PDA

View Full Version : CAT 277/287 or BOBCAT T250/300


bowerj
01-27-2006, 01:10 PM
im looking at buying a new CTL but i dont have much expirience with the pilot controlled machines. My pick is between a CAT 277/287 or BOBCAT T250/300 with pilot controls. It will be used for grading, brush cutting and lawn installs. Ive only run a CAT 257 for about 20 minutes and really liked it but you cant tell much about a machine in that time. For those of you with expirence with both machines which do you recommend? Im not intersted in any other machines.

toy1
01-27-2006, 01:42 PM
I have a cat 257 and I love the machine, I hate the dealership so much I would not buy another machine from them! With that said I have just purchased a ASV rc100. this model has a perkins Diesel it is a supper machine and has excellant aux. hyg. flow it comes standard with high flow. My point in this message the machine you buy once but the dealer you must deal with for a long time, make sure you like the dealer either the cat or the ASV are super machines

Tigerotor77W
01-27-2006, 05:11 PM
Would you be buying both machines or just one of those? (That is, one radial and one vertical? Or simply ONE machine?) For the situations you've mentioned, it's hard to tell. The 277B and T250 will be the best grading machines, but there is no doubt that the 287B with XPS high-flow system will out-perform any other CTL's high-flow system (maybe except what ASV cooks up to replace the RC-100).

If you're going with two machines, I think the Cat lineup is better overall (because of the XPS system, mainly, but also because the suspension should be a plus in OH). However, if you have to choose one machine... the T300 may come out to be slightly cheaper.

The most important aspect has already been covered by toy1 -- no matter what the technical superiority of the machines, the dealer is the ultimate decider. If one is bad, that brand is really quite useless in your fleet.

bowerj
01-27-2006, 06:35 PM
i will only be buying one machine. both dealers should be about equal as far as service. i dont care about price as long as theres not a huge difference. also i guess i have to rule out the CAT 277 machine because i need the XPS on the 287 to run the mulcher i will be using, im not sure about the BOBCATS as far as that goes.

Tigerotor77W
01-27-2006, 08:58 PM
At this point, I'd say the 287B will come out on top due to its XPS system. There's little doubt that the system will help you mulch faster than you would with the T300 HF.

However, I wouldn't take this for certain until you've demoed both machines -- equipped similarly. That is, don't get a T300 with foot pedals and standard flow to compare to an 287B with XPS and advanced joysticks. The 287B will likely come out a little more expensive, but it really depends on the dealer to set the low bid. So demo them, see how you like each, and then get a bid on the price.

UNISCAPER
01-28-2006, 06:42 PM
If you plan on doing much side sloping, don't get the 277. Go with the 287.

Digdeep
01-29-2006, 10:02 AM
Bowerj,

I understand that you're only looking at the CAT 287B and the T300, but I think it would be wise to look at the ASV RC100 as well. It has the same undercarriage that the 287B has, the same controls, and some other benefits that the CAT and T300 don't have:

1. Superior highflow- I've demoed all of them and the RC100 is easily more productive with a mulcher than the 287B. It has 38gpm vs 33gpm with the CAT and a 4.4L engine that has the extra hp to mulch, turn the machine, raise the loader, etc. All of these functions tax the engine, and there was a noticable reduction in mulching performance on the 287 when I demoed it. I'm convinced that it is because it uses a 3.3L engine that is at the edge of it's limits when multi tasking the hysdraulic systems. The CAT was good when it was going in a straight line and I didn't have to raise or lower the boom. Mulchers throw a lot of crap into the air and the CAT machines also draws the debris in right behind the cab directly into the engine compartment. the tracks carry it up just like a conveyor belt and this could be a fire hazard. The T300 uses a 3.3L engine as well and a belt driven pump that isn't as productive as either the ASV or the CAT.
2. two speed- The RC100 is the only machine that has two speed-11.5mph.
3. ground clearance- The RC100 has much more ground clearance than the other two machines. This isn't a factor when grading, but it does come into play when mulching in unimproved areas.
4. machine width- the RC100 is narrower than the other two machines. This is a factor when mulching because the mulcher only cuts so wide and any uncut brush can damage the edge of your tracks. The less track extending out from the sides of the mulcher the better. Take this from someone who sold the equipment for a living. Uncut brush damages the edge of tracks.

All of this is only food for thought and you'll have to make you own decision, but I sold Bobcat machines for years, tried all of them with mulching heads (Fecon, Timberaxe, and FAE). If I was going to go into mulching I would at least consider the ASV machine. It will be just fine in grading and lawn installs too.

Squizzy246B
01-29-2006, 10:06 AM
I would say that Dig Deep has about nailed it.

Tigerotor77W
01-29-2006, 10:39 AM
And of the two machines, I would still suggest that the 287B is, at this point, a better buy than the T300. Throw in the ASV, and we may have another situation entirely.

Digdeep, I have a question for you. I should have asked this when I went to Holt Cat but... forgot. The method (general) method for calculating hydraulic horsepower is to take the pressure in psi, multiply it by the flow in gpm, and divide by 1704. (We've discussed this one another thread... somewhere...) In the case of the Cat (33GPM, 4050 line pressure), that amounts to about 78 horsepower, two horsepower more than the 268B can produce. In this assumption, we take the efficiency to be 100%, so the extra horsepower can simply be line losses and pump inefficiencies. In the case of ASV, or Bobcat, which both have 37 GPM but 3,300 psi, that horsepower comes out to be around 72 (71.7 for the Bobcat, 73.6 for the ASV). Given that both of these are lower than the specified engine horsepower for the models they are on (either 75 or 81), why can Caterpillar say that its machines are the most productive high-flow units available? (Where the ASV, Case, Bobcat... have power to spare, the Cat is running on the edge.)

My overall question, then, is if I were a customer coming to you with this information and wanted to buy a Bobcat SSL, how would you rebuff this? (And applied to this situation, is there numerical evidence that the ASV's lower theoretical horsepower is more productive given the machine's excess power capacity?)

UNISCAPER
01-29-2006, 11:24 AM
Given that both of these are lower than the specified engine horsepower for the models they are on (either 75 or 81), why can Caterpillar say that its machines are the most productive high-flow units available? (Where the ASV, Case, Bobcat... have power to spare, the Cat is running on the edge.)



Because the pumps on the other machines require more power to equal the same amount of hyrdaulic horsepower as the pump Cat makes. The Cat pump is more efficient, does not have any slippage built in and uses a limiting valve to regulate flow as needed to the work tool.

But, then beware. Each manufacturuers output numbers are taken using their formulas and manipulated until they get the results they need to see for the sales departments to take charge of the situation.

The same holds true with break out force, and lift tipping capacities. The only way to really put them to a test is take every machine to the spot where they are going to work, and with the same operator do the exact same work. Since all dirt is inconsistent, and all dirt consolidates over time, it is impossible to get an exact test becase the scoop you grabbed one second is not the same as the next.

M RASCOE&SONS
01-29-2006, 11:51 AM
i have the t300 bobcat and i love it,i have it in some pretty mucky situations and we motored threw it,the power is incredible .im glad i went with the bobcat..

Tigerotor77W
01-29-2006, 01:01 PM
Given that both of these are lower than the specified engine horsepower for the models they are on (either 75 or 81), why can Caterpillar say that its machines are the most productive high-flow units available? (Where the ASV, Case, Bobcat... have power to spare, the Cat is running on the edge.)



Because the pumps on the other machines require more power to equal the same amount of hyrdaulic horsepower as the pump Cat makes. The Cat pump is more efficient, does not have any slippage built in and uses a limiting valve to regulate flow as needed to the work tool.

That is to say that the Cat pump is 102% efficient (it puts out more than it takes in, so to speak). If the operator is running no functions -- no hystat travel, no lift arm movement -- then the hydraulic horsepower outdoes the available net engine horsepower by 2%. (78/76) Suppose, then, that you start using the travel functions -- in the mulching instance, certainly you would move the machine to mulch, not just mulch in one spot. How low does the hydraulic horsepower fall then? BTW, it is impossible for an engine to produce more than it's rated for -- it defies the laws of thermodynamics.

In the case of the ASV machine, there is a "reserve" of nearly 26 horsepower. I'll give it to you that Cat's system is more efficient, but that 26 horsepower translates to a efficiency of 65% on the ASV machine. Therefore, the ASV pumps would have to 65% as efficient as the Cat system to use up all its engine horsepower -- and 65% efficiency isn't a great figure. (It's low.)

But, then beware. Each manufacturuers output numbers are taken using their formulas and manipulated until they get the results they need to see for the sales departments to take charge of the situation.

The same holds true with break out force, and lift tipping capacities. The only way to really put them to a test is take every machine to the spot where they are going to work, and with the same operator do the exact same work. Since all dirt is inconsistent, and all dirt consolidates over time, it is impossible to get an exact test becase the scoop you grabbed one second is not the same as the next.

:waving: Absolutely. It's all a game of numbers... but it sure is frustrating!

ksss
01-29-2006, 02:21 PM
Realizing your not looking at CASE, however if your planning on using a high flow attachment your missing out. The 450CT is built off of the 450/90XT platform. Equipped with highflow, it is the strongest machine currently produced. It may at least be worth a look. I've mentioned this in other threads before, but perhaps it bears repeating. Loftness, and Fecon and perhaps others all used the CASE 95XT (hydraulicly same as 90XT) for development of their products. Reasoning it is the most powerful machine (hydraulicly speaking) on the market. This information was given to me by the manufacturers. The 450 platform itself is rock solid and the tracked machines appear to continue that reputation. Who's system is more efficient, I have no idea (and I really doubt anyone here knows definitively). However, when the rubber meets the dirt, the CASE high flow machines remain at the top of the food chain.

bowerj
01-29-2006, 08:25 PM
Thanks for all the replies. very informative

DigDeep- i will definately look at the ASV machine, although i dont know much about the dealer.

I picked these two because of the dealers. #1-location #2-availabilty of rental attachments and service and #3-a machine is only as good as the dealer it came from.

i have a couple more questions. On the CATs why is there a different track setup on the 277 and 287 and what might the pros/cons be for it? ive read the the CATs might not perform as well on slopes (which is important because i will be running the mulcher on some pretty hilly ground). Which machine will retain the most tractive power for climbing hills while running HF? And between the two pilot style controls on the CAT and BOBCAT is one better than the other?

Tigerotor77W
01-29-2006, 09:06 PM
I'll let someone tackle the question about the slopes and tracks on the Cat. There is a difference in how the track is routed.

I originally avoided the ASV as that wasn't listed in your two choices. As now it is being considered, I imagine you might find it the best of the three. There are some threads on the control issues:

http://www.lawnsite.com/showthread.php?t=119662
http://www.lawnsite.com/showthread.php?t=128277

(for starters)

dccarling
01-29-2006, 10:13 PM
Toy1,
What ASV dealer do you use? I live in CT and also own a RC-100.
Thanks, Doug

UNISCAPER
01-29-2006, 11:14 PM
The 277 will not perform as well on slopes. The 247/57/67/87 will do things a rigid frame machine won't do when side sloping. The 277 will push more than about anything out there on flat of slightly sloped surfaces because of the rockers on the bogie wheels. They will ride smoother and grab more dirt to push with. They also will throw tracks faster than anythig else on side slope situations.

The 287 will be the best machine of the 277/87 you are consdering. The 287 uses a Mitsupillar rather than a Perkapillar engine. My next chore is to get a 287 engine and install it in a 257. 32 more pounds, 30 more HP. And it will bolt right in like it was made to fit.

Scag48
01-30-2006, 01:50 AM
You're my hero Bill. I would definately like to see that engine swap.

toy1
01-30-2006, 08:07 AM
Hi Doug

I purchased from R&S sales in Torrington George Rewet is my contact. He is a person that always puts the customer first.

toy1
01-30-2006, 01:45 PM
I was talking to my dealer on asv vs bobcat he told me of a fellow who had 2 rc100 that he used in land clearing they both had the cat 99.5 hp diesel. he had so many problems getting spare parts for the Cat motor that he decided to demo t 300 he was using timberaxe on rc100. The t300 folks told him that it would run as well asrc100 with timberaxe. To make a long story short it did not perform as well and the t300 people took the machine back, he has since purchased a new rc100 with the perkins diesel and life has been good. That is the story as I was told.

toy1
01-30-2006, 01:59 PM
Take a look at the new asv it is called the sr series sr80 and sr70

They have some very interesting features. and 21" tracks. looks like one bad machine.

dccarling
01-30-2006, 04:41 PM
Thanks Toy1,
It is a few miles from here, but I'll give him a call for anything major. How's the service department? You are right about the new RS machines....they look awesome.
Doug

toy1
01-30-2006, 04:59 PM
I have been dealing with R&S for over 20 years. I purchased my 2nd tractor from them. they were an international dealer way back when. I had an old 300 utility and purchased a 3444 backhoe loader. I kept that for about 20 years and then purchased a l2910 kobota, I have probably purchased a least 6 or 7 machines from them and they have been outstanding. They have a good service dept. I have used only for warranty work. They have been a ASV dealer for about 4 or 5 years. they seem to sell alot of machines. They also have a good rental dept.

Digdeep
01-30-2006, 06:25 PM
And of the two machines, I would still suggest that the 287B is, at this point, a better buy than the T300. Throw in the ASV, and we may have another situation entirely.

Digdeep, I have a question for you. I should have asked this when I went to Holt Cat but... forgot. The method (general) method for calculating hydraulic horsepower is to take the pressure in psi, multiply it by the flow in gpm, and divide by 1704. (We've discussed this one another thread... somewhere...) In the case of the Cat (33GPM, 4050 line pressure), that amounts to about 78 horsepower, two horsepower more than the 268B can produce. In this assumption, we take the efficiency to be 100%, so the extra horsepower can simply be line losses and pump inefficiencies. In the case of ASV, or Bobcat, which both have 37 GPM but 3,300 psi, that horsepower comes out to be around 72 (71.7 for the Bobcat, 73.6 for the ASV). Given that both of these are lower than the specified engine horsepower for the models they are on (either 75 or 81), why can Caterpillar say that its machines are the most productive high-flow units available? (Where the ASV, Case, Bobcat... have power to spare, the Cat is running on the edge.)

My overall question, then, is if I were a customer coming to you with this information and wanted to buy a Bobcat SSL, how would you rebuff this? (And applied to this situation, is there numerical evidence that the ASV's lower theoretical horsepower is more productive given the machine's excess power capacity?)
Tigerotor77W,
Calculated hyd. hp is flow x pressure/1714.

it's important to understand that this is only "calculated". It is impossible to produce more hyd. hp than the engine can produce. Both the CAT 287B XPS and the ASV use a "load sensing" pump that prevents the pump from producing more flow than the attachment can use at the time. If a drive motor on an auger can only use 12gpm of flow due to the resistance to the earth the CAT and ASV pump will only give 12gpm. A gear pump such as Bobcat's produces, let's say 20gpm. Under the same circumstances with the auger the extra 8gpm would be wasted flow and go over relief causing extra heat fuel consumption, wear, etc. Uniscaper makes some good points about belt driven pumps being less efficient and he is right. As our Bobcats would get more hours on them the belts wouldn't be as efficient. it also really important to understand that actual hyd. hp available at the attachment, and calculated hp are two different things. It all looks good on paper, but the real test is what the attachment can do on different machines. this is where the demonstration is the real key.

Tigerotor77W
01-30-2006, 08:36 PM
Mmm, good point on the 1714. I was thinking 1704. :sleeping:

As far as the actual analysis goes, that's interesting to note. I wasn't aware that Cat's system was ultimately different from Bobcat's. I'll keep that in mind.

Ultimately, then, why hasn't Bobcat gone over to direct-driven systems? A combination of cost, "transerse-mounted engines are better," anything else?

Digdeep
01-30-2006, 09:15 PM
Tigerotor77W,

I think you're right. I bet it's a function of cost and I'm not sure how you could mount a pumpstack on a transverse mounted engine given the width of the chassis. My salesman told me of a test that ASV ran that showed the Bobcat's hydraulic hp not anywhere close to what they advertise concerning flow and pressure. He said it boiled down to engine hp and the capability to drive the hydraulic pump under a load such as a mulcher cutting through a stump. It makes sense to me since the engine hp on the Bobcat track loaders was originally designed for a skidsteer with out the hydraulic demands of driving their undercarriage.

Tigerotor77W
01-31-2006, 08:12 AM
Out of curiosity, when did you stop selling for White?

Digdeep
01-31-2006, 07:51 PM
Tigerotor77W,

I stopped selling 3 years ago in April. I still miss the ability to visit jobsites and selling the right equipment that helps a guy become more successful. I truly enjoy teaching so I probably won't ever go back to selling, but compact equipment is a passion. Probably much like it is for you. Once I get married, I'll probably have to sell my gear so that I can spend more time with the better half. She's been very understanding with the teaching and the "moonlighting" as a landscaper.

Tigerotor77W
01-31-2006, 10:15 PM
You can call me Xing if the Tigerotor77W gets too tedious. :D

It sounds like you've got a great head on your shoulders. It's interesting seeing someone go back to education from the construction business -- not too common, and it's commendable that you can pull yourself away. Not one of my fortes!

bowerj -- any consensus on any machine? Lot of choices...

Scag48
02-01-2006, 03:43 AM
Once I get married, I'll probably have to sell my gear so that I can spend more time with the better half Women can never replace iron! Don't do that!

Digdeep
02-01-2006, 07:07 PM
Scag48,

Thanks for the warning:nono:, but I finally found one that can put up with me. I figure I've put it off until my mid 30s so what the hell. I'm definitely going to keep the RC50, at the very least I can play in the dirt and cut some walking trails on my 45 acres for deer hunting. I'll tell her that it's the machine or a fishing boat!