New Deere compact track loader ct315

[Canon Landscaping]

Saw this on the Deere website.

[bobcat_ron]

It sure is cute, but I wonder if it's got the "John Deere" balls?

[bobcat_ron]

Do the comparision between the Cat 247B2 and the Deere 315, Cat comes out on top, more break out, more horsepower and more dump height.

[Lakewlc]

thing looks cool

[Junior M]

so thats Deere's comparable to the 247 and T190 and so on so forth?

[bobcat_ron]

so thats Deere's comparable to the 247 and T190 and so on so forth?

No, just to the 247B2, the T140 and the Takeuchi TL220, any machine with under 56 hp and in the 54-60" width and 1200-1500 ROC categories.

[Junior M]

No, just to the 247B2, the T140 and the Takeuchi TL220, any machine with under 56 hp and in the 54-60" width and 1200-1500 ROC categories.
Oh, okay, I'd never done any actual looking at the specs of the 247, I just assumed it was comparable to the T190, guess I shouldnt have.. :hammerhead:

[Duffster]

Do the comparision between the Cat 247B2 and the Deere 315, Cat comes out on top, more break out, more horsepower and more dump height.

Cat wins with the higher price tag too?

[Junior M]

Cat wins with the higher price tag too?
I'd pay more for it and apparently I am not the only one..

Ronnie, looks like Deere is really trying to sway you over. a soon to come new cab, now a machine in the size you need, its looking more and more appealing! :rolleyes: :laugh:

[mrsops]

Its not even 5' wide??

[Tigerotor77W]

It sure is cute

You're scaring me... you've been using "cute" to describe far too many machines recently.

[bobcat_ron]

You're scaring me... you've been using "cute" to describe far too many machines recently.

I have yet to use "cute" when describing a Takeuchi TL130 I have my eyes set on in Alberta, more like "holy sh*t, that's a sweet deal".
the Deere 315 is still to small physical size wise, it's a tad shorter and narrower than my 247B2, I want a bit bigger with more power and more ROC, like the TL130 I am looking at, 67 hp and 1620 ROC is so good right now.

But that Deere 315 is "cute" though.
Very stout looking, I like the loader arms, they look like ASV's.

[Bleed Green]

What would a loader this size be best for? I would think that it would be too small for loading trucks, and too small for big excavating work. Maybe landscapers and concrete guys would go for a loader this size, but I wouldn't see any larger contractors buying something like this size loader.

[riverwalklandscaping]

Not sure I understand the use of a small CTL. I mean I understand a smaller MTL because they are easier on turf and stuff for lighter use but by the looks of those tracks I'd think they would make the same mess of things that the bigger CTLs do, so why not just use a bigger one. Sure they are a little skinnier but when your messing around in tricky conditions that require tracks I'd think you'd want/need the power that the bigger guys have. Maybe for pool guys or something? Boy I could'a used a CTL today... trying to grade out a barn yard with a kubota and every time I stand up to see what the buckets doing the operator presence turns the tractor off... ANNOYING!! At least it worked out in the end

[J. Peterson Grading]

Don't expect to see many of these little deeres around.

A deere rep told me, these are just a temporary production machine. When Deeere releases thier new line of skid and Ctls there will be a totally different "Little" Machine in the line up.

I have seen one of these machines in person.

They look like total piece's of POOOOOOOO!!!!!!!! They have only 5 inches of ground clearance. Are to big/heavy of a machine for the size motor in them. And my list goes on.

Deere thinks that to make a smaller skid or ctl, you take its Smallest (317) Strip its loader arms off, add a radial lift, then shrink the engine.

Think I am crazy? Look at the size specs on a 317 then compare that to the 313s Its the same machine. only less power.

Deere is banking on customer loyalty, or Green stupidity to sell these machines. I realy can't see a bobcat guy or a case guy falling for any of the hype of this machine.

My $.02

J.

[Digdeep]

Don't expect to see many of these little deeres around.

A deere rep told me, these are just a temporary production machine. When Deeere releases thier new line of skid and Ctls there will be a totally different "Little" Machine in the line up.

I have seen one of these machines in person.

They look like total piece's of POOOOOOOO!!!!!!!! They have only 5 inches of ground clearance. Are to big/heavy of a machine for the size motor in them. And my list goes on.

Deere thinks that to make a smaller skid or ctl, you take its Smallest (317) Strip its loader arms off, add a radial lift, then shrink the engine.

Think I am crazy? Look at the size specs on a 317 then compare that to the 313s Its the same machine. only less power.

Deere is banking on customer loyalty, or Green stupidity to sell these machines. I realy can't see a bobcat guy or a case guy falling for any of the hype of this machine.

My $.02

J.

Deere is really just relying on their marketing department to prop up their compact equipment line-up. All sizzle and hardly any steak.

[ksss]

Deere is really just relying on their marketing department to prop up their compact equipment line-up. All sizzle and hardly any steak.


After looking at the specs I would agree with the last couple posts. The two smaller machines look like a real oddity. Perhaps a little illconceived. They sure look on paper like they would be severely underpowered and overweight. Maybe JD Skidsteer can shed some light on something we may be missing. I have seen a couple on the lots here but have not seen one working (no surprise since no one is working) to ask about them.

[DeereMan85]

Don't expect to see many of these little deeres around.

A deere rep told me, these are just a temporary production machine. When Deeere releases thier new line of skid and Ctls there will be a totally different "Little" Machine in the line up.

I have seen one of these machines in person.

They look like total piece's of POOOOOOOO!!!!!!!! They have only 5 inches of ground clearance. Are to big/heavy of a machine for the size motor in them. And my list goes on.

Deere thinks that to make a smaller skid or ctl, you take its Smallest (317) Strip its loader arms off, add a radial lift, then shrink the engine.

Think I am crazy? Look at the size specs on a 317 then compare that to the 313s Its the same machine. only less power.

Deere is banking on customer loyalty, or Green stupidity to sell these machines. I realy can't see a bobcat guy or a case guy falling for any of the hype of this machine.

My $.02

J.

Wrong. It's essentially a 315 with a CTL undercarriage. Deere makes a 313 and 315 with wheels which are purpose-built radial lift machines. It uses a totally different frame than a 317. The engine is the 4024T, a 4 cylinder used in machines up to the 320 (also the CT322). This machine isn't meant to be a beast for heavy grading--it's built for landscapers or contractors who need the low ground pressure or tractive effort advantages of a CTL, but have width limitations. The Deere corporate guys I've talked to say the reason for keeping the power lower is because they don't want the abilities of the machine to exceed the limitations of the structure. There's no reason this thing needs the same amount of power as a CT322--it's simply not built for the same kind of work. It would also be a waste of fuel. If you compare the specs to a T140, you'll find that they are very similar. The Deere weighs only 140 lbs. more than the Bobcat and has the same horsepower. Do you really need another 10 hp for 140 lbs.? Also, this machine won't necessarily be any different with the introduction of the D Series. Deere will be introducing several new CTLs, and the ROCs may be tweaked to better align with competitive machines. However, I don't foresee a total redesign of the small-frame machines (which includes the CT315) since they were introduced only a few years ago. If anything changes in the near future on this machine, it will probably only be the cab and maybe the number printed on the side.

[bobcat_ron]

I think Deere should have bumped up the power more, they will lose the people that want big power in a small package with a radial loader, like the Takeuchi crowds.
Here's to hoping Takeuchi grabs some more Deere fans! :terribletowel:

[stuvecorp]

Is Deere moving away from the NH style loader? It seems like all the new models are old school radial lift.

As for being low on power, we never have enough power and trying to justify being 'safe' with less is lame.

I personally have hoped for more out of Deere skids but have given up expecting anything real.

[DeereMan85]

No, they're not moving away from vertical lift machines. The only new models in the past couple years have been the 2 small radial machines--their purpose was to fill out the lineup. Deere previously had no small-frame skid steers.

As for the "low power," it's not about being "safe," it's about not cracking the booms or creating undue stress on a machine by giving it more power than is useful for the intended application. And don't forget that a machine only has as much power as it is able to put to the ground. If the CT315 has more power than its weight/traction is able to convert into tractive effort, the extra power is useless and wastes fuel. Hell, a CT322 only has 62 hp, and I know it will lose traction before it will bog down in most situations.

Dropping a 70hp engine in the 315 would be akin to putting a Duramax in an S-10. The numbers might look good on paper, but the machine is simply not built to withstand the kind of use a bigger machine is intended for. If you need more power, buy a CT322.

[bobcat_ron]

There are some situations where power is the only thing that helps, look at Dirtman's video where he was up to the bottom of the cab in mud, he's pushing to all the Takeuchi's might and power, I'm sure if he had 10 less horsepower in that TL150, he would be bitching and screaming at it.
As soon as you give an operator a skid steer with tracks on it, the operator will use the tacks to their advantage. When I bought the T190, I never used my old 753 for dozing piles over, I just bucket carried them over because I didn't have the power or traction to do any type of pushing, but then I discovered how much power the T190 had over even a family member's S185, and I was amazed, so I pushed to my heart's content.

And even now with my Cat, I have turned up the injection pump to get more power and I might even disconnect the waste gate valve on the turbo, all that to get more power, which the 247 could have.

[Gravel Rat]

Ron the only way your going to get more power is go with bigger injectors disconnecting the waste gate will net you a blown head gasket. Start over boosting it also leans out the engine because the injectors can't push anymore fuel.

[DeereMan85]

Ron, I agree that there are situations where more power would be nice. My argument is that if you're always finding yourself short of power, you're likely using the machine for larger jobs than for which it was intended and therefore a candidate for a bigger machine.

The T190 only has 5 hp more than the S185, but weighs 1400 lbs. more. It seems more powerful because of the weight of the machine, not in spite of it. Pushing power is measured by tractive effort, not by horsepower. A CT315 would likely gain little tractive effort because tractive effort is, by definition, limited by the weight of the machine. We're talking about skid steers here, not sports cars, so power-to-weight ratio is not a huge factor in the usefulness of a machine.

[ksss]

Interesting discussion.

I would add though, not all a skid steers power needs to be converted into tractive effort. They also are used to power attachments. Although that arguement is not necessarily properly placed by talking about the small machines but rather larger ones. However the arguement that any power beyond what the machine can put toward its tractive effort is a waste, I don't think is totally correct. High hp/torque requirements such as trenching, mulching, planing come to mind. I prefer that you give me the power. I will use it as I see fit.

[bobcatexc]

I didn't have the power or traction to do any type of pushing, but then I discovered how much power the T190 had over even a family member's S185, and I was amazed, so I pushed to my heart's content.


Did he just comment on how much power his T190 had and that he loved the machine???? Sure sounded like it, I'm confused??? :confused::dizzy:

[ksss]

Did he just comment on how much power his T190 had and that he loved the machine???? Sure sounded like it, I'm confused??? :confused::dizzy:


I think he got into mom's finger nail polish remover again. So much for child proof caps.

[Ken101]

Dropping a 70hp engine in the 315 would be akin to putting a Duramax in an S-10.

ROFL :)

What rear end ratio?

[bobcat_ron]

Did he just comment on how much power his T190 had and that he loved the machine???? Sure sounded like it, I'm confused??? :confused::dizzy:

I loved it until I started to get that tingling feeling in my arms that indicated that it was time for pilot controls.

[bobcatexc]

that tingling feeling in my arms

Ron that tingling in your arms is probably not due to your loader controls more like your recreational hobbies of looking through your moms JcPennys catolog of the bra and undie section.

[bobcat_ron]

Ron that tingling in your arms is probably not due to your loader controls more like your recreational hobbies of looking through your moms JcPennys catolog of the bra and undie section.


That explains why the pages are stuck together now. :cry:

[Junior M]

I loved it until I started to get that tingling feeling in my arms that indicated that it was time for pilot controls.
Ronnie said it! Ronnie said it! He liked his Bobcat! :cool2:

[riverwalklandscaping]

As Tim Taylor (Home Improvement) always used to say "ho ho ho, More Power!"

In case you younger guys are wondering it was a tv show that aired in the 90's

[Junior M]

As Tim Taylor (Home Improvement) always used to say "ho ho ho, More Power!"

In case you younger guys are wondering it was a tv show that aired in the 90's
I remember, I always wanted to watch cause that one episode with the Bobcat in it might be on..

[Scag48]

I honestly don't think this baby CTL from Deere will take off. Sure they'll sell a few I imagine, but I think it's been said in this thread that it's more or less just rounding out their lineup, which I agree with entirely. Gives the guy that already owns a larger Deere CTL the opportunity to stay with Deere when he's looking to purchase in this smaller size class. A performance powerhouse? Highly unlikely. Does it matter? Not really.

[Bleed Green]

Home Improvement was a great show, still find reruns on.

[JDSKIDSTEER]

I honestly don't think this baby CTL from Deere will take off. Sure they'll sell a few I imagine, but I think it's been said in this thread that it's more or less just rounding out their lineup, which I agree with entirely. Gives the guy that already owns a larger Deere CTL the opportunity to stay with Deere when he's looking to purchase in this smaller size class. A performance powerhouse? Highly unlikely. Does it matter? Not really.

The only people I have interested in CT315 it is the rental companies. Only thing is rentals are down and they are not buying. 313's and 315's have been slow movers. The ones I have sold seem to be bullet proof though. I have spoiled my customers with 317's and 320's. Cant get the rental companies to switch. I am not stocking a CT315. CT322 is my bread and butter machine.

[bobcat_ron]

Deere sure changed the loaders on the 313 and 315, the first runs don't have near the beef that the CT315 has now.

[Bleed Green]

sounds like the run for the CT 315 is going to be a slow and bleak one. Do you guys think that interest is down because these machines are radial lift vs vertical lift, or do you think the small size is hurting them?

[stuvecorp]

sounds like the run for the CT 315 is going to be a slow and bleak one. Do you guys think that interest is down because these machines are radial lift vs vertical lift, or do you think the small size is hurting them?

I don't think being a radial lift would hurt it or the size, I think people are disappointed with specs maybe?

[Tigerotor77W]

Deere sure changed the loaders on the 313 and 315, the first runs don't have near the beef that the CT315 has now.

What have you noticed? Where do you notice more steel?

[Bleed Green]

Wouldn't the size of the machine directly affect the specs? If the machine is small then the specs would be lower because there would not be enough space for a bigger engine etc... right?

[JDSKIDSTEER]

Deere sure changed the loaders on the 313 and 315, the first runs don't have near the beef that the CT315 has now.
What are you smokin Ron?

[JDSKIDSTEER]

sounds like the run for the CT 315 is going to be a slow and bleak one. Do you guys think that interest is down because these machines are radial lift vs vertical lift, or do you think the small size is hurting them?

If it can't list a pallet of sod it won't be a great seller. A majority of my customers love the CT322 and will pay the price difference. CT315 will be a good rental machine because of the weight of the machine for hauling.

[JDSKIDSTEER]

I don't think being a radial lift would hurt it or the size, I think people are disappointed with specs maybe?I think it will compete with any other brand in its class as far as productivity is concerned. I just do not think there is a denmand for that size machine at this time. When rental companies start buying again, they will sell. I seldom sell on specs......put them in the dirt. Specs lie.......in the dirt tells the tale.

[Junior M]

I think it will compete with any other brand in its class as far as productivity is concerned. I just do not think there is a denmand for that size machine at this time. When rental companies start buying again, they will sell. I seldom sell on specs......put them in the dirt. Specs lie.......in the dirt tells the tale.
Looks like I am not the only one that thinks like this..

[DeereMan85]

When they introduced the CT315 to dealers, Deere said market research shows that something like 60% of market potential for CTLs is in machines with a ROC of under 2000 lbs. The CT315 will likely be Deere's smallest CTL offered. Deere's strategy will make more sense when all the new models are introduced this fall. There will no longer be such large gaps in ROC.

Radial lift shouldn't hurt a machine this size, especially in a CTL. Radial has the greatest reach around 3-6' off the ground--right where you want it for loading a trailer or a low-profile dump truck like a lot of landscapers use. Radial is also the most durable for applications that involve a lot of pushing/grading.

JDSkidsteer is right--this machine is really intended to fill a niche, not necessarily to sell a ton of machines. It's a "bang for your buck" kind of machine, and the daily operating costs will be low relative to capability. Rental companies or small-scale landscapers or contractors who might otherwise rent are the target market, and a lot of entry-level customers grow into large customers. If Deere didn't offer something to compete in the entry-level market, they would be missing out on a chance to create familiarity and brand loyalty, which are two of the biggest factors holding back Deere's skid steer/CTL sales.

[Digdeep]

Deere sure changed the loaders on the 313 and 315, the first runs don't have near the beef that the CT315 has now.

They said that about the other tracked machines too. I have crawled all over them (322 & 332) and have yet to see where they made any real changes. Please show me.

[Tigerotor77W]

Radial lift shouldn't hurt a machine this size, especially in a CTL. Radial has the greatest reach around 3-6' off the ground--right where you want it for loading a trailer or a low-profile dump truck like a lot of landscapers use. Radial is also the most durable for applications that involve a lot of pushing/grading.

This may turn into one of my trademark long-winded, pointless posts, but I'm getting really irked by this notion that vertical lift somehow isn't as robust as radial.

NH's entire line is vertical lift. People complain about boom sway, but other than that, they're pretty robust.

Up until the 313/315 came out, Deere had some of the market's largest machines and advertised that its CTLs had more push force... yet their entire line was vertical lift.

The Gehl 7810 is vertical lift.

Bobcat's largest models in ALL its applicable product families are all vertical lift.

Cat's largest models are all vertical lift.

I *realize* that vertical lift at the lift heights in the 120+ inches is the only totally feasible solution -- to get decent reach that high up with radial, you'd need a really, really long machine -- but I'm finding it harder and harder to believe that there's any real life difference between radial and vertical.

All I'm saying is, I don't think Deere went with radial on the smaller loaders because it's stronger. If anything, you'd think that if radial were that much stronger than vertical, the larger loaders would be radial, not vertical.

From a # moving parts perspective, fine -- there are more moving parts on a vertical lift machine. The Case 450 is regarded as one of the best dirt-moving machines out there, and it's got more moving parts than a vertical!

[DeereMan85]

Well, according to Deere engineers, radial are more durable when doing a lot of pushing.

I agree this is not the reason Deere went with radial on the small machines--they went with radial because it's cheaper to build.

Besides that, a vertical lift pattern is more likely to be important on a larger CTL because besides grading, it may also be used to load trucks, etc., requiring considerable reach at maximum height. The small machines don't have the lift height or stability to do those things very well anyway, so reach at maximum height is a moot point.

Like I said, the small machines are really intended primarily for small-scale grading and digging, so it makes sense that they use the design that offers the best durability and the cheapest price because the people in the target market for this product are more likely to place those traits high on their list of priorities when making a purchase.

[DeereMan85]

Also, I think you're confusing strength and durability (indicative of structural integrity, function of the frame/booms) with boom force and tractive effort (indicative of lifting and pushing capabilities, functions of the drivetrain and hydraulics). I'm not claiming that radial can lift or push more, I'm saying that a radial machine will stand up to years and years of abuse and require fewer repairs to the moving parts over the life of the machine than a vertical. Most people don't run their machines to high enough hours to notice the difference.

[ksss]

Well, according to Deere engineers, radial are more durable when doing a lot of pushing.

I agree this is not the reason Deere went with radial on the small machines--they went with radial because it's cheaper to build.

Besides that, a vertical lift pattern is more likely to be important on a larger CTL because besides grading, it may also be used to load trucks, etc., requiring considerable reach at maximum height. The small machines don't have the lift height or stability to do those things very well anyway, so reach at maximum height is a moot point.

Like I said, the small machines are really intended primarily for small-scale grading and digging, so it makes sense that they use the design that offers the best durability and the cheapest price because the people in the target market for this product are more likely to place those traits high on their list of priorities when making a purchase.

I agree with this post. Radial lifts are usually simplier, although the 450 flys in the face of that. Mostly due to the backhoe style bucket manipulation. However if look at the 450 it weighs nearly what a 465 weighs and yet its got considerably less ROC. Its got a little less wheel base than a 465 but the big radial machines just don't get the lift that the vertical machines do.

I like the simplicity of radial machines, visibility is always better than on a vertical lift. The industry has always pushed the fact that radial machines are excavating machines and vertical lift is lift and carry. I agree with Tiger in the sense that unless your putting a ton of excavating type hours on a machine I would dare say around 10K on a vertical lift machine that you would see the results of that hard use show itself. Especially on the really beefy vertical lift machines. No one builds their small machines with vertical lift, for the reasons pointed out above. Some machines don't even offer vertical lift as an option on any machine, TK and Volvo come to mind.

[Tigerotor77W]

Also, I think you're confusing strength and durability (indicative of structural integrity, function of the frame/booms) with boom force and tractive effort (indicative of lifting and pushing capabilities, functions of the drivetrain and hydraulics).

I just wrote a reply, but I don't know how succinctly I can word it without me being argumentative (which wasn't intended here or in the previous post). I understand that we're talking about structural life rather than perceived "power."

I'll agree with what you've written here -- but I really don't think there'd be that big of a difference in radial vs. vertical life in life calculations unless, maybe, you're looking at twice the expected life of a loader (out in the 6000+ hour range). Maybe then you'd see something. But for practical purposes... I don't know how much difference we'd see practically.

I don't want to back down from my opinion, but

a) we've agreed on the CT315;
b) I don't want to start an argument every time I post something (which apparently I'm getting better at doing... ooops...)
c) hate taking threads off topic (again, which I am getting better at doing).

It's all because of this spring break thing.

[ksss]

It's all because of this spring break thing.

You mean you can get WiFi next to pool? With the scantily clad females and the foo foo drinks, I think I would take a break from LS and concentrate on all the "distractions".:drinkup: The rest of us have nothing better to do.:cry:

[DeereMan85]

I'm not trying to be argumentative either.

Maybe the difference is that I'm used to seeing machines last way past 6000 hours. I'm in a huge livestock area, and there are dairies and feedlots around here that run their skid steers upwards of 5000 hours per year--and keep them for 2-3 years. People who put on those kinds of hours keep them longer because after a certain point (around 8000 hours, depending on condition), a machine stops depreciating at a noticeable rate per hour. It makes sense to squeeze an extra year out of a machine when it will be worth the same whether you trade now or later, especially when you have a full-time mechanic on staff anyway. These types of owners would be the ones to notice a difference in longevity between radial and vertical.

[stuvecorp]

I'm not trying to be argumentative either.

Maybe the difference is that I'm used to seeing machines last way past 6000 hours. I'm in a huge livestock area, and there are dairies and feedlots around here that run their skid steers upwards of 5000 hours per year--and keep them for 2-3 years. People who put on those kinds of hours keep them longer because after a certain point (around 8000 hours, depending on condition), a machine stops depreciating at a noticeable rate per hour. It makes sense to squeeze an extra year out of a machine when it will be worth the same whether you trade now or later, especially when you have a full-time mechanic on staff anyway. These types of owners would be the ones to notice a difference in longevity between radial and vertical.

Yeah, that puts a different perspective to put that many hours on a machine. I have had 5 machines in the last ten years and the little Polaris has the most, just over 1000 hours now.

[Digdeep]

This may turn into one of my trademark long-winded, pointless posts, but I'm getting really irked by this notion that vertical lift somehow isn't as robust as radial.

NH's entire line is vertical lift. People complain about boom sway, but other than that, they're pretty robust.

Up until the 313/315 came out, Deere had some of the market's largest machines and advertised that its CTLs had more push force... yet their entire line was vertical lift.

The Gehl 7810 is vertical lift.

Bobcat's largest models in ALL its applicable product families are all vertical lift.

Cat's largest models are all vertical lift.

I *realize* that vertical lift at the lift heights in the 120+ inches is the only totally feasible solution -- to get decent reach that high up with radial, you'd need a really, really long machine -- but I'm finding it harder and harder to believe that there's any real life difference between radial and vertical.

All I'm saying is, I don't think Deere went with radial on the smaller loaders because it's stronger. If anything, you'd think that if radial were that much stronger than vertical, the larger loaders would be radial, not vertical.

From a # moving parts perspective, fine -- there are more moving parts on a vertical lift machine. The Case 450 is regarded as one of the best dirt-moving machines out there, and it's got more moving parts than a vertical!

I think Deere went with a radial lift machine with their CT315 because the chassis already existed and they didn't have to design a new machine. Bobcat does the same with their CTLs, NH does, Komatsu does, Case does, and CAT does (both CTLs and MTLs)-am I missing anyone? All of these chassis, vertical or radial allow these OEMs to get into the market without having to design a dedicated CTL chassis.

I personally feel that both the vertical and radial lift machines dig equally well and have very good reliability- I guess you could of argued this a decade ago. The cost of a few extra pins and bushings on a vertical path machine is miniscule in the scheme of things and the argument is now moot.

Reach is the real differentiator now, and except for the Takeuchi CTLS (crazy reach), vertical path machines shine in this area, and in keeping the load closer to the machine giving you more operating capacity..

[mrsops]

I think Deere went with a radial lift machine with their CT315 because the chassis already existed and they didn't have to design a new machine. Bobcat does the same with their CTLs, NH does, Komatsu does, Case does, and CAT does (both CTLs and MTLs)-am I missing anyone? All of these chassis, vertical or radial allow these OEMs to get into the market without having to design a dedicated CTL chassis.

I personally feel that both the vertical and radial lift machines dig equally well and have very good reliability- I guess you could of argued this a decade ago. The cost of a few extra pins and bushings on a vertical path machine is miniscule in the scheme of things and the argument is now moot.

Reach is the real differentiator now, and except for the Takeuchi CTLS (crazy reach), vertical path machines shine in this area.

digdeep let me ask you something, you sold bobcats for how many years?? You never took a radial lift machine and a vertical lift and compared the 2? meaning taking them out in the dirt and really seing on which can push more or dig better

[SellingIron]

I had a dairy farmer that only runs S300's.. He has three running all the time. When he goes to trade them in, they have around 5000 hours on them. He never has had an issue with the extra parts in the vertical boom.

[Tigerotor77W]

I personally feel that both the vertical and radial lift machines dig equally well and have very good reliability- I guess you could of argued this a decade ago. The cost of a few extra pins and bushings on a vertical path machine is miniscule in the scheme of things and the argument is now moot.

With the exception of the "could" in your statement (I think you meant "couldn't"), I agree -- and this is exactly what I'm saying.

You mean you can get WiFi next to pool? With the scantily clad females and the foo foo drinks, I think I would take a break from LS and concentrate on all the "distractions".:drinkup: The rest of us have nothing better to do.:cry:

Ah, no. Unless by "scantily clad females" you mean... well... I haven't seen any females on campus since I got back two days ago. :p

I'm working over break and Urbana, IL is hardly the hot vacation spot that Girls Gone Wild are filmed at. Here... it's just cows. The ones you milk [and the remainder of the joke removed just to be PC. :) ]. (So not the derogatory name for women.)

[Bleed Green]

Do you guys think Deere will put larger radial lift machines in their new lineup?

[Duffster]

Do you guys think Deere will put larger radial lift machines in their new lineup?

No

I don't see any real advantage to it

[Duffster]

This one isn't anyway;)

[Bleed Green]

Ya I know this one isn't, that is obvious. Are there plans to have any, I guess is the question that I am wondering about.

[JDSKIDSTEER]

Ya I know this one isn't, that is obvious. Are there plans to have any, I guess is the question that I am wondering about.No....But I am in the feild and out of the loop on the new models.

[DeereMan85]

Deere will not be building large radial machines. Small, entry-level models only. The D Series will look just like the one pictured. I've seen pics from all angles, and the basic structure will be very similar to the current models. It will be more of an evolutionary redesign than a complete reinvention. The improvements will eliminate many of the common complaints about Deere skid steers.

[Junior M]

Deere will not be building large radial machines. Small, entry-level models only. The D Series will look just like the one pictured. I've seen pics from all angles, and the basic structure will be very similar to the current models. It will be more of an evolutionary redesign than a complete reinvention. The improvements will eliminate many of the common complaints about Deere skid steers.
not to take this thread offtopic, but Deere, you seem to know alot about whats to come with Deere, do you work at a dealership?

[JDSKIDSTEER]

not to take this thread offtopic, but Deere, you seem to know alot about whats to come with Deere, do you work at a dealership?Quit goofing off and crack dem books.

[Junior M]

Quit goofing off and crack dem books.
1. 1200x9.8m/s2x42=
1200x19.6m/sx42=9.87840x105th


I am!
(the 5th is suppose to be to the 5th power, but I dont know how to do it, and its in scientific notation if I did it right;) and that 2 after m/s is to the 2nd power)


:laugh: :laugh:

[DeereMan85]

Yep, I have the same job as JDSkidsteer--selling Deere compact equipment (Commercial Worksite Products, as Deere calls it). The stuff I've mentioned isn't anything secret. Anyone who attended WinterFest (CWP product intro) knows about the D series and the stuff we've talked about here. I have seen some pictures that not everyone has seen, and there are some changes in the works that you can't see from the pics posted here and that I haven't mentioned. Hopefully we'll win a few of you guys over when the new skids come out.

[Junior M]

Yep, I have the same job as JDSkidsteer--selling Deere compact equipment (Commercial Worksite Products, as Deere calls it). The stuff I've mentioned isn't anything secret. Anyone who attended WinterFest (CWP product intro) knows about the D series and the stuff we've talked about here. I have seen some pictures that not everyone has seen, and there are some changes in the works that you can't see from the pics posted here and that I haven't mentioned. Hopefully we'll win a few of you guys over when the new skids come out.
Cool.. :cool2:

We need more guys like you to back up all the rumors and things we hear..

[Digdeep]

digdeep let me ask you something, you sold bobcats for how many years?? You never took a radial lift machine and a vertical lift and compared the 2? meaning taking them out in the dirt and really seing on which can push more or dig better

Yes, and both of them do perfectly well. You're supposed to push and dig with the loader against the boom stop anyway. What difference is the linkage design going to make if the boom is resting against the chassis? The linkage is not going to alter the way a machine pushes or digs...wheel base, tire type, hp, machine weight, etc. are the driving factors.

I've seen just as many vertical linkage machines with thousands of hours on them that have had no problems that I have radial linkage machines. I'm telling you, this is an old horse that has been beat to death.:hammerhead: