PDA

View Full Version : T190 Transformation Gotta Love Your Track Machine


mrsops
12-21-2007, 04:13 PM
Hey Guys Check Out These Pics. My Machine Has Never Ever Came Back Like This Before My Operator Said The Mud Was Coming Up To The Top Of The Tracks Some Scary Stuff But We Took Care Of It

bobcat_ron
12-21-2007, 04:14 PM
I take it those are Mclaren tracks?

But if that was a Cat, you could have cleaned it with a spoon and a garden hose!!!!

mrsops
12-21-2007, 04:20 PM
Those Are Mcclaran Tracks Yes Ron. Do You Like Mcclaren Or Bridgestone?

YellowDogSVC
12-21-2007, 04:28 PM
that stuff looks like goose crap. yuk. I will take the texas dry winter over that!

mrsops
12-21-2007, 04:34 PM
Yeah I Would To.. Thats Gravel Mud Rocks Whatever Else Was On That Job In Those Tracks

bobcat_ron
12-21-2007, 04:43 PM
Those Are Mcclaran Tracks Yes Ron. Do You Like Mcclaren Or Bridgestone?


I never got around to trying the Mclarens, one local nursery has them on their T300 but they are wearing faster, but they are much smoother than the C lug OEM (Bridgestone) tracks they had.

YellowDogSVC
12-21-2007, 04:47 PM
How do these tracks hold up in rocky conditions or rough, land clearing type conditions?

mrsops
12-21-2007, 04:51 PM
I Never Take This Machine On Rocky Surfaces You Will Destroy The Tracks And Your Self With All The Vibration. This Machine Is Great In Mud And Dirt. Backfilling Always A Pleasure As Well, And The Machine Has Alot Of Power

bobcat_ron
12-21-2007, 04:57 PM
Any rock(s) bigger than 3 inches will chip and scratch the tracks PDQ, I once spent all day driving over 6" clear rock and I could see the metal cables in the tracks!

YellowDogSVC
12-21-2007, 05:00 PM
what's clear rock? So, if there are rocks "here and there" but fairly substantial softball size, track loaders would be miserable to operate?

bobcat_ron
12-21-2007, 05:04 PM
Clear rock is what we call crushed and screened rock with no fines.

mrsops
12-21-2007, 05:19 PM
bottom line if you want to spend thousands fixing this machine then use it on rocky areas. the ride of this machine when its on dirt is beautiful

YellowDogSVC
12-21-2007, 05:35 PM
this is the 2nd worst type of terrain I can encounter while grinding my way through the woods. The worst is honeycomb limestone which is sharp. These areas are strewn with rock and I have to grind around it to make trails of shreds to drive on. Is this what you would call rocky?

cat2
12-21-2007, 06:28 PM
How is that T190 on power? i heard that they are a dog

bobcat_ron
12-21-2007, 06:31 PM
this is the 2nd worst type of terrain I can encounter while grinding my way through the woods. The worst is honeycomb limestone which is sharp. These areas are strewn with rock and I have to grind around it to make trails of shreds to drive on. Is this what you would call rocky?

Yup, I've been over that type of terrain too, I just lay the toothed combo bucket down ahead of me and let the teeth do the work, once the bucket gets filled with big nuggets, dump it out and keep going.

mrsops
12-21-2007, 06:39 PM
t190 a dog?? no way cat2 you demo one and you let me know my t190 is an animal strong machine has lots of power

cat2
12-21-2007, 06:53 PM
i'm didn't say it was thats just what i heard

bobcat_ron
12-21-2007, 06:58 PM
The T190's pushing power is extreme, but the Takeuchi has Bobcat beat in the break out and loader lifting contest, radius path will always lift more than vertical path. Look at the Deere's vids they produced, dead weight of 3200 lbs (not sure) Deere's 322, no problems, bucket and loader, Bobcat couldn't even curl it in all the way and lift any higher than 2 feet, that's the dead zone, Takeuchi could easily lift, but it got the ass end up once it was at it's maximum reach from the machine.

mrsops
12-21-2007, 07:11 PM
ron do you like your t 190 or your cat track better

cat2
12-21-2007, 07:37 PM
i think he likes the Cat better

Gravel Rat
12-21-2007, 07:53 PM
Clear is nothing but rock no dirt its the same as 3/4 inch clear crush etc.

That mud looks like its the fine silty stuff that acts like sandpaper and wears out parts. Fine silt is worse than grit.

When I worked for a rental shop a guy brought a mini excavator (bobcat) back with the tracks loaded full of mud like that. It took me 2 hours to get them cleaned out.

mrsops
12-21-2007, 07:55 PM
it took me 2hrs to clean my machine

tthomass
12-21-2007, 08:29 PM
Something I do with mine on cleaning out the inside is the air 'channels'. Behind your head is the filter for the AC.......remove it and then run a few gallons of water through. It was very dusty this summer and I got all kinds of crap out of there that I had been breathing in.

*Drill a small hole on both sides of the channel at end to allow extra water to drip out. Also, I wouldn't recommend having the machine running!

bobcat_ron
12-21-2007, 08:41 PM
ron do you like your t 190 or your cat track better


Cat all the way, even if they have less break out, they are still better built than Bobcat, and Cat made more physical changes to their skids in 1 year than Bobcat could ever do in 10 years.

The biggest thing I am seeing not only here, but in other forums and the work place, is the bashing of Cat's hydraulic power. When they first came out with the SSL's a lot of people were told that they were designed NOT to tip up when lifting a heavy load, they tweaked the relief valves so they can't lift the heavy loads.

So in the vids that Deere produced where they did a dead lift, the Cat couldn't even lift it, WHY? If it did, it would tip and be unsafe, the Bobcat lifted it, but only 2 feet up, but it it did, the same effect, and the Takeuchi proved my point.

I would rather own and operate a machine that can't lift anything heavier than it's own ROC regardless of it's a CTL or SSL, last thing I need is a bouncy and unstable machine sinking the front end all over the place.

Here's another reminder:

http://www.lawnsite.com/showthread.php?t=207330


Enjoy!

Tigerotor77W
12-21-2007, 08:49 PM
bobcat_ron: thanks for addressing the safety issue. I approve. :)

mrsops
12-21-2007, 10:47 PM
you guys are making me want to try out another machine im bobcat all the way but have owned deere before years back when they were called i belive 7775 and 3775 lol can you tell im not a deere guy anymore my biggest issue was if you guys sit in a bobcat and sit a deere i couldnt see the corners of the bucket on the deere the bobcat i could i had better visibility as well with the bobcat when the door was on

SiteSolutions
12-21-2007, 10:47 PM
So in the vids that Deere produced where they did a dead lift, the Cat couldn't even lift it, WHY? If it did, it would tip and be unsafe, the Bobcat lifted it, but only 2 feet up, but it it did, the same effect, and the Takeuchi proved my point.

I would rather own and operate a machine that can't lift anything heavier than it's own ROC regardless of it's a CTL or SSL, last thing I need is a bouncy and unstable machine sinking the front end all over the place.

Here's another reminder:

http://www.lawnsite.com/showthread.php?t=207330


Enjoy!


I will say that my T-190 hasn't stunned me with lifting performance, but it has taken a full bucket or pallet up down and sideways on a lot of steep hills. It seems to me that it must have been designed to only lift what it can safely carry.

AWJ Services
12-21-2007, 10:52 PM
I would rather own and operate a machine that can't lift anything heavier than it's own ROC regardless of it's a CTL or SSL, last thing I need is a bouncy and unstable machine sinking the front end all over the place.


Come down South for a few years and you will be wishing for more breakout.:)

I agree that 80% of the guys only need as much as there tipping load.

mrsops
12-21-2007, 10:53 PM
go buy a t320 it will lift the t190 up like a pallet of sod lol

SiteSolutions
12-21-2007, 11:01 PM
go buy a t320 it will lift the t190 up like a pallet of sod lol

That would be real handy if I won the lottery and the ramps broke off my trailer in the same week.

Otherwise probably not high on my to-do list.

mrsops
12-21-2007, 11:02 PM
there asking like 62,000 for the t320 that is just insane

SiteSolutions
12-21-2007, 11:06 PM
Sometimes I think about getting a top of the ROC ctl but I think the things I want that kind of power for would tear up the machine pretty quick. I'd probably be better off getting a used 939 for the rough stuff and continue running a medium frame ctl for the fine work.

YellowDogSVC
12-21-2007, 11:15 PM
there asking like 62,000 for the t320 that is just insane

Wow, that's expensive.
I would love to have a T320 but don't know if I could charge enough because other Bobcat guys are working for 55- 60/hr around here. I try and just grind which brings more money but there are guys grinding for under 100/hr and leaving a wholly mess. I imagine a T320 would be ideal for hp to keep the pump running but geez, 62k before a grinder head? That's 100k worth of machinery for brush clearing.

mrsops
12-21-2007, 11:18 PM
yellow thats excatley why i dont have a t320 same problem here im getting the same money for sending my t190 out and then you got these guys cheaper anyway. im better off spending 80,000 and having 2 t190

YellowDogSVC
12-21-2007, 11:28 PM
I just want more hp to support my hydraulic pump. If Bobcat would tell me that the S330 and the T320 had the same hp and were not playing with numbers, I might want to stay with a skid though I have plenty of jobs where the track would be helpful. I used to run two s300k series high flow machines so that one was always up. I just got rid of one since the work is slowing. I really don't want to add a 60k machine and run a newer s300 so I would have to decide if I can make a track loader work for me. Some jobs are very rocky and some just have rocks here and there. I know that I do a lot of clean up for tree companies on moderately rocky terrain and they often complain about skids and tearing up the properties. I also love the concept of stability since there isn't anything flat in my neck of the woods. Lots of ditches, draws, hills and valleys to negotiate and though I am somewhat skilled, I still get nervous on slopes and uneven terrain with a 2300lb mower out front. It's a tough thing to think through. I want the extra hp, don't need or want the extra weight, and I am not sure if the tracks will make that big a difference. I used to run steel otr tracks. They were very stable and I could do anything but thick mud but they are not an option since I have to travel over improved surfaces and do not want to replace my bucket, grapple, mower, and other attachments because of spacers. I ran tracks for 6 years on 863's, an s220, and s250 and all of those were more stable than my bare tire machine but I just don't want to go that route. The more I talk about this, the more CAT looks like they have what I need in the hp and weight department..

mrsops
12-21-2007, 11:31 PM
the t320 def has more hp at 92 but maybe your better off buying an s330 and putting tracks on them

YellowDogSVC
12-21-2007, 11:35 PM
the t320 def has more hp at 92 but maybe your better off buying an s330 and putting tracks on them

same motor, same displacement. Bobcat is either turning down the fuel on one or turning it up on the other or playing with numbers. S300's used to be 81 SAE net hp. They are now rated at only 77.7 sae net hp down 2.3 hp since the G series and early K series specs.

I can't put tracks on. They tear up the surfaces. I work on some very expensive tracts with demanding customers who pay well and they don't want the marks on the land that tracks leave. I ran tracks for years and had too many complaints to justify their use and I am a slow turner and mindful of tearing up the earth.

mrsops
12-21-2007, 11:37 PM
i hear that if i was you i would demo a t320 see how you like it

YellowDogSVC
12-21-2007, 11:45 PM
i hear that if i was you i would demo a t320 see how you like it


I doubt I can get a demo down here. Last time I wanted to demo a T300, they only had a T190. CTL's aren't real popular down here. I did get to see B series CATs with very torn up undercarriages sitting on the Bobcat lot. Didn't give me much faith in rubber. I run the Bobcat version of Galaxy Hulk tires and have run hulks for years. I routinely get more than 1500 hours in rocky terrain with plenty of use left in the tires. I'm a gentle operator but have heard so many horror stories about CTL's. Might be a moot point anyway. The T320's weight specs probably don't include a CAB and AIR so it is probably closer to 10k lbs. My trailer is only rated for about 9200lbs carry weight. Unless I can remove the bucket and drop the weight about 800 lbs, it would probably be too heavy. I'm a nut for keeping the weights under CDL and not overloading my truck though I run very close to the legal limit on a regular basis. I try and save weight wherever I can. One of the first things I do with the S300's is rip out the rear counter weights. If i can figure out how to get the others out, they will go too! Every pound of extra weight is unnecessary in my mind so I try and keep it off the trailer and truck. If Bobcat would put the bigger motor in an s300, I would shut up and sing their praises. I know that motor isn't all the extra weight of the s330 so they are adding weights and big tires that I don't need.

bobcat_ron
12-22-2007, 10:39 AM
If the Cat MTL's scare you would you consider a C series with the Loegering VTS then?

Tigerotor77W
12-22-2007, 12:01 PM
If the Cat MTL's scare you would you consider a C series with the Loegering VTS then?

This probably isn't such a bad idea... the price will be prettty hefty, though...

If Bobcat would put the bigger motor in an s300

I think Bobcat is starting to get limited on engine displacement because of the transverse design... at some point, engines are going to get longer, so when they need to still fit between the machine frame, someone's going to run into trouble.

I agree, though; their large loaders (300 series) need to be a little more competitive...

YellowDogSVC
12-22-2007, 12:17 PM
There's room in the s300, s250, and s220 for the 230cu in. motor that's put in the 330 and t320.

YellowDogSVC
12-22-2007, 12:27 PM
This probably isn't such a bad idea... the price will be prettty hefty, though...



I think Bobcat is starting to get limited on engine displacement because of the transverse design... at some point, engines are going to get longer, so when they need to still fit between the machine frame, someone's going to run into trouble.

I agree, though; their large loaders (300 series) need to be a little more competitive...

Hey Tiger can you explain how CAT gets 90 sae net hp out of a 201 cu, in motor and Bobcat only gets 77.7 out of a 202 cu in motor and only 85 hp sae net out of a 230 cu in. motor? I can't wrap my head around the numbers game out there. Also, since it's been out for a number of months, how do you still feel about the C series CATs like the 272c and its pressurized cab?

Tigerotor77W
12-22-2007, 01:01 PM
I still can't explain (and don't fully understand) engines for my life -- so I'll do my best with what I do understand about them.

One engine can have different fueling rates to achieve different rated powers. I don't know if a hardware change is required to change the fueling rate, but changing fuel rates is what Cat does in, say, the C9 to use it in both the 330D excavator (267 HP now? I don't remember -- but something more than 242 HP) and the D6T dozer (200 HP). In much the same way, then, the 202.5 (or 202.3 -- since Bobcat quotes slightly different numbers for that, too) cubic-inch Kubota probably has different fueling rates for -- you guessed it -- the S250, S300, S330, and T320. If the Cat engine injects 20% more fuel (made up number) to get the 90 HP rating in the 272C and 297C, maybe the Kubota only injects 10% more (also made up) fuel to go from the S250 to the S300. Since the engine of the S330 is slightly larger -- maybe just 1/2" more stroke on each piston, because 28 cubic inches really isn't that much -- it probably has slightly lower fuel consumption than what you'd see if you increased fuel rates by 30% to get to 85 HP on the S330 with a 202.5 cubic inch motor.

So ultimately, from Bobcat's standpoint, using the same motor -- 202.5 cubic inch -- and increasing the fuel rate would do some combination of decrease life expectancy too much, overdrive the turbo, or increase fuel consumption significantly, so by going with a slightly larger engine, they can get away with less fuel burn, which creates lower pressures; use a different turbo; and decrease fuel injected -- which solves the issues mentioned. In Cat's case, where the 3024 is an engine that runs up to 120+ HP (in the 450E backhoe loader, for instance), going up to 90 HP probably wasn't that much of a jump, and the engine can probably still handle it. My bet is that the 3024 is a heavier engine than is the Kubota engine. I have no way to prove this, as I don't have the blocks sitting in my garage, but it's my hunch that the 3024 was designed to cover a larger power spectrum than the Kubota. So where Cat can get away with using one engine [displacement] to cover the 70-90 HP range, Kubota's engine range may be from 50-80 HP. (Again, my guess!)

Granted everything above is from what I understand of engines... which could be entirely missing the picture of what the manufacturers are really trying to do (which is I don't know what).

I don't own a C-series machine (remember: I'm still a student!), but I've heard that Cat reps are pleased with them. The cab is still the finest out there, bar none, and particularly for your line of work, you'll appreciate the sealed and pressurized nature of the cab.

YellowDogSVC
12-22-2007, 02:00 PM
I don't own a C-series machine (remember: I'm still a student!), but I've heard that Cat reps are pleased with them. The cab is still the finest out there, bar none, and particularly for your line of work, you'll appreciate the sealed and pressurized nature of the cab.

As always, a thoughtful approach to the answer..and I appreciate it. I think you might be onto something and what I suspected. The larger 230 cu in motor is probably built heavy enough to handle the hp increase long-term. I didn't know the CAT motors had such a broad range but that makes sense. I thought I had read somewhere that the v3300 which is the Kubota I use, had a range up to 90+ hp but I can't remember where I found that tidbit.

I can't see much gain on paper when you figure in the extra weight on the s330 and t320 with just a minor horsepower increase especially in the s330. That brings me back to CAT. They must have figured out and went out and figured a way to beat Bobcat's power to weight ratio that has been touted (by bobcat) for so long. At 90 hp and slightly lighter than an s300, the CAT 272c seems to be a leader in the power to weight ratio with all things considered. I'm stuck with wanting just a tad more hp to keep my hydro motor up to speed but I don't want extra weight to carry around. Everything I have except my mower are Bobcat products but Bobcat won't answer any questions and doesn't seem to really want my business. They have the opportunity to help me keep the faith but I suspect I won't hear from them. Being loyal is one thing. Being loyal when you are frustrated and wondering if you are on a sinking ship is not good business. I just want some dialogue..dang it! I want to whine to an engineer and see if they will take what I say seriously.

If not, I must look somewhere else, right?

AWJ Services
12-22-2007, 03:13 PM
Remeber engines do not actually generate HP only torque.
The hp is a deravitive of torque and rpm.

So take 2 engines with 80 hp rating.
One at 2500 rpm and the other at 3000 rpm.
They are not the same.
An engine can continue to make more and more hp by raising the rpm range yet they will make less and less torque.
What happens when you have an engine that has good hp at 3000 rpm the engine will work well but when it is pulled down to say 1200 rpm it's torque output will be very low and the engine will recover slowly while under a load.
Take the same hp rating at 2000 rpms and the torque will be much higher than the engine with 3000 rpm hp rating and the recover from lower rpms will be much better.

The best way to determine the most effective engine is to take the engines operating range and average the power through out it's range.
Regardless of peak power ratings that will show it's true colors.

P.Services
12-22-2007, 03:46 PM
i have a single axle kodiak that is about 9.5' high at the dump bed. will the t190 load that truck with out a problem or am i going to have to pull the boards of to shorten it?

bobcat_ron
12-22-2007, 03:51 PM
i have a single axle kodiak that is about 9.5' high at the dump bed. will the t190 load that truck with out a problem or am i going to have to pull the boards of to shorten it?


You'll have 5 inches to spare, the T190 has a hinge pin lift height of 119" and 9.5 feet is 114", so it'll be tight, but I've loaded higher still.

YellowDogSVC
12-22-2007, 03:53 PM
Remeber engines do not actually generate HP only torque.
The hp is a deravitive of torque and rpm.

So take 2 engines with 80 hp rating.
One at 2500 rpm and the other at 3000 rpm.
They are not the same.
An engine can continue to make more and more hp by raising the rpm range yet they will make less and less torque.
What happens when you have an engine that has good hp at 3000 rpm the engine will work well but when it is pulled down to say 1200 rpm it's torque output will be very low and the engine will recover slowly while under a load.
Take the same hp rating at 2000 rpms and the torque will be much higher than the engine with 3000 rpm hp rating and the recover from lower rpms will be much better.

The best way to determine the most effective engine is to take the engines operating range and average the power through out it's range.
Regardless of peak power ratings that will show it's true colors.

If I could get actual numbers from Bobcat or CAT, I could make an informed decision. It isn't practical to demo all the machines doing what I do. Nobody wants to demo a machine and let me put my grinder on it so I need to see some numbers. The torque on my s300 doesn't seem all that impressive. In fact, I feel like my 2004 S250 was stronger than my 2007 k series s300 though the numbers don't say that. It's hard to tell, though, because you get used to a particular machine. It's like having a limp. You can't do everything you used to but you can still get around. :)

AWJ Services
12-22-2007, 04:43 PM
Maybe contact Bobcat or Kubota corp and ask for the specs on the engine.They will have a dyno sheet on it.
It will have fuel rate torque and hp.

http://www.kubotaengine.com/products/pdf_en/29_v3800dit_26.pdf

here is the V3800-di-t

I will look for the V3300

The BSFC is lowest at or around peak torque.
That is the engines most efficient rpm fuel wise.

Digdeep
12-22-2007, 04:44 PM
I have done a little digging on this when Bobcat announced the T320 and CAT released their C series. My Bobcat contact at the factory in ND told me that the T320 puts out 232 ft lbs of torque in its 3.8L engine. The local CAT dealer here in Wisconsin (FABCO) had to do some digging, but came back with 217 ft lbs of torque. Tigerotor77W can you confirm this? The tech rep that I spoke to wasn't too sure.

I'm a firm supporter of engine torque being the true measurement of a machines ability to p[erform work under heavy loads. This holds true for hydraulic attachments (the engine needs to be able to drive the pump when it is under heavy loads and a lack of torque creates a big spread between theoretical hyd. hp and actual hyd. hp at the attachment) and traction assuming the tires or tracks have sufficient grip to put the hp to the ground.

YellowDogSVC
12-22-2007, 04:55 PM
Interesting specs. Engine is capable of 99 gross hp according to charts.

AWJ Services
12-22-2007, 04:58 PM
I will add that according to Kubotas site the 33 and the 38 are the engine size in the Model number.

You also have to know where the hyd pumps "sweet spot" is.
That is it's spot that it wants to run when at full hyd flow.Usually when you pass that speed it will loose efficiency.

So if your pump puts out x hyd hp at 2500 rpm and y hyd hp at 1500 it has a direct relation on your attachments ability to work.
One pump may be better at 1500 rpm than another.
Same as the hp explanation.
You also have to account for pressure as well in comparison.
40 gpm at 3000 psi is not the same as 40 gpm at 3500 psi.

YellowDogSVC
12-22-2007, 05:01 PM
I have done a little digging on this when Bobcat announced the T320 and CAT released their C series. My Bobcat contact at the factory in ND told me that the T320 puts out 232 ft lbs of torque in its 3.8L engine. The local CAT dealer here in Wisconsin (FABCO) had to do some digging, but came back with 217 ft lbs of torque. Tigerotor77W can you confirm this? The tech rep that I spoke to wasn't too sure.

I'm a firm supporter of engine torque being the true measurement of a machines ability to p[erform work under heavy loads. This holds true for hydraulic attachments (the engine needs to be able to drive the pump when it is under heavy loads and a lack of torque creates a big spread between theoretical hyd. hp and actual hyd. hp at the attachment) and traction assuming the tires or tracks have sufficient grip to put the hp to the ground.

I know we are getting off subject but here's my S300k series SAE specs:

ROC 3000
breakout/lift 5350
breakout/tilt 5400
push force 5400 ft lbs.

hp. 77.7
torque 211.7
displacement 202.5 cu in.

Maybe I can put a turbo on the turbo like the new powerstrokes! :)

AWJ Services
12-22-2007, 05:06 PM
I'm a firm supporter of engine torque being the true measurement of a machines ability to p[erform work under heavy loads. This holds true for hydraulic attachments (the engine needs to be able to drive the pump when it is under heavy loads and a lack of torque creates a big spread between theoretical hyd. hp and actual hyd. hp at the attachment) and traction assuming the tires or tracks have sufficient grip to put the hp to the ground.

Dig Deep is correct.

You have to look at what rpm the engine will be at under load.
If peak power and hyd flow is at 2800 rpm but the engine is at 2200 rpms at wot under load from the attachment then what?


Interesting specs. Engine is capable of 99 gross hp according to charts.


That engines ideal loaded operating range would be from 1300 rpm to 2100 rpm.
I doubt Bobcat has there pump matched to this.
So when you load the edgine at peak power the engine will slow and get into it's efficient range and the pump will loose efficiency down there and the attachment will slow.
It will be a constant speed up and slow down process of the attachment.
But if Bobcat put the sweet spot of the pump lower in the rpm range it would be more efficient but generate less hyd hp.

YellowDogSVC
12-22-2007, 05:11 PM
.
Same as the hp explanation.
You also have to account for pressure as well in comparison.
40 gpm at 3000 psi is not the same as 40 gpm at 3500 psi.

My attachment, the CAT hm 312 mulcher, is rated for up to 40 gpm at 4000 psi. The book says up 36 gpm at 4000 psi. My specs are 37 gpm at 3300 psi but I probably get about 36 after all things considered. I'm a little low on the psi but the psi range on the attachment is about 2800-4000 psi so I think I am in a safe range. I think Bobcat's pressure is bit low, though, as it is easy to stall the attachment when mowing.

I would think that Bobcat has it all figured out but just a couple of years ago they tried a 40 gpm machine and it was a disaster and guys were stuck with the machine that overheated, without a load, in 20 minutes on the shop floor.

So, who knows. We all want more power. I will take steady. Don't have to be the biggest, but I want steady. My chipper has 200 hp and is steady through the rpm ranges especially with the autofeed. I don't bog down and I can count on one hand how many times I stalled the machine, like twice over 1000 hours chipping bushy, wet trees. Granted it's two different animals but the power management seems to be more reliable on the chipper and it's such a simple system. I go slow when grinding with the bobcat and that works great most of the time. I just can't move much and keep the rpms up with the pump engaged. That gets frustrating but I have learned technique and stay productive. Just get a headache from grinding my teeth about the lack of power..

AWJ Services
12-22-2007, 05:17 PM
Maybe we need to shoe horn the chipper engine and pump into the bobcat.LOL

If you think about it in terms of your chipper only having 82 hp how would it act?

ksss
12-22-2007, 05:44 PM
How is that T190 on power? i heard that they are a dog

I guess power is a very relative term. I think they are dog. I would go as far as saying they are anemic. Maybe it is our altitude. My experience is they are underpowered and underdesigned but if the owner is happy with it thats all that matters.

Tigerotor77W
12-22-2007, 09:30 PM
Oh boy... so much to reply to.

AWJ: indeed torque and speed determine power. Bobcat used to publish a speed with the rated power, but not anymore. If a machine came with a speed-torque curve, I think that'd help -- but since manufacturers can tweak the general engine (3800 "series" might be different from the exact engine used in the S3x0, for instance), it's difficult to get the whole picture. But I agree as well: torque is generally a better measure. It's just difficult to get over people's perception of "power" being the dominant factor.

digdeep: I don't have much access to any torque or HP ratings (not up to date, anyhow), anymore. I may in a few weeks, but for now, the best I could do is look up comparisons given by Deere or CNH. :(

Ultimately, though, the whole picture, like has been brought up by AWJ and digdeep, is beyond just the engine's figures. How the pumps are matched and how the power gets to the ground are two other factors that aren't really compared -- there are no pump effeciency tests, for instance. I'm not sure there is [yet] a concrete way to compare machines directly and completely objectively.

YellowDogSVC
12-22-2007, 11:32 PM
Maybe we need to shoe horn the chipper engine and pump into the bobcat.LOL

If you think about it in terms of your chipper only having 82 hp how would it act?

considering the chipper only has 6gpm for hydraulics and can chip a 20" x 30' long whole tree, I would think if it had 82 hp, it would do a 10" x 15" tree +/- without bogging down. It seems to have an extremely simple and efficient design and it's a Vermeer so go figure. It can be chipping and pulling in brush while I am operating loader lifting 1000 lb trees for the next bite whereas the Bobcats seem to bog down. Maybe I haven't broken in my Bobcat enough. It's sitting at only 274 hours or so. I don't know but I think for the weight and what is required, it should have more power. Maybe a better breathing system? Don't get me wrong. I love the machine and it does have power it just doesn't have the power I think it should when doing 2 tasks at the same time.

YellowDogSVC
12-22-2007, 11:33 PM
I guess power is a very relative term. I think they are dog. I would go as far as saying they are anemic. Maybe it is our altitude. My experience is they are underpowered and underdesigned but if the owner is happy with it thats all that matters.


Maybe these machines do need twin turbos to keep that power up especially in high altitudes or am I just dreaming?

SiteSolutions
12-23-2007, 12:56 AM
Just one turbo should be enough to cancel out the effects of altitude, in my simple understanding of how they work. The turbo is typically set up to run a certain amount of boost pressure, thus providing a consistent supply of air to the engine regardless of air pressure in the environment.

Scag48
12-23-2007, 01:53 AM
The advantage of a twin turbo is pretty simple. The smaller turbo requires less exhaust gasses to draw in charge air, therefore you're pushing the same amount of boost at lower RPM's than you would at higher RPMs, giving your more power with less fuel burned. This is partially the reason why most of the newer trucks are going with twin turbos, people want the power, but the EPA wants them more efficient. By adding a second turbo, you have more consistent boost pressures throughout the entire RPM range, which equates to more "on demand" power. If you don't have to wait for the turbo to spool the boost you need to get the power down, things get done quicker, it's like having the power on tap all the time.

SiteSolutions
12-23-2007, 08:24 AM
The advantage of a twin turbo is pretty simple. The smaller turbo requires less exhaust gasses to draw in charge air, therefore you're pushing the same amount of boost at lower RPM's than you would at higher RPMs, giving your more power with less fuel burned. This is partially the reason why most of the newer trucks are going with twin turbos, people want the power, but the EPA wants them more efficient. By adding a second turbo, you have more consistent boost pressures throughout the entire RPM range, which equates to more "on demand" power. If you don't have to wait for the turbo to spool the boost you need to get the power down, things get done quicker, it's like having the power on tap all the time.

That makes a lot of sense in a truck, where you are at a low idle sitting at a stoplight and then you mash the accelerator and expect something to happen quickly. In a twin turbo setup, the little turbo spools quickly and then the big turbo moves enough air for big power on the top end.

BUT in a loader, you set the engine speed at a constant speed, the turbo is already spooled up and producing boost, it's designed to work that way. You could put two turbos on if you needed more boost, but since you aren't worried about waiting on the turbo to spool anyway, (since you're not drag racing the thing,) you could just as well go to one larger turbo. From a manufacturer's engineering standpoint, one turbo would be cheaper and perfectly adequate since turbo lag isn't really an issue on heavy equipment.

Dirt Digger2
12-23-2007, 08:44 AM
BUT in a loader, you set the engine speed at a constant speed, the turbo is already spooled up and producing boost, it's designed to work that way. You could put two turbos on if you needed more boost, but since you aren't worried about waiting on the turbo to spool anyway, (since you're not drag racing the thing,) you could just as well go to one larger turbo. From a manufacturer's engineering standpoint, one turbo would be cheaper and perfectly adequate since turbo lag isn't really an issue on heavy equipment.

unless you are running a backhoe, dozer, or any other machine where your RPM is varying...a twin turbo like you said, doesn't make any sense in a skid loader, trackhoe, or track loader but i sure wouldn't mind having one in our backhoes

YellowDogSVC
12-23-2007, 11:09 AM
That makes a lot of sense in a truck, where you are at a low idle sitting at a stoplight and then you mash the accelerator and expect something to happen quickly. In a twin turbo setup, the little turbo spools quickly and then the big turbo moves enough air for big power on the top end.

BUT in a loader, you set the engine speed at a constant speed, the turbo is already spooled up and producing boost, it's designed to work that way. You could put two turbos on if you needed more boost, but since you aren't worried about waiting on the turbo to spool anyway, (since you're not drag racing the thing,) you could just as well go to one larger turbo. From a manufacturer's engineering standpoint, one turbo would be cheaper and perfectly adequate since turbo lag isn't really an issue on heavy equipment.

Would one big turbo help keep those rpms up under load?

ksss
12-23-2007, 01:00 PM
In the case of the T190 I think 61 hp is not enough for a machine in this weight class. Bobcat obviously has the ability to give it more without getting overly creative. It makes its rated hp at 2700 rpm that is quite high, which may explain why it is so dam loud. Because BC does not give its torque rating who knows how much and were it makes its best torque rating at. It gives up over a hundred cu in displacement to some of its competative machines. I assume its a low torque engine given its performance or the engine does not make its torque in a usable powerband. Eitherway if you don't need a real powerhouse of a machine like BobcatRon said in an earlier thread, the power may not be an issue. There are other issues with this machine but perhaps they are more subjective. I will also admit that I have been "spoiled" by running the high hp machines for the last 7 years. That a side, to me, if I get in a machine in this ROC class I expect a certain level of production and this machine does not deliver IMHO.

bobcat_ron
12-23-2007, 01:22 PM
And with high HP comes less fuel economy, I'm really enjoying my fuel sipping 57 HP Perkins compared to the thirsty 56 HP Kubota.

Gravel Rat
12-23-2007, 01:24 PM
To put a twin turbo system on a equipment engine requires too much space.

You need more horsepower put a bigger engine simple as that. A small engine trying to produce bigger power doesn't work. You may have the top end horsepower but no bottom end power.

Construct'O
12-23-2007, 08:26 PM
The Terex 82-50 dozer with it's v-12 Detroit had duel turbo and was running over 475 hp.There wasn't anymore room for bigger engine in that case.

So what was there reasoning for duel turbo,with v-12 engine???

They sure would hogg the dirt!:usflag:

Fieldman12
12-24-2007, 08:38 AM
I don't have much experience with the dual turbo setup on normal machines but I do have experience on pulling tractors with up to four turbos with different stages. It is always been our experience that each turbo must feed the next to get them going. Sometimes several turbos feeding one big turbo. Takes longer but once you get all of them spooled up look out. So I guess what Im saying I dont see the power from the turbos kicking in any faster than say one turbo.

SiteSolutions
12-24-2007, 09:14 AM
KSSS: Here's a spec sheet for the latest version on that 2403 engine in the 190.

http://www.kubotaengine.com/products/pdf_en/24_v2403mt_27.pdf

Looks like only 165 NM of torque, which is something ridiculous like 120 lb ft.

I wonder if i could get a bigger motor put in mine once warranty is up?

Constructo: On a huge motor, you either have to put one huge turbo on that will take a long time to spool, take up a lot of space and generally have issues trying to spin something so big at high speeds, or you can go with multiple large but not too large turbos. Big 2 MW gensets have four turbos (all the same size / type), one for each three cylinders. That's putting them in parallel, which is different from the compound turbos on the new diesel trucks, where you have a little turbo and a big turbo, all feeding all 8 cylinders. The little turbo spools up quicker because it has less mass, so you get good off-idle response. The big turbo spools up slower but makes more boost once it gets going, so it puts enough air to the motor at higher rpm and under load.

Construct'O
12-24-2007, 10:26 AM
KSSS: Here's a spec sheet for the latest version on that 2403 engine in the 190.

http://www.kubotaengine.com/products/pdf_en/24_v2403mt_27.pdf

Looks like only 165 NM of torque, which is something ridiculous like 120 lb ft.

I wonder if i could get a bigger motor put in mine once warranty is up?

Constructo: On a huge motor, you either have to put one huge turbo on that will take a long time to spool, take up a lot of space and generally have issues trying to spin something so big at high speeds, or you can go with multiple large but not too large turbos. Big 2 MW gensets have four turbos (all the same size / type), one for each three cylinders. That's putting them in parallel, which is different from the compound turbos on the new diesel trucks, where you have a little turbo and a big turbo, all feeding all 8 cylinders. The little turbo spools up quicker because it has less mass, so you get good off-idle response. The big turbo spools up slower but makes more boost once it gets going, so it puts enough air to the motor at higher rpm and under load.

Thr turbos on the 82-50 was offset.One on each side of the motor.They looked to be the same size,by looks that is.

Makes sense like you said feeding one side of the engine,and them being split going into each half of the engine.

Definitily had to wear hear plugs:usflag:.

Tigerotor77W
12-24-2007, 11:17 AM
KSSS: Here's a spec sheet for the latest version on that 2403 engine in the 190.

http://www.kubotaengine.com/products/pdf_en/24_v2403mt_27.pdf

Looks like only 165 NM of torque, which is something ridiculous like 120 lb ft.

That engine is listed at 59 HP gross, so I'm not sure it's the 61 HP net that Bobcat is saying is in the T180, T190, and S205. But either way -- that 120 ft-lbs looks about right for the 56 HP motor, anyhow, so I don't think that the 61 HP motor would be putting out significantly more (135, tops, maybe?).

ksss
12-24-2007, 01:09 PM
We'll I guess thats why it feels like a dog. 130 foot pounds of torque and bucket breakout at 3550 those are pitiful specs. Some machines run stronger than they spec. and others weaker but the 190 in my opinion runs just like you would think it would looking at the spec sheet.

I am not bashing the owners of these machines (Site Solutions). Someone had said they had a lot of power or something to that effect and I was blown away that someone could run that machine and come away with that analysis and I still am blown away. I am not saying they don't fill niche and they are worthless only that they are not powerful by any nonsubjective way of measuring power (hp, torque rating, although tractive effort would also be a good measuring stick). They can be had in a narrow configuration which would have to be a big selling point. This machines role would have to be in more of clean up, light grading role It certainly would not survive well in a more aggressive excavating role. All depends on what you come to expect out of a machine. If thats the level of power your used to, you don't know what you don't have.

mrsops
12-24-2007, 01:22 PM
i have a 2005 t190 turbo i never had a problem with the powe of the machine

YellowDogSVC
12-24-2007, 02:26 PM
We'll I guess thats why it feels like a dog. 130 foot pounds of torque and bucket breakout at 3550 those are pitiful specs. Some machines run stronger than they spec. and others weaker but the 190 in my opinion runs just like you would think it would looking at the spec sheet.

I am not bashing the owners of these machines (Site Solutions). Someone had said they had a lot of power or something to that effect and I was blown away that someone could run that machine and come away with that analysis and I still am blown away. I am not saying they don't fill niche and they are worthless only that they are not powerful by any nonsubjective way of measuring power (hp, torque rating, although tractive effort would also be a good measuring stick). They can be had in a narrow configuration which would have to be a big selling point. This machines role would have to be in more of clean up, light grading role It certainly would not survive well in a more aggressive excavating role. All depends on what you come to expect out of a machine. If thats the level of power your used to, you don't know what you don't have.

Heck, I have a dinky toolcat to use around the ranch. In the right applications it feels powerful with the 56hp turbo but in other applications it's a dog. I feel the same with my s300. Sometimes it feels like a beast and other times it can't get out of its way. I have had experiences like that with all the machines I have owned except for the s220 which I felt the power to weight ratio was very good. It felt strong in all applications. I imagine having a T190, and knowing how to use it, could leave you feeling that it is a powerhouse though the numbers don't support that. And what is it being compared to? If you compare it to a smaller Bobcat you could really come away impressed with the extra traction and stability.

2109 Stang
12-24-2007, 02:44 PM
There is a turbo all ready design to keep the boost from low rpm all the way to red line, it's call VGT variable geometry turbo, Cummins has been using this for a while .

YellowDogSVC
12-24-2007, 02:51 PM
There is a turbo all ready design to keep the boost from low rpm all the way to red line, it's call VGT variable geometry turbo, Cummins has been using this for a while .

I wonder if my chipper has that?? It doesn't bog down much even on big wood and it's got the 200hp cummins.

Scag48
12-24-2007, 03:31 PM
When I'm running a skid steer, I'm used to Cat, which has a accelerator pedal, unlike Bobcat. I LOVE having a foot throttle, uses less fuel, allows you work in close quarters much easier. Of course you could try to work right next to a building at full throttle with your Bobcat, but chances are the controls are going to be way touchy. So you'd have to stop, throttle down with your hand, then get bac to work. With a Cat, just let off the pedal.

With all that said, I'm constantly varying RPM's in a skid steer, much like a backhoe or dozer.

mrsops
12-24-2007, 03:55 PM
scag im working in areas where im lucky if i got an inch on each side lol i never ever lower the throttle unless someone comes over to me and wants to talk lol. depends on the operators i dont like the foot pedal on a cat. i demo a bobcat with that pedal and the hand controls like cat i sent it right back lol

SiteSolutions
12-24-2007, 05:42 PM
ksss: I appreciate the tactfulness! :) My T190 isn't big on power, for sure, but it is pretty solid and does a good job all around for me. Coming from an S-185 and then a worn out T190, it's definitely a step up. Maybe in a couple years I will go a little bigger but I like the size. Maybe an ASV if they keep getting more reliable.?

My machine does have a foot throttle, which I wonder how I ever got along without, although with rowing sticks you can run wide open and work right up to an edge no problem; they are just so precise. Overall, though, the joysticks are a lot less tiring and it really is up to the operator to use whatever the machine gives him.

Merry Christmas y'all.

ksss
12-24-2007, 06:56 PM
Heck, I have a dinky toolcat to use around the ranch. In the right applications it feels powerful with the 56hp turbo but in other applications it's a dog. I feel the same with my s300. Sometimes it feels like a beast and other times it can't get out of its way. I have had experiences like that with all the machines I have owned except for the s220 which I felt the power to weight ratio was very good. It felt strong in all applications. I imagine having a T190, and knowing how to use it, could leave you feeling that it is a powerhouse though the numbers don't support that. And what is it being compared to? If you compare it to a smaller Bobcat you could really come away impressed with the extra traction and stability.

I agree that the 220 is a very nice machine. The power is great and the stablity is also very good. When I bought my 440 I also demoed a 220 and they let me have it for about 4 days. I have to say that the 220 brought me as close to changing colors as any competetive machine has. The design concept is very similiar to the 440. I could actually say they are the same just different takes on the same idea (radial lift, high hp and compact). The 220 gives up some power to the 440 but it was only noticeable when really getting on it. The 220 had the edge in stability when running at or over ROC. Overall a nice machine, for some reason you don't see many of them around here. There are a couple but not as many as there are S185's, which cant hold a candle to the 220 in most applications IMHO.

I would really like to have a Toolcat. Don't really need one but they are just way cool.