'm not all that handy with machinery. My logic is that new equipment is more upfront, but should give me less problems, less repair fees because of the warranty, and I figure I'll get more when I sell them. Though I don't live that far from civilization, it seems no one wants to come out this way to service anything. So I'm hoping things hold up until I get better at fixing things on my own.


----------



## Larkspur (Sep 5, 2015)

I might as well ask a couple of other questions. My package from JD and MF both came in at under $32k. The JD package comes with the frontier dm5050 disc mower, and the wr0008 rake. The MF package comes with the 6' tar river drum mower and a 5 wheel 3 point rake. Any thoughts on these?


----------



## somedevildawg (Jun 20, 2011)

Larkspur said:


> I might as well ask a couple of other questions. My package from JD and MF both came in at under $32k. The JD package comes with the frontier dm5050 disc mower, and the wr0008 rake. The MF package comes with the 6' tar river drum mower and a 5 wheel 3 point rake. Any thoughts on these?


Is that a frontier rake a 8 wheel carted rake, 1008 I believe? If so, it's far better than a 3 pt rake, I had one (frontier) for a while and it was a good piece. The mower is most likely a kuhn rebadged, (repainted), again a good piece......don't know anything about the tar river unit.


----------



## MFSuper90 (Jun 26, 2015)

Stay far away from kuhn and John deere disc mowers. Expensive to buy expensive to fix and are not as heavy duty as a Massey or new holland. Have a kuhn and spent 3000 dollars in rebuilding the cutter bar last winter. Spun a bearing and need to rip her back apart again. Looking at a Massey now


----------



## bbos2 (Mar 20, 2015)

MFSuper90 said:


> Stay far away from kuhn and John deere disc mowers. Expensive to buy expensive to fix and are not as heavy duty as a Massey or new holland. Have a kuhn and spent 3000 dollars in rebuilding the cutter bar last winter. Spun a bearing and need to rip her back apart again. Looking at a Massey now


We ran a Deere moco through a ton of acres and were very pleased. Deers shear hub is a really good design. We had no expensive repairs at all. Knives and a couple hubs now and again due to rocks. We priced a used nh once and thought they were very pricey


----------



## Josh in WNY (Sep 7, 2010)

Larkspur said:


> I think I'll tow a trailer behind my pickup truck and just pick them up manually. At least that's the plan. I don't think my tractor is large enough for a baler and a trailer anyways.


You might want to take a look at this topic that was posted recently.

http://www.haytalk.com/forums/topic/22920-small-hay-grapple/

This might help make things a little easier on your back.


----------



## luke strawwalker (Jul 31, 2014)

bbos2 said:


> We ran a Deere moco through a ton of acres and were very pleased. Deers shear hub is a really good design. We had no expensive repairs at all. Knives and a couple hubs now and again due to rocks. We priced a used nh once and thought they were very pricey


That's a moco.... TOTALLY different animal from the DEERE 3pt mowers (which are Kuhn GMD 3pt top service hub mowers painted green....) And especially the FRONTIER 3pt mowers which are the old design non top service hub Kuhn mowers.... I've heard Deere is rather salty on parts for these, though I don't really see why most parts wouldn't interchange with Kuhn parts...

Personally, I wouldn't want an old style non top service hub Kuhn or frontier mower... Any problems, you have to tear into the bar to fix... The newer style top service hubs are much better. I still think the new Hollands are better mowers and easier to fix, myself. I'd look for a good NH 3pt mower in the 7.5-9 for range... A 9 foot it you can get it... They're much faster to cover acres than a 7.5 foot...

If you can get a Ford 5000, 6600, or 5610S this are all good haying tractors that are plenty capable to do what your doing with the equipment your talking about buying...

Good luck! OL JR


----------



## Josh in WNY (Sep 7, 2010)

luke strawwalker said:


> If you can get a Ford 5000, 6600, or 5610S this are all good haying tractors that are plenty capable to do what your doing with the equipment your talking about buying...


These Fords are also fairly easy to work on mechanically since they were prior to a lot of the electronics on later tractors. We run a 5000 and it does just about everything. We used to have a loader on ours, but now have a JD 2520 with a loader so we took the one off of the Ford. The only down side to the 5000 is the hydraulic pump is only 3 or 4 gallons per minute. It works fine for most things, but loader work runs a little slow. They did have loaders with a separate pump that mounted to the front of the tractor and ran off the crank of the engine. I think the 6600s and 5610s had bigger pumps than the 5000.


----------



## deadmoose (Oct 30, 2011)

bbos2 said:


> We ran a Deere moco through a ton of acres and were very pleased. Deers shear hub is a really good design. We had no expensive repairs at all. Knives and a couple hubs now and again due to rocks. We priced a used nh once and thought they were very pricey


Are Deere disk mowers and disk mocos of aimilar design?


----------



## bbos2 (Mar 20, 2015)

luke strawwalker said:


> That's a moco.... TOTALLY different animal from the DEERE 3pt mowers (which are Kuhn GMD 3pt top service hub mowers painted green....) And especially the FRONTIER 3pt mowers which are the old design non top service hub Kuhn mowers.... I've heard Deere is rather salty on parts for these, though I don't really see why most parts wouldn't interchange with Kuhn parts...
> Personally, I wouldn't want an old style non top service hub Kuhn or frontier mower... Any problems, you have to tear into the bar to fix... The newer style top service hubs are much better.


Around here if you run a Deere disc mower for any type of hay it's a moco. 3Pt disc mower your referring to I've only seen cut road sides and crp strips . so I assumed he was talking Deere mocos. We ran a krone mI for awile and if ya hit a rock you were tearing into the cutter bar to replace sheared gears. That's why the mocos shined for us. And we demoed a similar year nh and it didn't do much for us, plus is was expensive. maybe the dealer was just high on the nh here.



deadmoose said:


> Are Deere disk mowers and disk mocos of aimilar design?


I have no experience with any jd disc mower besides the moco


----------



## VA Haymaker (Jul 1, 2014)

Larkspur said:


> The 4066r is definitely smaller than ideal, I agree. I can only afford one tractor for all that I'll do out here. I have narrow roads that needs to be plowed in the winter. A larger one is would make it a tight squeeze. Plus, I do need the cab in the winter, and the next sized up JD and Kubota is way out of my price range.
> 
> I think I'll tow a trailer behind my pickup truck and just pick them up manually. At least that's the plan. I don't think my tractor is large enough for a baler and a trailer anyways.
> 
> I've been searching for about 6 months, and couldn't find a decent used baler for sale in my region. Seems there is not much of a used market in the Frontrange.


If you like the 1840 - it would be a great baler - very heavy duty and high capacity. IMHO the inline balers are the best - best shape making balers out there.

Some things to consider: ground clearance - with an inline, you are straddling the windrow, no so with a side pull. I believe the Deere requires only 35ish hp and absolutely would get the job done - not as fast as the MF, but not as slow as my 50 something year old New Holland 68. One thing I like about the deere balers is it pretty much is the same design they've had for decades. I stacked behind an old 24t years ago and it cranked out some of the finest bricks you'd ever see. A friend of mine uses a 14t (even older) and that thing spits out bricks, so I know the 328 can do it too. The long lived design has other benefits too, like parts availability and most important IMHO is online help with troubleshooting - beyond (and better than) the dealer. Green is also going to resell higher too. But while the deere baler can and will crank out perfect bales, though I haven't ran one, IMHO the inlines do it more consistently due to their feeding design.

As for mower, I'd go with the disc mower.

Good luck,
Bill


----------



## Josh in WNY (Sep 7, 2010)

The JD information lists 35 HP as the minimum for there balers, but you won't get full performance out of it with that HP. Even the 348 is listed as needing only 35 HP and I doubt I'm getting full output out of our 348 when it's behind our 70 HP International 784. Between the weight of the baler, the hills I have and the inertia of the plunger, I wouldn't want anything much smaller for a tractor on the front of a 348. I've run our old 336 on my 60 HP JD 2520 and it ran pretty well, but did work the tractor somewhat, and that was on a nice flat field with no wagon or anything behind it.

A 328 is smaller and not as high capacity as a 348, but I still think you won't be getting full performance out of it with your tractor. Might not be a bad thing, since the baler will probably last longer... but the tractor might take a beating though.


----------



## Larkspur (Sep 5, 2015)

Josh in WNY said:


> The JD information lists 35 HP as the minimum for there balers, but you won't get full performance out of it with that HP. Even the 348 is listed as needing only 35 HP and I doubt I'm getting full output out of our 348 when it's behind our 70 HP International 784. Between the weight of the baler, the hills I have and the inertia of the plunger, I wouldn't want anything much smaller for a tractor on the front of a 348. I've run our old 336 on my 60 HP JD 2520 and it ran pretty well, but did work the tractor somewhat, and that was on a nice flat field with no wagon or anything behind it.
> 
> A 328 is smaller and not as high capacity as a 348, but I still think you won't be getting full performance out of it with your tractor. Might not be a bad thing, since the baler will probably last longer... but the tractor might take a beating though.


I certainly wouldn't want to ruin my new tractor. Is it a consensus that both the 328 and 1838 are both too big then? Should I consider this instead?

http://www.smallfarminnovations.com/Inline-Square-Baler.php


----------



## Josh in WNY (Sep 7, 2010)

Larkspur said:


> I certainly wouldn't want to ruin my new tractor. Is it a consensus that both the 328 and 1838 are both too big then? Should I consider this instead?
> 
> http://www.smallfarminnovations.com/Inline-Square-Baler.php


It's not that your tractor is going to get worn out within the first year, but over time, running the baler will take it's toll. If you keep this in mind and don't try and push it too hard (like it was a regular size tractor), you might be fine. The other thing you might consider is running the 328 or even the smaller of the Massey inline balers with a plan to get a second tractor or upgrade your existing tractor in a few years.

The thing that concerns me about the baler in the link you posted is that it is more of an off brand baler. How hard are parts and service going to be to find?


----------



## luke strawwalker (Jul 31, 2014)

deadmoose said:


> Are Deere disk mowers and disk mocos of aimilar design?





deadmoose said:


> Are Deere disk mowers and disk mocos of aimilar design?


Not sure about the moco, but for the three point disk mowers:

Deere is a Kuhn GMD top service hub style mower painted green

Frontier is a Kuhn old style non-top service hub mower painted green. It is basically the same mower as the old New Holland 416, which was a Kuhn painted New Holland red... On those mowers, any bearing repairs require splitting the bar and gutting it to fix. The newer style top service hubs can be removed from the top of the bar for most service...

Later! OL JR


----------



## Bazooka (Sep 17, 2013)

I'd lean towards the inline. mainly because although you will have the forward surge of the momentum of the plungerhead, you wont have the side to side shake you get with the deere or any other offset feed. I am not sure, but I think the inlines are balanced a little better, so you don't have as much tongue weight on the tractor either. As far as the tractor is concerned, my concern with that is the pto innards being fairly light. I mean they are fine for that size of tractor, but any baler will work that pto brake and clutch assembly inside the tractor. Just make sure your baler slip clutch is set and operating properly to protect the tractor pto..

Good luck,


----------



## somedevildawg (Jun 20, 2011)

Wow, never seen that SFI baler....


----------



## FarmerCline (Oct 12, 2011)

I think you would probably be okay with your tractor if you get a JD 328 of MF 1835 and not one of the higher capacity balers. My choice between the two would be a 1835 but either would be good balers. I would stay away from the SFI baler because it looks like it is going to cost about as much as a name brand and who knows about parts availability down the road. I don't see any advantage of it over a MF inline baler. It sounds like the trailed wheel rake and disc mower from the JD dealer would be much better than the 3 point rake and drum mower from the MF dealer.


----------



## FarmerCline (Oct 12, 2011)

Something else I just thought of on mowers is the disc mower and probably the drum mower are 3pt meaning the full weight of the mower is going to be on the rear of the tractor which could make the front end a little light when the mower is raised. Your tractor would have no problem pulling a trailed 7 or even 9 foot sickle haybine and you would get the added benefit of the hay being crimped which will help it dry quicker. If buying new NH is the only manufacture making a sickle haybine in that size......472 is a 7 foot and 488 is a 9 foot. There are a lot of used ones out there as well that you could get for much less than new. A disc or drum mower will take more hp to run than a sickle haybine.


----------



## Josh in WNY (Sep 7, 2010)

The only concern I would have with the inline baler would be how much clearance you have under your tractor for the windrow. You might end up with a bunch of hay plugged underneath your tractor. If you are OK with the clearance, then I think you will be fine with either baler.


----------



## Grateful11 (Apr 5, 2009)

I would have to side with the guys on the side pull baler just for the sake of ground clearance under the 4066R. Some of the windrows my wife makes will drag the bottom of the CaseIH Maxxum 5140.

OT: Wife just told me that her late Father paid $12K for a new JD 328 in '03, which has since been traded in on a JD 448 round baler, they still have the 24T sitting in the dry. I told her they really need to get it out next season and run it. She said they oiled everything before storing it, probably wouldn't hurt oil everything again and let it set over winter.


----------



## Tx Jim (Jun 30, 2014)

Bazooka said:


> but any baler will work that pto brake and clutch assembly inside the tractor. Just make sure your baler slip clutch is set and operating properly to protect the tractor pto..
> 
> Good luck,


Bazooka

May I ask if the over-running clutch on sq baler is operating correctly how can pto brake on tractor be affected by operating a sq baler?

Thanks,Jim


----------



## VA Haymaker (Jul 1, 2014)

Bazooka said:


> I'd lean towards the inline. mainly because although you will have the forward surge of the momentum of the plungerhead, you wont have the side to side shake you get with the deere or any other offset feed. I am not sure, but I think the inlines are balanced a little better, so you don't have as much tongue weight on the tractor either. As far as the tractor is concerned, my concern with that is the pto innards being fairly light. I mean they are fine for that size of tractor, but any baler will work that pto brake and clutch assembly inside the tractor. Just make sure your baler slip clutch is set and operating properly to protect the tractor pto..
> Good luck,


It's more than this. Some compact tractors are not rated to take the punishment a plunger cycling. My brother was looking at a smaller kubota and from what I remember, square balers were not allowed/approved as an implement. Don't recall the model, but have heard/read sometime in the past of some smaller tractors having serious issues from the cycling of a baler. Probably should check with deere to see if 4066R can take the punishment of the 328 baler at minimum.


----------



## Grateful11 (Apr 5, 2009)

leeave96 said:


> It's more than this. Some compact tractors are not rated to take the punishment a plunger cycling. My brother was looking at a smaller kubota and from what I remember, square balers were not allowed/approved as an implement. Don't recall the model, but have heard/read sometime in the past of some smaller tractors having serious issues from the cycling of a baler. Probably should check with deere to see if 4066R can take the punishment of the 328 baler at minimum.


I agree. I think the plunger action would be very hard on a Hydro trans of a CUT tractor. The rocking back and forth motion would be cause for alarm I think.

Something you didn't mention is did you get the Hydro or 12/12 with Power Reverser?

I know it's too late now but you could have gotten a JD 5065E with cab and MFWD for $41K list price, a Kubota M6060 with a cab for $41K list vs. $49K list for the 4066R. None of these prices include a loader.


----------



## Bazooka (Sep 17, 2013)

Tx Jim said:


> Bazooka
> 
> May I ask if the over-running clutch on sq baler is operating correctly how can pto brake on tractor be affected by operating a sq baler?
> 
> Thanks,Jim


Exactly my point Tx Jim, Check that clutch often, because if it isn't working properly those light pto components in the tractor will not handle it for long. Some of those designs on the agco's would actually lock up solid with too much grease, keep the dogs from releasing and not protect anything. Heavier pto's on larger tractors would puff the overrunning clutch, where the lighter tractor pto's would slip the internal brake. BTDT

On the Deeres I believe the manual says to loosen the spring loaded bolts and slip the clutch to burnish the disks, then tighten back up to spec's, depending on the category. Last week a guy here took out the clutch dog yoke on his 348/4430 setup and his slip clutch was locked up from moisture that had rusted the disks and plates together. He is very lucky he did not knock off a gear in the gearcase.


----------



## slowzuki (Mar 8, 2011)

Maybe in the very tiny tractors its not great, but I've run close to 40,000 bales through a JD 336 and a 348 using my Kubota, a 42 hp hydrostatic with 2200 hours on it now. The Kubota pulls a wagon or basket behind it much of the time its baling too. I tend to use my bigger MF now when baling but the reason is partly so the Kubota can be raking while I bale.



























leeave96 said:


> It's more than this. Some compact tractors are not rated to take the punishment a plunger cycling. My brother was looking at a smaller kubota and from what I remember, square balers were not allowed/approved as an implement. Don't recall the model, but have heard/read sometime in the past of some smaller tractors having serious issues from the cycling of a baler. Probably should check with deere to see if 4066R can take the punishment of the 328 baler at minimum.


----------



## slowzuki (Mar 8, 2011)

I've been into 2 MF224 balers because the clutch disc notches and dogs in the overrunning clutch were destroyed. There isn't any grease in there but if you don't explain to drivers to make sure the tractor is at idle when engaging, what a mess. Also if the little springs break or the flywheel bushing gets worn, it messes it all up too.



















Bazooka said:


> Some of those designs on the agco's would actually lock up solid with too much grease, keep the dogs from releasing and not protect anything. Heavier pto's on larger tractors would puff the overrunning clutch, where the lighter tractor pto's would slip the internal brake. BTDT


----------



## cannonball (Jun 23, 2012)

MFSuper90 said:


> Stay far away from kuhn and John deere disc mowers. Expensive to buy expensive to fix and are not as heavy duty as a Massey or new holland. Have a kuhn and spent 3000 dollars in rebuilding the cutter bar last winter. Spun a bearing and need to rip her back apart again. Looking at a Massey now


And what Kuhn did you have...The 700 generation 2...have worn out 3 of them and never had a bearing in cutter bar go out...changed oil 50 hours in gear box and 100 hours in bar....and I baled between 3500 and 4000 at about 2 bales per acre, using 2 mowers if possible...so if you had the early ones don't judge kuhn by early ones where you have to tear bar down to replace a cutter head bearing, the gen 2 hd come out the top...I have been around some more cutters and I place Kuhn as Number one....


----------



## Josh in WNY (Sep 7, 2010)

cannonball said:


> And what Kuhn did you have...The 700 generation 2...have worn out 3 of them and never had a bearing in cutter bar go out...changed oil 50 hours in gear box and 100 hours in bar....and I baled between 3500 and 4000 at about 2 bales per acre, using 2 mowers if possible...so if you had the early ones don't judge kuhn by early ones where you have to tear bar down to replace a cutter head bearing, the gen 2 hd come out the top...I have been around some more cutters and I place Kuhn as Number one....


This points out one issue that I have with the way the Ag industry handles models. They depend on the serial number for what version you have which is fine when going for parts (when you remember to write down the number), but is useless when you are looking at a used machine. Unless you are the wikipedia of farm equipment information, there's almost no way you can tell if the piece of equipment you have is the "bad" version or the "good" version. For instance, JD has been making the 348 baler for over 20 years or so, but if you put one of the originals next to one that just rolled out of the factory, you'll be able to point out plenty of differences.

OK, my rant is over. Please go on with the topic...


----------



## Larkspur (Sep 5, 2015)

My JD dealer put together another package...better deal apparently. This one involves a 348 baler with only a few hundred bales through for $17500. May be I'm overthinking this a bit. Can I get a yes or no...is this too big for my tractor? I don't really care if I get the max performance out of it, just is it unsafe or will it destroy my tractor? again, I have a new 4066r. Thanks.


----------



## deadmoose (Oct 30, 2011)

Regardless it is bad for your tractor. The rest is up to you.


----------



## Josh in WNY (Sep 7, 2010)

The 348 will be a lot of baler for your tractor, but if you don't push it, you should be OK for a little while (a few years at least?). I would plan on getting a second tractor that was a true "ag" tractor at some point to run the baler with though. Doesn't have to be something new, but higher HP and built more for farm use. I've run our 348 on a Ford 5000 (built in 1969) that has the original engine, trans, etc. and was able to put 280 bales an hour on the ground. A decent 5000 should be in the 6-8K range in my area. There are plenty of other tractors that size that would work and are more "mechanical" without all the electronics of modern tractors. If you are decent with a wrench and can learn from shop manuals (and all the advise on here) you shouldn't have a problem with fixing or maintaining a tractor like this.

Bottom line is, no matter what baler you end up with, it's going to be hard on the PTO, transmission, etc. of your current tractor due to the fact that it wasn't designed as a true agricultural tractor. Another way to think of it is that you can tow a nice camper with a 1/2 ton pickup, but a 1 ton pickup will last a lot longer pulling the same camper. It's just better built for it.


----------



## VA Haymaker (Jul 1, 2014)

IMHO the 348 is a great baler and in some ways better for your tractor. Here' my thinking:

Heavier flywheel vs the 328 and 338, more strokes per minute too. This additional mass and stroke rate - in lighter windrows, should smooth out the shock to the rear end. My old New 68, at full 540 rpms is about 63-65 SPM vs 93 (as I recall) for the 348. With the lighter NH flywheel and slower SPM, the tractor essentially has to work the PTO harder to get the flywheel back up to speed for the next stroke. This shouldn't be such a problem with the 348 - with lighter windrows, i.e. not running the baler pickup at full capacity. Even with smaller windrows, IMHO, the 348 would absolutely bury my 68 in capacity and as a reference, my 68 can bury the stackers on the wagon we are pulling behind it.

I know there are some Kubota lighter tractors that are not approved for a square baler. I can find no reference or warnings on Deere's 4066R tractor in their manual, but I'd have the dealer contact Deere to confirm - in writing and then no guessing/good to go. HP wise, IMHO, you are OK.


----------



## bglz42 (Oct 5, 2009)

Make sure your slip clutch is slipping a little (adjusted properly). Makes a huge difference in driveline shock.


----------



## slowzuki (Mar 8, 2011)

My vote is it would be fine for a few thousand bales per year. We ran our compact Kubota baling up until we were doing around 5000 bales a year. The JD has more hp but is about the same weight as our Kubota. Never short of hp on the baler but short on weight when pulling uphill with a wagon behind the baler. I would check with the dealer to make sure you don't void your warrantee though.



slowzuki said:


> Maybe in the very tiny tractors its not great, but I've run close to 40,000 bales through a JD 336 and a 348 using my Kubota, a 42 hp hydrostatic with 2200 hours on it now. The Kubota pulls a wagon or basket behind it much of the time its baling too. I tend to use my bigger MF now when baling but the reason is partly so the Kubota can be raking while I bale.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Tx Jim (Jun 30, 2014)

bglz42 said:


> Make sure your slip clutch is slipping a little (adjusted properly). Makes a huge difference in driveline shock.


Actually your statement is true no matter what HP tractor one is using on a small sq baler!!!


----------



## Larkspur (Sep 5, 2015)

Thanks everyone. I've decided to go with the MF 1838. Seems mechanically simpler than the JD, and a bit narrower, making it easier on the narrow paths around my place.

As I've indicated previously, I know nothing about baling hay. I'm in the front range of CO, and will be cutting mostly natural grass. I thought I need a rake, and a drum cutter. But have had recommendations to buy disc cutter, disc conditioners, swathers, etc. Can some one help me with some suggestions for equipment? What all do I need to make this work?

Thanks.


----------



## Trillium Farm (Dec 18, 2014)

Larkspur said:


> Thanks everyone. I've decided to go with the MF 1838. Seems mechanically simpler than the JD, and a bit narrower, making it easier on the narrow paths around my place.
> 
> As I've indicated previously, I know nothing about baling hay. I'm in the front range of CO, and will be cutting mostly natural grass. I thought I need a rake, and a drum cutter. But have had recommendations to buy disc cutter, disc conditioners, swathers, etc. Can some one help me with some suggestions for equipment? What all do I need to make this work?
> 
> Thanks.


I think going with the 1838 is an excellent choice, a lot less moving parts than the zig-zag balers.

Here are my suggestions: Discbine w/conditioner

Rotary Hay Rake

Hay Wagon(s)

Desirable Optionals Accumulator w/Grapple or any other form of bale retrieval

if you don't have help

Don't know if you'd need a tedder where you are, someone who lives in your area will surely chime-in.


----------

