new 300 series deere

[bobcatboy]

have you guy heard anything about the new 300 series from deere.

[Tigerotor77W]

What about them?

[bobcatboy]

anything good or bad

[Tigerotor77W]

They're more productive than the 200 series, their hystats won't freeze like the 200 series' did, and there are more operator enhancements. Massive axle torque, same rather bland visibility (two huge cab towers are pretty unwieldy, even if the boom arms themselves are low. Improved servicability, Tier-II engines.

In other words, add another manufacturer to your list of compotent skid steer brands. ;)

[thepawnshop]

I've got the Deere 320 and LOVE it! Great machine all around and not as "Tippy" as the Cat I demoed (236B). THe price was very good as well. With the 300 series they came out with a lot of little upgrades that made it a much better machine than the "200" series. Get on on your site and put it through its paces...you won't be dissapointed.

[KBequip.]

Hi guys,

Yeah we were ready for the new 300 series. The 200 series II were getting reliable after all the bugs were worked out, but the 300's really kick butt!
we've got better hp and more effiecient engines ,better accessability, better visability than anybody else. We put better switches and gauge cluster in as well plus we ave the new rubber wrap tracks available as well.
Yeah I sell'em .
Keith
Deere Dealer

[Tigerotor77W]

You also have CTLs, so how about some information on them? :D

[Scag48]

The only thing I didn't find appealing about the Deere skid steers was the price tag! I was quoted $29,000 for a 317! We paid $21,000 for our Cat 216, just a little smaller in capacity/HP, but not worth $8,000 IMO. Also, the Deere controls are far from what I'd expect for an almost $30,000 machine.

[thepawnshop]

Scag, I paid 24k for my 320 (which is a touch larger) with suspension seat, Self leveling bucket, 12v kit, Safety strobe AND side glass windows. As far as the hand controls, I did like the CAT better, but with the way the machines distribute the weight (the CAT puts 70% of the weight in the rear whereas Deere only puts 60% there) I felt that the hand controls being stiffer was better than the machine feeling more "tippy".

29k is a ridiculous price, though.

[ksss]

The Deere control system continues to need work IMHO. I hope for Deere's sake this series will "right the ship" in their skid steer line. They certainly have created an uphill climb for themselves. Time and resale value will tell how successful they have been.

[Caribbean Breeze]

KSSS,

How is your performance on the 95XT?

Have you tried it against a S300 Bobcat?

I heard its a very strong machine, what attachments do you use it?

Thanks

Caribbean Breeze

[KBequip.]

HELLO,
I'M BACK .
I'll be the first to admit that we had minor issues with our fist machines.
The worst thing about the 200 series was the intermittence of problems across the the first series. I sold machines to guys that never had down time but for routine maintenance. But like wise there were customers that had reocurring problems.
But lets face it Every manufacturer has there own ISSUES to work through.
The series II were better and after they moved production to the backhoe factory at Debuque Iowa they got even better. Now, we're sure happy to see the new 300 series ,but like every other engineered machine in existance i'm soure one of you guys or gals will find a weak spot somewhere or an area in need of improvemnent.
As for our CTL's. Yeah we got'em now and are they doosey's. Mountains of belt torque and lifting capacities out the wazzoo!!
We have two models CT322 and a CT332 .
The track system was engineered buy our crawler guys at Debuque.
Basically, it took deere forever to come out with em and now they got the most power and lifting capacities in their classes. And the same great maintenance and visibility.
I'm excited!!

As for pictures , send me an e-mail address and i'll send you a spec sheet.

[jd270]

i will have to agree all manufactures are going to have some kind of problem once in awhile so far my 270 has been awsome it runs circles around the 873 i used to have and dealer suport in very good my local bobcat dealer sucked .....alll brands have issues a freind of mine had a case 95xt and had 3 hydro pumps in it in 1000 hrs and then he got an 270 and loves it and another friend of mine has an 90 xt and it has also been good .......but localy there is a pile of the first 200 sieries running around with no problems at all

[Tigerotor77W]

Caribbean Breeze: I hate to say this, but I do hope that some senior design engineer at Bobcat reads these forums daily. There is more he could learn from here than he could from a day sitting at a computer, designing his "ideal" skid steer. :rolleyes:

[This is a rather "thought-intensive" post... I'm throwing around a lot of numbers. And Keith, given that you work at a Deere dealer, *sigh* don't tell all your customers, this, okay? I don't want every Deere customer telling all his buddies that the S300 is a wuss. :))

The S300 is simply not a strong enough machine to compete directly with the Cast 465 (old name = 95XT). ksss will likely say the same thing, but consider a few things.

1) The Bobcat S250 and S300 are IDENTICAL machines except for two things.
a) The S300 has different injectors that give it the extra six horsepower
b) The S300 has counterweights all over the place to give it an extra "500" pounds of lift capacity.
2) The Bobcat S250 weighs 7723 pounds; the S300, 8140. This means that the S300 weighs about 400 pounds more than the S250, yet can have a ROC of 500 pounds more. In theory, which is how ROCs are determined, an addition of 500 pounds to an ROC should mean an increase of 1000 lb in tipping load, which means, with strategic placement of the weight, you increase machine weight by 1000 pounds. The S300 weighs 400 pounds more. It is impossible, if the S250 is rated correctly at 2,500 ROC, for a machine to weight 400 pounds more but be able to tip at 1000 pounds more. (It's physically impossible.) So either one of two things is true: either the S250 tips in reality at 5,600 pounds (not 5,000 pounds), or the S300 doesn't have a tipping load at 6,000 pounds (but rather has a tipping load of about 5,400). Which begs the questions:
i) If the S250 can lift 2,700 pounds (still under a potential tipping load of 5,600 pounds IF the S300 lifts 6,000 pounds), then why isn't it marketed as an "S275," which would be the *true* replacement to the discontinued 883?
ii) If the S300 can't lift 6,000 pounds at tip, why is it marketed as the S300, which is overrated?
3) The S300 competes, essentially, with itself. The NH Ls190.B, Deere 328, and Cat 262B are all less-rated than the S300, so the S300 is "too big." A S250, in theory, can handle the same loads these machines have; however, the S300 is the bid against those machines. Bobcat loses. Of course, the 465 has an ROC of 3000 pounds as well, so shouldn't it be a viable competitor? No... as the 465 is a heavier machine than the S300. If you made me choose between a 445 (2,500 ROC) and an S250, I'd take the S250; but given a 465 and a S300, there's no doubt that the 465 will lift more, and not just because it weighs more.

Final comments. I have nothing against the S300 as a 3,000 pound ROC machine. It fits in an excellent spot on the market for Bobcat, competing against the 465 (which has taken quite a bit of large SSL market from Bobcat) in theory. However, as ironic as it is, the S300 is too small. The S220 is too big (what 2200 pound ROC machine has a 48.8" wheelbase?), and the S300 is too small, and the reason for all this is because some engineer at Bobcat decided that it would be appropriate to size three machine classes in ONE wheelbase/frame size. It's completely understandable that they'd want to so this (and Cat has, too, mind you), but for the leader in skid steer design, I'm not impressed with this decision whatsoever. (Note that Cat has this same interesting feature: the 252B and 262B weigh the same, but have a tipping load 400 pounds apart. This is acceptable because the 262B doesn't compete directly with the 465 -- it's not rated at 3,000 pounds+, so an extra-heavy frame isn't really required as much as it would be on an S300, which, in theory, is the Bobcat counterpart to the Case 465.) The S300 *needs* to be a heavier, stronger machine; even if it has more breakout force than the Case and has almost identical HP ratings, a 465 will likely outwork it by some margin, especially in load and carry of heavy materials.

Truth be told, I think Bobcat is working on an answer to this, but I'm not sure. If they're not, well, hello Bobcat, you're missing a good chunk of the large SSL market.

Keith -- I'll PM you my email address. Where is your dealer located?

[KBequip.]

Yo!
Were are located in evansville indiana.
We should have the ctl's on lot by august.
as for the guy that was priced a 317 for 29k wow something was certainly wrong.
any question just ask i'm in the business to inform.
Hey, i just want to ask you guys a question; do you like demoing equipment?
Why can't I get you to try my machines along with the competition at the same time?
Also i'm trying ti get my bosses to look at starting a demo day for contractors where we could rent competative equipment and give you folks a side by side comparision. If your dealer did something like this would you go?
thanks!

[Tigerotor77W]

I've been wanting to do just that, with myself and perhaps select contractors as the judges, for ages now. But it is expensive to rent out eleven different machines for a day, so quite simply, it hasn't happened yet.

KB, I do need to make a note here. When you demo equipment side-by-side, it is imperative that the machines are specced the same way. It isn't fair for one company to have a full tank of fuel in a machine, while another has half-fuel (and manufacturers WILL do this!), or to put 10x16.5 tires on a 3,000 pound ROC skid and say it doesn't have ground clearance, or to put a 96" snow bucket on a machine and say it doesn't have good digging characteristics.

[Caribbean Breeze]

Xing,

It is the choice of the manufacturer if they want to over rate they machines.
Yourself or no other body can control them and pressure them to always correctly rate - Over rating is a plus you the users.

I worked at Gottwald in Germany for 6 yrs,this company is the leader in Mobile Harbour Cranes for Ports & Harbours - The cranes are rated at 100 Tonnes at x metres but THE SAME CRANE CAN LIFT 130 TONNES AT THAT SAME DISTANCE. my dear friends this compensates for wear and other issues. You are right the S250 is over rated a little - but the S300 has the correct rating.

I hear what you are saying about the S300, have you ever visited Bobcat's proving grounds in Arizona, close to Sun City?

I was fortunate to go there last year for a week in the dust and this is what we did,

We ran Bobcat S220's, S250's and S300's against competitive models from Deere, Cat and Case. Both Cat & Case were impressive but you know what?

Bobcat were top in terms of production and cycle times, Bobcat machines consumed less fuels in these tests, a Case 60 XT consumes fuel like no other machine we run today(this is why we are selling it)! Fuel consumption has a direct effect on our balance sheet. We have found that Case machines are very powerful but with higher fuel bills, Bobcat has the balance between power & fuel consumption. Its well tuned for our work where we have various operators...

FUEL IS OUR 2 LARGEST RECURRING EXPENDITURE FOR THE MONTH - WHY NOT SAVE FUEL AND GET THE SAME PRODUCTION?

This is why we are selling our 3 - Cat 345BL machines for Komatsu PC450's because we can save 10 - 15% on excavator fuels bills. We will not buy and Cat 345's again.

I am convinced that Case machines are very good, as well as some Cat units.
Bobcat is working on the large frame units and will introduce a larger machine in future.
The S300's tipping load is 6,000lbs, remember these standards are established by SAE / ISO. and it would be against publication laws to lie on a spec sheet that has a note about SAE/ISO Standards. Some companies I have heard do lie about some specs.

Also, I know that Bobcat engineers are reading our posts, but as the saying goes - YOU CAN SATISFY SOME OF THE PEOPLE SOME OF THE TIME - BUT NOT ALL THE PEOPLE ALL OF THE TIME.
Bobcat engineers are very hands on, decisions about design & power etc. are not taken infront of a computer and I am sure you know this.

I strongly disagree with anyone who says that the S300 is a wuss (by what standards do you determine when a machine is a wuss) is it power alone? How many of us use our machines on a daily basis to its full potential and output? few of us push machines that hard so come on and lets be practical, lets look for machines that help us IMPROVE OUR BOTTOM LINE - THATS WHAT BOBCAT DOES FOR US with LOWER FUEL CONSUMPTION - THEY CONSIDER THE MOST IMPORTANT FACTORS FOR THEIR CUSTOMERS....PROFITS!

We will buy what is better for us in the long run and not what we like. I like Case but It costs too much to run everyday - Thanks for the feedback

All the best!

Caribbean Breeze

[Tigerotor77W]

Caribbean Breeze,

I'm glad (thrilled) you posted some of the background information. And in a completely serious manner and attitude, thanks for putting me in my place. I went off on a rant and while I still feel strongly about what I said, your post has extreme validity and I will take this into account in future posts. There isn't very much I can discuss, but there are a few notes I would like to mention about the Bobcat units themselves.
There is one reason (and one only) that I chose Bobcat S250 as my user name. Given the similarities between it and the S300, I think the S250 is more of a machine for its size class. I was in awe when it was introduced, because it exuded power and did so on a platform that replaced the 873 -- which propelled Bobcat into the heavy-lift vertical lift skid steer market. I don't feel the S300, when compared to the machines it works against, is quite as effective as the others. I feel that the S300 isn't as "tough" a machine as Bobcat could produce; if the S250 has 100 size chains, by all means, it's possible to throw in 120s to make the S300 a heavier, more "rugged" machine. The 465 and 328 both outweigh the S300; when Deere goes on its sales pitch, they'll claim the 328 is more of a machine. For every test Bobcat conducts, Deere is getting the *opposite* result somehow. And when a superior product (going to an S250 comparison) loses because Deere claims that its components are "heavier" or because "our axles handle more torque," there's a certain amount of believability to it. "Okay, if the Deere axles are larger and one-piece, then they must be stronger!" I admit: I didn't take into account fuel consumption, because generally, I'm not provided that information by operators. Operators don't always know what machines are consuming; other times, I don't remember to ask. :( What I was trying to say, but went a little overboard in saying, was that if Bobcat could put more than rated specs in the S250, some people would certainly expect that in a larger machine. But again, you're right, fuel consumption is an issue. (As for lying about specs... yes, some companies certainly do.)

Thanks once again for the heads-up. And for the Bobcat engineers who I've angered or offended, well... I don't think any apologies from me will amend what I've said. I do apologize for berating your product without having the full story behind it, and as mentioned previously, will take care not to do it again.

Finally -- Caribbean, are you a contractor or do you work for a company? And secondly, are the 345Cs just as fuel-hungry?

Edit: There is a rather large demolition contractor in the midwest who started off using Bobcat products. After going around and sampling a few manufacturers, they are now using S300s (back to Bobcat again). They had 95XTs and Cat 262s, but ended up going to S300s -- and the funny thing is, I know how they operate their machines. They push their machines to the absolute limits, and if they didn't doubt the S300, I don't have the right to, either.

[Tigerotor77W]

Caribbean Breeze, can you PM me? I wanted to PM you a petit merci. :)

[TerraFirma Excavating]

1) The Bobcat S250 and S300 are IDENTICAL machines except for two things.
a) The S300 has different injectors that give it the extra six horsepower
b) The S300 has counterweights all over the place to give it an extra "500" pounds of lift capacity.
2) The Bobcat S250 weighs 7723 pounds; the S300, 8140. This means that the S300 weighs about 400 pounds more than the S250, yet can have a ROC of 500 pounds more. In theory, which is how ROCs are determined, an addition of 500 pounds to an ROC should mean an increase of 1000 lb in tipping load, which means, with strategic placement of the weight, you increase machine weight by 1000 pounds. The S300 weighs 400 pounds more. It is impossible, if the S250 is rated correctly at 2,500 ROC, for a machine to weight 400 pounds more but be able to tip at 1000 pounds more. (It's physically impossible.) So either one of two things is true: either the S250 tips in reality at 5,600 pounds (not 5,000 pounds), or the S300 doesn't have a tipping load at 6,000 pounds (but rather has a tipping load of about 5,400). Which begs the questions:
i) If the S250 can lift 2,700 pounds (still under a potential tipping load of 5,600 pounds IF the S300 lifts 6,000 pounds), then why isn't it marketed as an "S275," which would be the *true* replacement to the discontinued 883?
ii) If the S300 can't lift 6,000 pounds at tip, why is it marketed as the S300, which is overrated?


BobcatS250,

Wouldn't placement of the additional weight have an effect on the overall lifting capacity? Depending on it's location in relation to the CG (Center of Gravity) and the amount of leverage it exerts will determine the overall effect of the counterweight. For example, 100# of weight located forward of the CG will have no increase (possibly a negative effect) on the ROC. 100# of weight located midway between the CG and the rear of the machine MAY have a 100# increase in the ROC, whereas 100# added to the rear of the machine MAY have more than 100# increase to the ROC.

[Scag48]

Caribbean Breeze - 10-15% on fuel?! That's pretty substantial. You have to compare apples to apples though, brand new Komatsu PC450's have newer emission standards than your B series 345's. I'm curious, have you compared the newer 345CL to the PC450? Cat is claiming that their new ACERT engines are much more fuel efficient than it's predecessors. I would like to get an opinion from someone that runs larger pieces on a daily basis. Thanks.

Okay, not to "hijack" the thread. Xing, do you know how many frames Cat uses for their skid steers? 216 and 226 are the same, the 236 and 232 do not I believe because of lift towers, correct? The 252 and 262 makes sense though, as well as the 246 and 248. Do they cross products, like using a 216 skid steer frame for a 247 MTL?

[ksss]

There is a lot of information here in this thread. Rather than people waving the flag of their favorite OEM there is actually a logical thought behind the comments. Impressive.

Caribbean your right. Some CASE models are hard on fuel. The nonturboed models tend to use more fuel in my experience. MY 85XT was hard on fuel. My 70XT (turbo)is pretty conservative considering it puts out 85hp. My 95XT is hard on fuel (turbo, I think the extra weight is the problem). I run them because pound for pound I have not run a machine that is as productive as the 95XT. I demo a Bobcat almost every year (I didn't this year. I was sold on the 440 before I even ran one). Not one that I have run (Bobcat) can compete with the 95XT in production dirt moving.

Here is what else I learned at ConExpo. The major attachment companies that I spoke with which included FECON, LOFTNESS, CONQTEC, and others. When they asked what machine I had, they each had said that the 95XT was the machine they used to test their attachments. Why? because they dominate the heavy lift market, and they are the most powerful hydrualicly speaking machines available. LOFTNESS puts out a very comprehensive hydrualic horse power rating of all current machines. The 95XT even though it was introduced back in 97 continues to be the most powerful and the benchmark used by these guys to spec their attachments. The 7800 Gehl machines although they have more engine HP are almost incompetent in hydrualic hp. I asked how these machines run and was told that they have overheating problems when running high performance attachments. The 90 and 95 are proven, very powerful, and productive. Yes they are also expensive, heavy and hard on fuel.

Similiar to what I had said in the NH post, I don't think Bobcat is really trying to go after the market dominated by the 95XT. They can't, at least not with that machine. However, they can market their machine (300) to those who need additional performance than the 250 provides, and still run a Bobcat. I have memories of the 883. More weight, bigger tire option, in that case no increase in HP. It flopped. the S300 is more promising than the 883 was, but the marketing looks very similiar.

As a side note the Bobcat guys asked me to come to their Bobcat days several years ago. They always give me a hard time about running CASE. After taking my share of jokes, I told them I would come and bring my 95XT and would challenge any machine they picked in a production type excercise of their choice during their Bobcat days. They made phone calls (I presume to Bobcat to get permission). Result permission denied. I could come, but not with my 95XT. What does that prove? Nothing, except its a good story.

In short I run the CASE machines because of productivity. The 95 certainly uses fuel, but like I said not all are hard on fuel. However, they produce more work which gets my jobs done faster and because of that I am ok with the fuel usage. When you compare the build of these machines verse any thing on the market, (the 7800's come the closest) it is evident that the CASE machines are very well built (I like that). Look at size of drive chains, thickness and size of loader arms and frame. The CASE machines are built for a consistant diet of extreme work loads. Not every one needs that much machine or is willing to pay the price. I do. The 95XT is the biggest piece I own. We do everything from large yard preparation to large scale demolition and excavation jobs. People continue to be amazed at the size of jobs we do with a 95XT and the TB53. I attribute a large portion of the success I have had to the performance of these machines.

[Tigerotor77W]

BobcatS250,

Wouldn't placement of the additional weight have an effect on the overall lifting capacity? Depending on it's location in relation to the CG (Center of Gravity) and the amount of leverage it exerts will determine the overall effect of the counterweight. For example, 100# of weight located forward of the CG will have no increase (possibly a negative effect) on the ROC. 100# of weight located midway between the CG and the rear of the machine MAY have a 100# increase in the ROC, whereas 100# added to the rear of the machine MAY have more than 100# increase to the ROC.

Mechanically, it depends, but not likely. If the horizontal distance from the machine's center of gravity to the rearmost point on the machine (best rearward leverage) is less than the horizontal distance from the center of gravity to the tipping load height, then the moment caused by the increase in operating weight is LESS than the added weight you could pick up. In some skid steers, I don't know, this may be reversed: the center of gravity may be so far forward, the added weight to the rear has a longer horizontal distance (moment arm) than the moment arm to the hinge pin, so it could pick up more (potentially).

Generally speaking, however, the center of gravity is located closer to the rear tire (between the front and rear), which would mean that in most cases, any addition of weight, unless extended further than the machine's body size itself, wouldn't yield a 1:1 increase in ROC.

[Tigerotor77W]

Caribbean Breeze - 10-15% on fuel?! That's pretty substantial. You have to compare apples to apples though, brand new Komatsu PC450's have newer emission standards than your B series 345's. I'm curious, have you compared the newer 345CL to the PC450? Cat is claiming that their new ACERT engines are much more fuel efficient than it's predecessors. I would like to get an opinion from someone that runs larger pieces on a daily basis. Thanks.

Okay, not to "hijack" the thread. Xing, do you know how many frames Cat uses for their skid steers? 216 and 226 are the same, the 236 and 232 do not I believe because of lift towers, correct? The 252 and 262 makes sense though, as well as the 246 and 248. Do they cross products, like using a 216 skid steer frame for a 247 MTL?

The user who works at the Cat factory would probably be a better person to answer this question, but apart from components (hystats, pumps, cylinders, engines, wheels) the 216, 226, and 247 are the same frame; the 232, 242, and 257 are the same frame; the 236, 246, 248, 266, and 267 are the same frame; the 252, 262, 268, and 287 are the same frame.

Can catjd verify?

(And scag, I was interested to see whether the Cs had lower fuel consumption as well...)

[Tigerotor77W]

Mechanically, it depends, but not likely. If the horizontal distance from the machine's center of gravity to the rearmost point on the machine (best rearward leverage) is less than the horizontal distance from the center of gravity to the tipping load height, then the moment caused by the increase in operating weight is LESS than the added weight you could pick up. In some skid steers, I don't know, this may be reversed: the center of gravity may be so far forward, the added weight to the rear has a longer horizontal distance (moment arm) than the moment arm to the hinge pin, so it could pick up more (potentially).

Generally speaking, however, the center of gravity is located closer to the rear tire (between the front and rear), which would mean that in most cases, any addition of weight, unless extended further than the machine's body size itself, wouldn't yield a 1:1 increase in ROC.

Actually, now that I think about it... I guess it is possible. When lifting a load at maximum forward reach, the center of gravity of the load+machine system moves forward quite a bit. Therefore, the horizontal distance to the tailgate (the spot where you could point weight rearmost) could be larger compared to the distance to the load... which means, in theory, the loader could carry a larger load than the weight added to the rear of the machine.

Intriguing...

[TerraFirma Excavating]

I think it got confusing when I threw in Center of Gravity. Yes, the center of gravity is usually just ahead of the rear tire. When the machine tips, or begins to tip, the fulcrum will be the center of the front tire. On the S250 or S300, the distance from the center of the front tire to the rear of the machine is 97.25" vs. the 44.95" from the front edge of the bucket to the center of the front tire. This will give you about a 2:1 mechanical advantage.

Of course, any weight added aft of the rear tire will make the machine more unwieldy when unloaded due to being heavy in the rear. The manufacturers most likely add some weight forward to balance out the unloaded machine and maintain unloaded handling while adding additional counterweight for increased lifting.

[Tigerotor77W]

Yup. I hadn't applied anything from my statics class until now, so this definitely is an interesting example for me. Also, how were you able to get the 97.25 and 44.95 measurements?

[TerraFirma Excavating]

Sorry, I had a typo in my initial post, should have been 97.95" not 97.25".

I used the dimensions published in the Bobcat S250/300 brouchure. The diagram shows the distance from the rear of the machine to the front of the tire of 114.5". A 12x16.5 tire is 33.1" diameter, so 16.55" radius. 114.5" - 16.55" = 97.95". Then overall machine length with bucket (142.9") - 97.95" = 44.95" bucket lip to center of front tire.

[Tigerotor77W]

Makes sense. I didn't do any of the actual calculations, so I was just wondering if you had done some research on larger skids for your future needs.

[TerraFirma Excavating]

I had been looking at the differences between the S250 and the S300. I was wondering how they were getting 500 pounds increase of ROC with only 400 pounds machine difference. Also my 773 has front axle weights and the rear counterweight kit. The front weights must balance out the additional rear counterweight when I don't have a load on the machine.

[Tigerotor77W]

Haha, that's what the original page 2 was all about in this thread... me doubting the S300. The specs you provided -- the 97.95" and 44.95" -- are relatively accurate (I forgot that the hinge pin is NOT directly in line with the front of the front tire), and basically, when the loader lift arms are at the distance farthest from the front of the machine (somewhere near midlift), that's when the 400 pounds to the rear can make a greater than 400 pounds difference in ROC. As you mentioned, the center of gravity of the machine and load must be behind the front axle. Once it gets in front of the front axle, the machine will start to tip. Therefore, as you said, the front axle is both the pivot point and the center of gravity *at* tipping. When you add a 200 pound counterweight to the tailgate and another 200 to the engine area of the machine, that's a combined (VERY! rough) added 783 pounds in tipping load. Therefore, the conclusion is that because 783 pounds in tipping load is less than the 1000 pounds difference between the S250 and S300, the S250 must be able to tip at more than 5,000 pounds. When you're lifting less than tipping, and the center of gravity is further rearward, that's when the S250 and S300 will have closer lifting specs. But once you start pushing the 5,400 pound region, the S300 will have better performance as the moment arm increases in length.