New Holland 320 Baler Manual
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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
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.
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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
. Safety. Contents.
Warranty. Owner Assistance.
Before Using Your Baler. Operation. Lubrication.
Baler Adjustments. Baler Maintenance. Baler Service Chart. Knotter Maintenance And Adjustment.
New Holland 320 Square Baler Manual
Heavy-Duty Knotter Maintenance And Adjustment. Knotter Service Chart. Twister Maintenance And Adjustment. Heavy-Duty Twister Maintenance And Adjustment.
New Holland 320 Baler Owners Manual
Procedure For Systematic Adjustment Of The Standard And Heavy-Duty Twister Assemblies. Twister Service Chart. Attachments. Storing The Baler. Ordering Service Parts.
New Holland Knotter Manual
Specifications. Index. Delivery Report.