PDA

View Full Version : The Big Boys CTL Spec Chart


SellingIron
11-05-2008, 09:57 PM
If anyones looking to buy one of the new Large frame CTL's before the end of the year. Here you go. The Spec chart covers the 299C, T320, PT100 and the TL250. If covers allot of specs. One thing I have noticed with the T320 with roller suspension is that all the cab rattles and noise are mostly gone. They have stiffened the outer ROPS with metal bolt on frame rails. Also, the SJC units are a little quieter inside the cab than the Standard controls. :drinkup:

Digdeep
11-05-2008, 10:34 PM
Thanks. A buddy of mine that I used to sell Bobcats with is still selling them and is telling me he is seeing shorter life out of the T320 tracks with the suspension because there is too much flex in the cables now. Bobcat added the extra mid roller (5 instead of 4) to improve ride and increase track life and then they pulled it out for the leaf spring system. He told me that the bobcat rep told him that they knew they would lose some track life but they didn't have room in the undercarriage to keep the extra mid roller. I'm glad to hear they have reduced the cab rattles. It made the new machine sound like it already had 500 hours.

SellingIron
11-05-2008, 10:47 PM
I noticed that to when I was demoing a prototype T300 with R/S. The under carriage frame was a little different. I'm glad its finely here. They have some new stuff coming next year that's going to put bobcat front and center again...( hopefully )

Junior M
11-05-2008, 10:51 PM
I noticed that to when I was demoing a prototype T300 with R/S. The under carriage frame was a little different. I'm glad its finely here. They have some new stuff coming next year that's going to put bobcat front and center again...( hopefully )
I would hope so to, unless they really are going under like Ron says..

Tigerotor77W
11-06-2008, 01:50 AM
I've always been curious why Bobcat doesn't publish breakout force numbers. Any ideas?

The information you've presented here also isn't really "private" to Bobcat, so why can't customers have access to this data? (The Kopykat database is secured to dealers.)

SellingIron
11-06-2008, 08:33 AM
Thanks. A buddy of mine that I used to sell Bobcats with is still selling them and is telling me he is seeing shorter life out of the T320 tracks with the suspension because there is too much flex in the cables now. Bobcat added the extra mid roller (5 instead of 4) to improve ride and increase track life and then they pulled it out for the leaf spring system. He told me that the bobcat rep told him that they knew they would lose some track life but they didn't have room in the undercarriage to keep the extra mid roller. I'm glad to hear they have reduced the cab rattles. It made the new machine sound like it already had 500 hours.


When the T320 came out. The undercarriage already had 5 rollers. It was th T250/T300 units the only had 4 rollers. The extra roller did help a little bit. It took less bounce out while going over ruts...

bobcat_ron
11-06-2008, 11:02 AM
Those Takeuchi specs must be estimates, the heaviest machine of them all, yet the lowest ROC.

SellingIron
11-06-2008, 11:16 AM
Those Takeuchi specs must be estimates, the heaviest machine of them all, yet the lowest ROC.

Looking at takeuchi's website they are listing the same numbers..

Scag48
11-06-2008, 12:40 PM
I think Tak is fairly humble with their ROC ratings. I'm pretty sure all models will lift more than Tak says they will. Wasn't some guy on here lifting 4,000 pound pallets with a TL130?

Scag48
11-06-2008, 12:44 PM
I think Tak is fairly humble with their ROC ratings. I'm pretty sure all models will lift more than Tak says they will. Wasn't some guy on here lifting 4,000 pound pallets with a TL130? Maybe it was a 140, but still, the T140 is rated for right around 2,000 ROC and the 130 is 1,600. I know those machines will lift more than that.

mrsops
11-06-2008, 01:02 PM
Looks like the t320 specs out to be the best

Digdeep
11-06-2008, 01:45 PM
Looks like the t320 specs out to be the best

The T320's ROC at 35% is actually 2800lbs if it has the suspension. It's on a sticker right inside of the cab. It's due to the front idler being raised slightly to help it turn.

All machines will hydraulically lift more than their listed ROCs. SAE mandates that all manufacturers machines have their tipping loads, 50%, and 35% (tracked machines) listed.

stuvecorp
11-06-2008, 07:44 PM
All machines will hydraulically lift more than their listed ROCs. SAE mandates that all manufacturers machines have their tipping loads, 50%, and 35% (tracked machines) listed.

I have never paid much attention to the numbers, why do they rate the machines that way?

AWJ Services
11-06-2008, 08:21 PM
Takeuchis have a low ROC because of the conventional lift arms and they have them moved forward so they do not sacrifice dumping distance at height.
My TL140 has a 2000 roc and I have never not been able to move something.
I have unloaded pallets well in excess of 4000 pounds and moved 2 pallets of wall block at a time.
I can lift 7000+ pounds so the T320 would have to lift 11200 pounds to be equal based off of roc.
Good luck on that happening.



Looks like the t320 specs out to be the best

Real world none of those machines have the hyd power of the Takeuchi.

BIGBEN2004
11-06-2008, 08:26 PM
Takeuchi's numbers are lower because the machine was built and designed to be a dirt mover more than a heavy lifter. They use a radial lift design in stead of a vertical lift witch in turn always gives you a lower lift capacity but in turn allows the machine to dig and grade better and last longer doing it every day with a fraction of the pivot points and pins to wear out. They also want to have a descent lift hight so they put long arms on the machine witch when the load is straight out in front of the machine it puts the load out far and adds leverage witch tips the machine and makes a lower lift capacity. One nice thing also about the long loader arms is it puts the bucket away from the cab for good visibility.

BIGBEN2004
11-06-2008, 08:29 PM
[QUOTE=AWJ Services;2591727]Takeuchis have a low ROC because of the conventional lift arms and they have them moved forward so they do not sacrifice dumping distance at height.
My TL140 has a 2000 roc and I have never not been able to move something.
I have unloaded pallets well in excess of 4000 pounds and moved 2 pallets of wall block at a time.
I can lift 7000+ pounds so the T320 would have to lift 11200 pounds to be equal based off of roc.
Good luck on that happening.


Well you were typing at the same time as me. At least we said the same thing.:cool2: I agree my TL130 has lifted things I never would have thought it could have.

SellingIron
11-06-2008, 08:52 PM
Takeuchis have a low ROC because of the conventional lift arms and they have them moved forward so they do not sacrifice dumping distance at height.
My TL140 has a 2000 roc and I have never not been able to move something.
I have unloaded pallets well in excess of 4000 pounds and moved 2 pallets of wall block at a time.
I can lift 7000+ pounds so the T320 would have to lift 11200 pounds to be equal based off of roc.
Good luck on that happening.





Real world none of those machines have the hyd power of the Takeuchi.


I think you were smoking something while trying to lift 7K. Looks like you were smoking something while posting too. The TL140 tipping load is 5952lbs.
Wake up, you are in a bad dream....You bought the wrong decal kit for your TL150...

SellingIron
11-06-2008, 09:07 PM
Takeuchi's numbers are lower because the machine was built and designed to be a dirt mover more than a heavy lifter. They use a radial lift design in stead of a vertical lift witch in turn always gives you a lower lift capacity but in turn allows the machine to dig and grade better and last longer doing it every day with a fraction of the pivot points and pins to wear out. They also want to have a descent lift hight so they put long arms on the machine witch when the load is straight out in front of the machine it puts the load out far and adds leverage witch tips the machine and makes a lower lift capacity. One nice thing also about the long loader arms is it puts the bucket away from the cab for good visibility.

There are more wear points on a vertical lift path machine for sure. The only wear points that are an issue for most of them are the bucket/cylinder pivot areas..TAKE/Gehl/Mustang do have good reach at full height...

Mr. Rain
11-06-2008, 11:58 PM
Quick reminder: ROC is a rating of a machine's balance and stability. It has nothing to do with hydraulic capability, basically a safety rating. When that # is determined, the machine isn't even running, just sitting with the boom in the most forward position in the swing pattern.

Funny how the "Big boys" list conveniently left out the CT332. I have seen a new T320 fail to get off the ground a 6000# + pallet of material that a CT332 lifted up 6' or so without hesitation. It was a demonstration similar to what was on the "smackdown" this summer. Pretty cool.

Digdeep
11-07-2008, 12:51 AM
I think you were smoking something while trying to lift 7K. Looks like you were smoking something while posting too. The TL140 tipping load is 5952lbs.
Wake up, you are in a bad dream....You bought the wrong decal kit for your TL150...

I'm going to agree with you. John Deere released some videos when they first came out with the CT332 long before the smackdown videos. One of them had the 332, 287, TL150 and the ASV RCV. The video had them trying to lift a large amount of weight onto a flat bed truck. I think it may have been 6600lbs but I may be understating by a little. Long story short, the TL150 couldn't even curl the weight back nor could the 287. The only machines that could both curl and lift the weight onto the truck were the 332 and the RCV although it looked like the RCV was going to end up on its nose.

Before I get bashed by every Tak lover on here I want to admit that pressures can be adjusted to make a machine look worse or better during a demo. I know this first hand since the local Case dealer used to tweak his skids pressures before he demoed against me when I was selling Bobcats. He told me this over a beer with my buddy who used to sell Bobcats with me but now works for the same Case dealer now.

Hydraulic lifting ability is a function of flow, pressure, and loader/tilt/lift cylinder geometry.

stuvecorp
11-07-2008, 01:08 AM
Before I get bashed by every Tak lover on here I want to admit that pressures can be adjusted to make a machine look worse or better during a demo. I know this first hand since the local Case dealer used to tweak his skids pressures before he demoed against me when I was selling Bobcats. He told me this over a beer with my buddy who used to sell Bobcats with me but now works for the same Case dealer now.

Hydraulic lifting ability is a function of flow, pressure, and loader/tilt/lift cylinder geometry.


I have heard of stuff like that, doesn't surprise me. I just think the ratings are a joke, had a NH170 that would lift way more than it should and the Tak 120 and the Mustang is lifting big.

Digdeep, I have noticed that the Tak fan club is pretty big.

Digdeep
11-07-2008, 01:20 AM
I have heard of stuff like that, doesn't surprise me. I just think the ratings are a joke, had a NH170 that would lift way more than it should and the Tak 120 and the Mustang is lifting big.

Digdeep, I have noticed that the Tak fan club is pretty big.

I actually like many things about the Taks but they just aren't a machine for me. The cabs are too high and too noisy, they bust curbs and sidewalks especially in cold weather, for some reason the loader valves go tits up consistently at around 2500-3000hrs and they suck on finish graded surfaces and grass. I do like their breakout, no frills approach, consistency in not changing too much, reach for a radial machine is fantastic, and they're not too wide like most of the other CTLs.

AWJ Services
11-07-2008, 06:13 AM
I think you were smoking something while trying to lift 7K. Looks like you were smoking something while posting too. The TL140 tipping load is 5952lbs.
Wake up, you are in a bad dream....You bought the wrong decal kit for your TL150...
Today 12:29 AM

The funny thing is I posted pictures and a thread of my machine lifting the blocks.
I was going off of the weight listed on the pallets as I have no way to verify there weight.
My Block supplier said the weights should be correct.
I never said lift to full height either.
It was nothing but a discussion about hyd power and used weight to demonstrate the machines power.
The loader would not lift much over 7k.
It would curl it but would not lift it off of the ground.
When grading you need the power at ground level not 4 foot off of the ground.


they suck on finish graded surfaces and grass.

Not sure what this means but I use my machine ever day and do not have these problems.
The TL140 weighs close to 5 tons so to compare it to a 5000 pound machine is not apples to apples.


Quick reminder: ROC is a rating of a machine's balance and stability. It has nothing to do with hydraulic capability, basically a safety rating. When that # is determined, the machine isn't even running, just sitting with the boom in the most forward position in the swing pattern.

Funny how the "Big boys" list conveniently left out the CT332. I have seen a new T320 fail to get off the ground a 6000# + pallet of material that a CT332 lifted up 6' or so without hesitation. It was a demonstration similar to what was on the "smackdown" this summer. Pretty cool.

Good point but if a machine has a 7k tipping rating but will not lift that off of the ground then how was it tested?

The CT332 will out lift everything out there.

SellingIron
11-07-2008, 08:08 AM
:weightlifter:Quick reminder: ROC is a rating of a machine's balance and stability. It has nothing to do with hydraulic capability, basically a safety rating. When that # is determined, the machine isn't even running, just sitting with the boom in the most forward position in the swing pattern.

Funny how the "Big boys" list conveniently left out the CT332. I have seen a new T320 fail to get off the ground a 6000# + pallet of material that a CT332 lifted up 6' or so without hesitation. It was a demonstration similar to what was on the "smackdown" this summer. Pretty cool.

Go to www.skidsteersmackdown.com and click on “The Battles” to view the action.

The new competition tracks three CTLs, including the John Deere CT332, as they lift a 6,200-pound weight on and off a flatbed truck. This is a great video. The only reason the Ct332 was conveniently left out is that it wasn't brought up in the postings. The deere weights more than 1100 lbs. (10800)to the T320. Its also 84" wide. Not good for compact equipment. The only time I see one is when I drive by the JD dealer and its sitting on there lot. It was a 297C cat...

SellingIron
11-07-2008, 08:38 AM
Maybe you were dragging it around instead of lifting it. I wouldn't think the factory would short sell themselves on specs...

Digdeep
11-07-2008, 10:27 AM
Not sure what this means but I use my machine ever day and do not have these problems.
The TL140 weighs close to 5 tons so to compare it to a 5000 pound machine is not apples to apples.

Good point but if a machine has a 7k tipping rating but will not lift that off of the ground then how was it tested?

The CT332 will out lift everything out there.

I'm mean that the Takeuchis weight is further to the rear than even the skids that are converted to CTLs. This means that in sharper turns (confined or smaller areas such as side yards) they have a tendency to tear up grass and areas that are finish graded at the rear of the tracks worse than some of the others. Gradual turns are ideal but not always possible. The TL140 is a 4.4 ton machine and the TL150 is 4.9 tons. I would never compare it to a 5000lb (2.2 ton) machine.

I'm not saying it wouldn't get if off of the ground but I have a hard time seeing it lifting that kind of weight in any really productive manner.

SAE does not require the machines to actually lift the weight to determine tipping load. they only require that the loader and bucket (in the level position) are at their furthest position from the CG of the machine in their lift path. The weight is then applied 4" back from the edge of the bucket (if I remember correctly) until the machine starts to tip.

I agree with you on the 332 lifting ability. I also want to point out that I do think the Takeuchis are good machines but just not for me.

Digdeep
11-07-2008, 10:34 AM
:weightlifter:

Go to www.skidsteersmackdown.com and click on “The Battles” to view the action.

The new competition tracks three CTLs, including the John Deere CT332, as they lift a 6,200-pound weight on and off a flatbed truck. This is a great video. The only reason the Ct332 was conveniently left out is that it wasn't brought up in the postings. The deere weights more than 1100 lbs. (10800)to the T320. Its also 84" wide. Not good for compact equipment. The only time I see one is when I drive by the JD dealer and its sitting on there lot. It was a 297C cat...

The videos I am talking about were well before these and it was the 287 since it was CAT's biggest machine at the time. I think they published the videos on their "Dig Deeper" online newsletter and then pulled this particular video after sometime. It was partially recreated for their "smackdown" videos.

It makes me smile when I hear the word "compact' used for machines that weight almost 11000lbs and are over 80" wide- CASE, JD, NH, etc. Technically I guess you could call a CAT D3 compact even though it weighs close to 17,000lbs.

Construct'O
11-07-2008, 11:00 AM
:weightlifter:

Go to www.skidsteersmackdown.com and click on “The Battles” to view the action.

The new competition tracks three CTLs, including the John Deere CT332, as they lift a 6,200-pound weight on and off a flatbed truck. This is a great video. The only reason the Ct332 was conveniently left out is that it wasn't brought up in the postings. The deere weights more than 1100 lbs. (10800)to the T320. Its also 84" wide. Not good for compact equipment. The only time I see one is when I drive by the JD dealer and its sitting on there lot. It was a 297C cat...

Okay since you started this get your fact correct.Okay!!!!

Deere 332 is 80.9 (81") wide with out the bucket.The bucket is 84" wide !!!!!!! Easyup on the what we smoke or drink?????Been told that on here also and doesn't go over very good.

Check old posts AWJ had pictures on old posts ,you might take time to read them before you comment!!!!!!:waving::usflag:

Junior M
11-07-2008, 11:23 AM
The videos I am talking about were well before these and it was the 287 since it was CAT's biggest machine at the time. I think they published the videos on their "Dig Deeper" online newsletter and then pulled this particular video after sometime. It was partially recreated for their "smackdown" videos.

It makes me smile when I hear the word "compact' used for machines that weight almost 11000lbs and are over 80" wide- CASE, JD, NH, etc. Technically I guess you could call a CAT D3 compact even though it weighs close to 17,000lbs.
It is considered compact because you can put it in small areas where you cant put a backhoe or front loader, and you can come close to moving the same amount of dirt with a t300 or 332, but that is only in small area's. For me a T300 or 332 is perfect because I need the dump hieght to load full size dumps, and I need the size to be able to life pallets of retaining wall block. I could do all of that with a backhoe, but a backhoe size wise is way to big to do what I need...

SellingIron
11-07-2008, 12:15 PM
Okay since you started this get your fact correct.Okay!!!!

Deere 332 is 80.9 (81") wide with out the bucket.The bucket is 84" wide !!!!!!! Easyup on the what we smoke or drink?????Been told that on here also and doesn't go over very good.

Check old posts AWJ had pictures on old posts ,you might take time to read them before you comment!!!!!!:waving::usflag:

If width without a bucket is important to you.. Yeh:hammerhead:

stuvecorp
11-07-2008, 12:17 PM
I actually like many things about the Taks but they just aren't a machine for me. The cabs are too high and too noisy, they bust curbs and sidewalks especially in cold weather, for some reason the loader valves go tits up consistently at around 2500-3000hrs and they suck on finish graded surfaces and grass. I do like their breakout, no frills approach, consistency in not changing too much, reach for a radial machine is fantastic, and they're not too wide like most of the other CTLs.

Yeah, the cabs could be sound proofed better and I don't like the phone booth type height either. I think a sumo would fit in the cab, it is almost a two person cab. It would be nice to have more track on the ground. On the 130/MTL16 I would like a turbo, never have enough power(I forgot, not a problem in the power tan world). Yet with all that I do like it.

The width was a big thing, maybe one of the deciding part for me.

Digdeep
11-07-2008, 01:01 PM
It is considered compact because you can put it in small areas where you cant put a backhoe or front loader, and you can come close to moving the same amount of dirt with a t300 or 332, but that is only in small area's. For me a T300 or 332 is perfect because I need the dump hieght to load full size dumps, and I need the size to be able to life pallets of retaining wall block. I could do all of that with a backhoe, but a backhoe size wise is way to big to do what I need...

Just trying to add some tongue and cheek to the discussion. I'm a huge proponent of CTLs. For arguments sake...a CAT 939 is only 77" wide without the bucket and only around 86" with a bucket. And it's only about 13" higher to the top of the cab than the TL150. Of course, the cost, steel tracks and the approx. 20,000lb weight may pose some problems though.

Digdeep
11-07-2008, 01:04 PM
If width without a bucket is important to you.. Yeh:hammerhead:

It could be a factor if you are trenching, rolling sod, using some tree spades (Optimal), using forks, cold planer, etc.

bobcat_ron
11-07-2008, 03:02 PM
Of course, the cost, steel tracks and the approx. 20,000lb weight may pose some problems though.

Oh just a few problems could arise. :laugh:

Junior M
11-07-2008, 03:03 PM
Yeah, but which is better running around an unset pool walls? an 11,000 pound machine or a 20,000 pound machine? and which is easier to run? I had never thought of using a trackloader but after thinking about some of the pro's and con's the skidsteer would be much better, but each machine has it's place....