Yesterday's Tractor Co. Same-Day Parts Shipping Available
Click Here or call 800-853-2651 
   Allis Chalmers Case Farmall IH Ford 8N,9N,2N Ford
   Ferguson John Deere Massey Ferguson Minn. Moline Oliver
 
Marketplace
Tractor Manuals
Tractor Parts
Classified Ads
Photo Ads

Community
Discussion Forums
Project Journals
Tractor Town
Your Stories
Show & Pull Guide
Events Calendar
Hauling Schedule

Galleries
Tractor Photos
Implement Photos
Vintage Photos
Help Identify
Parts & Pieces
Stuck & Troubled
Vintage Ads
Community Album
Photo Ad Archives

Research & Info
Articles
Tractor Registry
Tip of the Day
Safety Cartoons
Tractor Values
Serial Numbers
Tune-Up Guide
Paint Codes
List Prices
Production Nbrs
Tune-Up Specs
Torque Values
3-Point Specs
Glossary

Miscellaneous
Tractor Games
Just For Kids
Virtual Show
Museum Guide
Memorial Page
Feedback Form

Yesterday's Tractors Facebook Page

Related Sites
Tractor Shed
TractorLinks.com
Ford 8N/9N Club
Today's Tractors
Garden Tractors
Classic Trucks
Kountry Life
Enter your email address to receive our newsletter!

subscribe
unsubscribe
  
Discussion Forum

New Holland 320 Baler

Author 
Quentin

12-02-2002 18:19:41
152.7.9.183



Report to Moderator

I'm looking at buying a 320 square baler. How reliable was this model. Is it considered a high capacity baler? Any things to look out for before i buy it.




[Reply]   [No Email]
Rick

12-03-2002 05:10:25
209.152.125.33



Report to Moderator
 Re: New Holland 320 Baler in reply to Quentin, 12-02-2002 18:19:41  
Quentin, I read response fron New Holland fellow. I don't know then Who is right on capacity. I am going right out of book. I t has figures I first stated. The 326 he mention is same exact baler,lighter in weight but is newer 85-88. The 570 and 575 to me are large capacity models. Larger pickups and faster plunger. I have a 1999 570. Get in touch with me as I do alot of baling.
Hopes this helps Rick

[Reply]  [No Email]
Steve from New Holland

12-03-2002 10:18:07
207.106.122.52



Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: New Holland 320 Baler in reply to Rick, 12-03-2002 05:10:25  
Hi Rick. I understand where you are coming from, but I feel I can clear up some of the confusion. Here is the lineup of large capacity 14"x18" balers: First, the model 278, followed by the 320, followed by the 326, and then the 575. The 278 and 320's were 105 strokes per minute. The 326 and the 575 are 93 strokes per minute. Although the feed opening may be a tad bigger on the 326 and the 575, these 2 balers will not outbale the 278 and the 320's. They may be close, but not quite as much. Rick, as far as your 570 goes, here is the family tree for it: First came the 276, followed by the 315, followed by the 316, followed by your 570. Though these balers have decent capacity, they are no match for any of the 4 larger models. I still contend that the 320 was and is extremely high maintance. Hope this helps Rick. Steve

[Reply]  [No Email]
Steve from New Holland

12-03-2002 10:16:09
207.106.122.52



Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: New Holland 320 Baler in reply to Rick, 12-03-2002 05:10:25  
Hi Rick. I understand where you are coming from, but I feel I can clear up some of the confusion. Here is the lineup of large capacity 14"x18" balers: First, the model 278, followed by the 320, followed by the 326, and then the 575. The 278 and 320's were 105 strokes per minute. The 326 and the 575 are 93 strokes per minute. Although the feed opening may be a tad bigger on the 326 and the 575, these 2 balers will not outbale the 278 and the 320's. They may be close, but not quite as much. Rick, as far as your 570 goes, here is the family tree for it: First came the 276, followed by the 315, followed by the 316, followed by your 570. Though these balers have decent capacity, they are no match for any of the 4 larger models. I still contend that the 320 was and is extremely high maintance. Hope this helps Rick. Steve

[Reply]  [No Email]
RickB.

12-03-2002 14:23:31
205.231.148.63



Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: Re: New Holland 320 Baler in reply to Steve from New Holland, 12-03-2002 10:16:09  
I don't profess to be an expert on the 320/326, but I wonder why you say the 575 isn't proven? It has been in production for over 14 years, more than the combined total for the 320 and 326. By most accounts of those that use 575's their capacity is unmatched in the 14x18 size, either presently or by anything built in the past. The capacity of the 575 was one contributing factor in NH's decision to discontinue the 77 pan thrower, it couldn't keep up. Given all that, the 570 is IDENTICAL to the 575 save the wider pickup and associated extra feed rotor, and the adjustable wedges on the sides of the bale chamber. Most complaints about the 570/575 in my area are related to not feeding them enough on a consistent basis.

[Reply]  [No Email]
Steve from New Holland

12-03-2002 18:19:48
216.220.165.64



Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: Re: Re: New Holland 320 Baler in reply to RickB., 12-03-2002 14:23:31  
Gosh Rick, I'll give you credit. You sure know your 575 baler. I really won't argue with anything you say. Just 2 points if I may. 1- Don't be fooled by the 14 year run of the 565,570,575 balers. This does not mean they are that good that New Holland doesn't want to change anything. No, what is happening is the total number of small square balers that are sold is dropping like a rock. New Holland has already told us not to expect any major research and development on small balers. They just don't sell enough anymore to warrant changes. Oh sure, I expect that we will soon see a paint and decal change just to come out with something new, but I don't expect anything major to change. 2- The 575 series balers have a plunger stroke of 93 at 540. The 278 and the 320 have 105. However, the 575 does have a larger feed opening into the plunger. Does this offset the slower plunger speed? Good question. I guess we would have to run them side by side to see what would happen. By the way, the 75 and 77 throwers didn't work well on the 320 either. Steve

[Reply]  [No Email]
RIckB.

12-04-2002 13:45:43
205.231.30.47



Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New Holland 320 Baler in reply to Steve from New Holland, 12-03-2002 18:19:48  
So Steve, what are the shortcomings of the 570/575 in your experience? It seems to me there have been several improvements over the past years. Metering wheel adjustment, Rotary feed updates, Hardened needles, roll shaft updates on the 72 thrower. Best of all, they eliminate everyone's biggest complaint on all prior models, the tine bar feeding system used since the 50's. I figured you would ding me on production numbers, but you can bet New Holland will build the best small square baler they can right until they decide not to build any at all. Producing balers now for the CaseIH side will help the numbers a little. Do you have a serial number list handy that would give us comparisons of 575 and 320/326 production numbers? I could probably dig one up at work.

[Reply]  [No Email]
Steve from New Holland

12-04-2002 15:28:44
216.220.165.4



Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New Holland 320 Baler in reply to RIckB., 12-04-2002 13:45:43  
Boy Rick, I don't need to add anything to what you say. I see you are very well versed on New Holland equipment. As I'm sure you know, the early 570,575's did give quite a bit of trouble. (You can get out all the service bulletins from 1989,1990,1991). But, New Holland has corrected just about everything. Occasionally, I still hear about a 565,570,575 that will shear a flywheel shear bolt for seemingly no reason. Remember the early ones that the needle/knotter drive would unhook in the middle of the tying cycle for no reason? Well, this problem has just about disappeared, but every once in a while I'll still hear someone complain about it. I worked with New Holland field test guys on this and they never did come up with an explanation. Other than that Rick, they are now fine balers. Steve

[Reply]  [No Email]
Shep

12-04-2002 12:53:43
66.192.61.19



Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New Holland 320 Baler in reply to Steve from New Holland, 12-03-2002 18:19:48  
I will second that part on the pan thowers not keeping up on a 320. In a heavy windrow at 20% under 540 I can outbale the thrower in a hurry if I dont watch it. I have never run a 570/575 baler but I have never seen anything bale like our 320 can. I have never had much maintence on my baler but I do watch the wear points pretty close sence I learned the problems with the baler. I really like the pan thrower on the baler, just wish it was a little faster.....

[Reply]  [No Email]
Steve from New Holland

12-04-2002 15:30:54
216.220.165.4



Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New Holland 320 Baler in reply to Shep, 12-04-2002 12:53:43  
Way to go Shep. The 320 can hold up if operated properly and the speed is kept down. Steve



[Reply]  [No Email]
Rick

12-03-2002 04:54:16
209.152.125.33



Report to Moderator
 Re: New Holland 320 Baler in reply to Quentin, 12-02-2002 18:19:41  
Quentin, Here is some info for you. Was built 76-83 Typical baler,not large capacity but should do fine average farm. Heres some specs 79 plunger strokes,68"pickup,14"x18" bale. New Holland does not use packer fork on this model so you must keep the feed forks properly set or you will have what I always hear there balers are famous for is banana bales. Personally with the right setting I don't think would be problem. I know where real nice baler for sale also if you would like to check it out too. Let me know if I can help more.

[Reply]  [No Email]
Steve from New Holland

12-03-2002 04:43:18
207.106.122.35



Report to Moderator
 Re: New Holland 320 Baler in reply to Quentin, 12-02-2002 18:19:41  
Quentin, I'll try to give you an honest answer to your question. Although I am a New Holland equipment guy, I really try to be fair with my answers. I've been working with the red and yellow stuff since 1976, and I have to be honest: I personally would NOT buy a 320 baler. However, if you are a weekend farmer, then I would reconsider. Why not a 320?? The 320 baler is DEFINATELY A HIGH CAPACITY BALER. There in lies the problem. The plunger stroke speed on a 320 at 540 pto speed is 105 strokes per minute. The poor baler just does not hold up to all that speed. When working, it bales like a "Katy Did" (Don't know where I learned that expression) but boy, will it ever lighten your pocketbook in upkeep. The feeder mechanism is the main culprit, but the plunger and pickup bearings wear pretty fast as well. If you do decide to purchase a 320, find out what engine rpm the tractor runs at pto speed and take 20% off and run the baler at that speed. It just might hold together. Hope this helps, Steve

[Reply]  [No Email]
Steve from New Holland

12-03-2002 04:42:44
207.106.122.35



Report to Moderator
 Re: New Holland 320 Baler in reply to Quentin, 12-02-2002 18:19:41  
Quentin, I'll try to give you an honest answer to your question. Although I am a New Holland equipment guy, I really try to be fair with my answers. I've been working with the red and yellow stuff since 1976, and I have to be honest: I personally would NOT buy a 320 baler. However, if you are a weekend farmer, then I would reconsider. Why not a 320?? The 320 baler is DEFINATELY A HIGH CAPACITY BALER. There in lies the problem. The plunger stroke speed on a 320 at 540 pto speed is 105 strokes per minute. The poor baler just does not hold up to all that speed. When working, it bales like a "Katy Did" (Don't know where I learned that expression) but boy, will it ever lighten your pocketbook in upkeep. The feeder mechanism is the main culprit, but the plunger and pickup bearings wear pretty fast as well. If you do decide to purchase a 320, find out what engine rpm the tractor runs at pto speed and take 20% off and run the baler at that speed. It just might hold together. Hope this helps, Steve

[Reply]  [No Email]
Steve from New Holland

12-03-2002 04:40:30
207.106.122.35



Report to Moderator
 Re: New Holland 320 Baler in reply to Quentin, 12-02-2002 18:19:41  
Quentin, I'll try to give you an honest answer to your question. Although I am a New Holland equipment guy, I really try to be fair with my answers. I've been working with the red and yellow stuff since 1976, and I have to be honest: I personally would NOT buy a 320 baler. However, if you are a weekend farmer, then I would reconsider. Why not a 320?? The 320 baler is DEFINATELY A HIGH CAPACITY BALER. There in lies the problem. The plunger stroke speed on a 320 at 540 pto speed is 105 strokes per minute. The poor baler just does not hold up to all that speed. When working, it bales like a "Katy Did" (Don't know where I learned that expression) but boy, will it ever lighten your pocketbook in upkeep. The feeder mechanism is the main culprit, but the plunger and pickup bearings wear pretty fast as well. If you do decide to purchase a 320, find out what engine rpm the tractor runs at pto speed and take 20% off and run the baler at that speed. It just might hold together. Hope this helps, Steve

[Reply]  [No Email]
Shep

12-03-2002 08:28:57
66.192.61.19



Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: New Holland 320 Baler in reply to Steve from New Holland, 12-03-2002 04:40:30  
We run a 320 with a hydraulic/electric pan kicker on it, and once we figured out how to run it, it does a real nice job. Steve is right keep the RPM's down, its easy to tell if you listen to the baler, when it starts going too fast it really starts to shake. There is a point where it is running fast but not shaking much where it really bales good. This baler is a huge hog, it will bale and put strings on anything that goes in it so be careful with tough hay.. Also we found that running 7600 string instead of 9000 works a lot better too. The baler is powerful and will really pack a bale if you let it. We did have to make the pulley for the hydro pump on the front smaller to make more flow to the kicker at the lower RPM's to make it all work right, but that is one hay baling machine if you run it right. Really nice baler, Just my 2 cents.

[Reply]  [No Email]
Steve from New Holland

12-03-2002 04:50:41
207.106.122.35



Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: New Holland 320 Baler in reply to Steve from New Holland, 12-03-2002 04:40:30  
Quentin, one followup. If you are wondering which model I do like, go for a 326. Man, that was one of New Hollands best. The newer 575 is ok, but does not have the track record of the 326. Steve



[Reply]  [No Email]
Steve from New Holland

12-03-2002 04:50:31
207.106.122.35



Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: New Holland 320 Baler in reply to Steve from New Holland, 12-03-2002 04:40:30  
Quentin, one followup. If you are wondering which model I do like, go for a 326. Man, that was one of New Hollands best. The newer 575 is ok, but does not have the track record of the 326. Steve



[Reply]  [No Email]
Steve from New Holland

12-03-2002 04:45:44
207.106.122.35



Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: New Holland 320 Baler in reply to Steve from New Holland, 12-03-2002 04:40:30  
Quentin, one followup. If you are wondering which model I do like, go for a 326. Man, that was one of New Hollands best. The newer 575 is ok, but does not have the track record of the 326. Steve



[Reply]  [No Email]
Dick Davis

12-03-2002 05:14:58
152.163.188.6



Report to Moderator
 Re: Re: Re: New Holland 320 Baler in reply to Steve from New Holland, 12-03-2002 04:45:44  
Thanks Steve for your postings. Good explanations of the 320's problems. At 105 RPM,s the 320 runs twice as fast as my Model 80 New Holland. That gives me a good idea of the wear and tear issue, the vibration must also be a factor. thanks again Dick Davis



[Reply]  [No Email]
[Options]  [Printer Friendly]  [Posting Help]  [Return to Forum]   [Add a Reply]

Hop to:
TRACTOR   PARTS TRACTOR   MANUALS
Same-Day Shipping! Most of our stocked parts ship the same day you order (M-F).  Expedited shipping available, just call!  Most prices for parts and manuals are below our competitors.  Compare our super low shipping rates!  We have the parts you need to repair your tractor.  We are a Company you can trust and have generous return policies!   Shop Online Today or call our friendly sales staff toll free (800) 853-2651. [ More Info ]

Home  |  Forums


Copyright © 1997-2014 Yesterday's Tractor Co.

All Rights Reserved. Reproduction of any part of this website, including design and content, without written permission is strictly prohibited. Trade Marks and Trade Names contained and used in this Website are those of others, and are used in this Website in a descriptive sense to refer to the products of others. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy

TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER: Tradenames and Trademarks referred to within Yesterday's Tractor Co. products and within the Yesterday's Tractor Co. websites are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Yesterday's Tractor Co., our products, or our website nor are we sponsored by them. John Deere and its logos are the registered trademarks of the John Deere Corporation. Agco, Agco Allis, White, Massey Ferguson and their logos are the registered trademarks of AGCO Corporation. Case, Case-IH, Farmall, International Harvester, New Holland and their logos are registered trademarks of CNH Global N.V.

Yesterday's Tractors - Antique Tractor Headquarters