View Single Post
Old 08-22-2012, 11:55 AM
Digdeep Digdeep is offline
LawnSite Bronze Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 1,834
Originally Posted by muddywater View Post
I agree the asv's seem better balanced, but I think the weight still is a factor on some of the heavier asv's like the 80 and 100. The ones I bought to resell had about 2000hrs on the undercarriage and they needed a rebuild.

The asv 30s 50s and 60s undercarriage seem to last past 2000 hrs before a rebuild. It might need a few bogies or rear idlers at 2000hrs but not a complete undercarriage.

I have bought and sold a few 257s and they chew up those rear idler wheels fast.

And I have pretty good luck with the bobcat undercarriage. Most of them time, I just have to buy sprockets and maybe a rear idler.
I would 100% agree with you on the heavier 100s, but I've seen many 80s with original tracks exceed the 2,500hr range (the 80 only weighs about 9000lbs). When ASV came out with the face seals it changed the whole dynamic of the 2000hr rebuild. Now the hubs last thousands of hours and you only have to replace the rubber ring. I can get an entire undercarriage package for my RC50 now for right around $5,600. Even if I replaced the the tracks, sprockets and all the 24 bogies and idlers at 1000hrs it would only cost me $5.60 an hour if I did all the work myself.

The fact that my tracks last about 2000hrs along with my sprocket and all of the middle rollers (front and rear need to be changed more often depending on conditions) probably halve that cost per hour making the cost per hour not much above a wheeled machine, and I can do so much more (and year round) with my 50 than I can with my S220.

Your having good luck with your Bobcat then. They've made some good improvements (opening up the drive motor area and going to face seals), but my buddy still works for the local dealer and he would see a higher range of failures than you're having. Like I said, all of these brands have their strengths and weaknesses.
Reply With Quote
Page generated in 0.04560 seconds with 8 queries