PDA

View Full Version : T300 or T250


toomuchtime
01-13-2010, 11:55 AM
I JUST CANNOT DECIDE. I am pushed towards the t300 due to the fact every mulching outfit I see is running a 300 or 320. Can a t250 run the head or does it have to do with lift path for mulching? I know the powerplants are the same and the 300 can lift higher but is the only diffrence? There are very nice low hour t250's with all the bells and whistles under 30K gold package,sjc so on but a equally equipped and hour wise t300 will bring mid 30's .I plan on light excavating,trenching,road maintenance and brushing with this machince with possibly some mulching depending on the demand in my area.

Whats your take?

Thanks again!

Tigerotor77W
01-13-2010, 02:51 PM
One question might be whether a T250 can lift the mulcher head... the engine in the T250 and T300 is the same, so I doubt there's much of a hydraulic reason. Perhaps digdeep or a Bobcat guy can shed some light on this.

mrsops
01-13-2010, 02:59 PM
The only differnce between the t250 and the t300 is that the t300 can lift 500lbs more and i believe has about 6 inches or more when loading trucks. Other then that there isn't much of a difference.

YellowDogSVC
01-13-2010, 03:01 PM
I don't think you will notice much of a difference in lifting between the 250 and 300. though I operate skids, the s250, s300 and s330 are all about the same in lift ability and tippiness and I have put all three through many hours. I imagine the CTL version is similar in capacity.

mrsops
01-13-2010, 03:05 PM
I don't think you will notice much of a difference in lifting between the 250 and 300. though I operate skids, the s250, s300 and s330 are all about the same in lift ability and tippiness and I have put all three throug` many hours. I imagine thee20%%WOVD38%% version is similar`in capacitu.

I tell you one thing yellow i had a 2002 s250 with a deutz engine and for some reason that machine was incredible power wise. I lifted when i had my 553 with a set of forks on my 250 over an 8 foot wall it was tippy but i did it. Had to take the bucket off the 553

YellowDogSVC
01-13-2010, 03:18 PM
I had an s250 and probably would have kept it but it was my last open-cab machine. I had the kubota. Just missed the deutz cutoff. I had a couple of 863's with the deutz before that and I never complained about power. The s250 could lift! I think it would be fun to watch you carry a 553.

bobcat_ron
01-13-2010, 03:32 PM
Go with the 250, vertical apths are not the geatest for twisting and torsional strength.

AEL
01-13-2010, 06:23 PM
Ditto on the deutz S250. We have the deutz with 3000hrs and a 2005 250 with the kubota and that deutz is a powerhouse, i find a big difference between the 2 machines.

YellowDogSVC
01-13-2010, 07:01 PM
Ditto on the deutz S250. We have the deutz with 3000hrs and a 2005 250 with the kubota and that deutz is a powerhouse, i find a big difference between the 2 machines.

that's odd as the numbers would tell that the kubota is more powerful. After running a deutz 863 and kubota s250, I found the s250 stronger in push force but that's just me. Interesting.

toomuchtime
01-13-2010, 08:31 PM
Thanks for the input guys.

Bobcatron would you see any disadvantages mulching with a t250 as oppose to a t300?

toomuchtime
01-13-2010, 08:32 PM
Anyone else have any thoughts on the two machines?

JPsDuramax
01-13-2010, 08:37 PM
If your going to be doing more grading, than I would recommend the T250. The T300 is more difficult to see out of. The benefit would be tha additional liffting capacity and reach, but it all depends on your needs.

Tigerotor77W
01-13-2010, 09:07 PM
YellowDog, remember that the T250 is radial and based on the S220, not the S250...

bobcatuser
01-13-2010, 11:22 PM
Anyone else have any thoughts on the two machines?

It seems the T300 has better resale value. I don't know much about the T250 there aren't many around here.

YellowDogSVC
01-14-2010, 12:05 AM
YellowDog, remember that the T250 is radial and based on the S220, not the S250...
The t250 is still rated at 2500 lbs., right? The s220 could easily handle a mulcher even with rubber tires. Bobcat definitely underrates their machines IMO on the large frame loaders.

bobcat_ron
01-14-2010, 09:19 AM
Thanks for the input guys.

Bobcatron would you see any disadvantages mulching with a t250 as oppose to a t300?

The T250 will have a lower ground pressure, so it will be better balanced than the heavier T300.

Tigerotor77W
01-14-2010, 09:44 AM
The t250 is still rated at 2500 lbs., right? The s220 could easily handle a mulcher even with rubber tires. Bobcat definitely underrates their machines IMO on the large frame loaders.

Okay, just wanted to make sure that the radial machine could do it. :)

YellowDogSVC
01-14-2010, 10:58 AM
Okay, just wanted to make sure that the radial machine could do it. :)

I've been really impressed with the Bobcat large frame radial design. I ran a tushhogg mulcher on an s220 with no problems. The s220 wasn't tippy at all. I think the overall weight of a T250 at over 9,000 lbs will help.

Digdeep
01-14-2010, 11:16 AM
The t250 is still rated at 2500 lbs., right? The s220 could easily handle a mulcher even with rubber tires. Bobcat definitely underrates their machines IMO on the large frame loaders.

Remember that the 2500lbs is the the ROC at 35% of the tipping load and the S220 is rated at 50% of the tipping load. The T250 has a ROC at 50% of 3679lbs. More than enough for any mulching head.

Digdeep
01-14-2010, 11:17 AM
The T250 will have a lower ground pressure, so it will be better balanced than the heavier T300.

The T250 is only 355lbs lighter than the T300 so the difference in ground pressure in minimal.

mrsops
01-14-2010, 03:11 PM
Digdeep isn't the price diffrence between the t250 and t300 only like 5,000?

Digdeep
01-14-2010, 03:48 PM
Digdeep isn't the price diffrence between the t250 and t300 only like 5,000?

In our area they actually only have about a $3k price difference. The S250 and S300 are only about $2k apart.

YellowDogSVC
01-14-2010, 05:06 PM
Remember that the 2500lbs is the the ROC at 35% of the tipping load and the S220 is rated at 50% of the tipping load. The T250 has a ROC at 50% of 3679lbs. More than enough for any mulching head.

thanks for pointing that out. CTL's are rated at 35% why? Does anyone know?

Tigerotor77W
01-14-2010, 05:18 PM
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not aware of why exactly there is a factor of safety associated with ROCs. Wheel loaders, though not rated by lift capacity, are tested by tipping load; the same is true for track loaders. However, when it comes to lift capacities, there is an apparently arbitrary 50% or 35% FOS tacked onto the tipping load.

CTLs are 35% simply because that's the definition for lift capacity for track loaders, but why it's 35 (and not 30%, for instance, or 25%) I have no idea.

Digdeep
01-14-2010, 05:33 PM
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not aware of why exactly there is a factor of safety associated with ROCs. Wheel loaders, though not rated by lift capacity, are tested by tipping load; the same is true for track loaders. However, when it comes to lift capacities, there is an apparently arbitrary 50% or 35% FOS tacked onto the tipping load.

CTLs are 35% simply because that's the definition for lift capacity for track loaders, but why it's 35 (and not 30%, for instance, or 25%) I have no idea.

I don't know why/how SAE determined that 50% (SSLs) of tip was safe, but that is what it is. Track Loaders are rated at 35% because it is expected that they will be on uneven terrain. At least hat is how it was explained to me.

ksss
01-14-2010, 05:56 PM
I don't know why/how SAE determined that 50% (SSLs) of tip was safe, but that is what it is. Track Loaders are rated at 35% because it is expected that they will be on uneven terrain. At least hat is how it was explained to me.


I have never heard that before as a reason. I mean saying the CTL's are rated at 35% because they are expected to be on uneven ground is not very exact and very subjective, which flies in the face of SAE. That may be the reason but if it truely is I would be surprised. I thought it had something to do with the small idler in the front of the machine. Cant really make an arguement about that, just thats what I thought.

Digdeep
01-14-2010, 06:21 PM
I have never heard that before as a reason. I mean saying the CTL's are rated at 35% because they are expected to be on uneven ground is not very exact and very subjective, which flies in the face of SAE. That may be the reason but if it truely is I would be surprised. I thought it had something to do with the small idler in the front of the machine. Cant really make an arguement about that, just thats what I thought.

The SAE rating J818 that CTLs use was originally implemented for steel track loaders and wheel loaders like the 933/953 and the old 950/966s etc. It lists both 50% for wheels and 35% for tracks. I've never heard much about the idler size, but who knows.

Tigerotor77W
01-14-2010, 08:29 PM
I don't know why/how SAE determined that 50% (SSLs) of tip was safe, but that is what it is. Track Loaders are rated at 35% because it is expected that they will be on uneven terrain. At least hat is how it was explained to me.

Right -- I've heard the thing about track loaders being on uneven terrain, too, but it's still somewhat arbitrary. After all, tipping load is measured on a solid, flat surface, and the sewer and pipe guys will tell you that the last thing they place pipe on is concrete or asphalt.

I think the percentage is more of an approximation; engineers design structures with a certain factor of safety in mind -- depending on what they're designing (planes vs. pencil holders), there might be a different idea of what "acceptably safe" is. I think the idea was that track loaders are generally on uneven underfoot more often than wheeled machines, so a lower percentage of tipping load was assigned. That being said, I don't think anyone ever did a rigorous study to compare how often which machines were on what surfaces and what surfaces gave what percent of a tipping load -- so from that standpoint, the ROC just gives a rough idea of what might be considered "safe" in "typical" operating conditions.