Register free!

The Green Industry's Resource Center



Reply
 
Thread Tools   Display Modes
  #61  
Old 08-13-2012, 12:04 AM
treemover treemover is offline
LawnSite Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: lost in the trees, ks
Posts: 366
back to the original poster...

stay away from the MTL's they will eat your ass. I liked them, graded nice, rode nice and I pushed snow with them. Had a 257b2 and a 277c. We landscape and do excavating. We were always working on them, idlers, bogies, mtl sprockets, ripping drive lugs off, replacing with bair aftermarket lugs, ripped those off, track are weak(no steel in them)

I could go on and on. If you want a machine that will work get a ctl. all of them will work(i think) all have pluses and minuses. For what its worth I am currently running deere 329's. Big powerful machines and we love them. Just a pain to pull on a bumper trailer behind a single wheel truck!

Good luck
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 08-21-2012, 10:17 PM
talus's Avatar
talus talus is offline
LawnSite Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 714
I must be doing something right. 493 hours now and not one issue. No doubt they are not as durable as a ctl style. The only thing I can see that will tear them up in a hurry is crushed stone and maybe mulching with one. I have yet to rip any drive lugs off or the constant maintenance others speak of. When it's muddy I wash it out. Thats it. I still blame Cat for the bad rep that stuck with the MTL style. Maybe the balance has something to do with it?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 08-21-2012, 11:00 PM
muddywater muddywater is offline
LawnSite Bronze Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,813
I think it gets a little nasty at 1000hrs, then you get puked on at 2000hrs.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 08-21-2012, 11:32 PM
talus's Avatar
talus talus is offline
LawnSite Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 714
Time will tell.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 08-22-2012, 08:24 AM
Digdeep Digdeep is offline
LawnSite Bronze Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 1,777
Quote:
Originally Posted by muddywater View Post
I think it gets a little nasty at 1000hrs, then you get puked on at 2000hrs.
I have an RC50 that has well over both your figures and it's been far more reliable than any of the Bobcat CTLs I sold over the 8 years I was selling them. ASV is still making their machines after 28 years in the CTL business so they must have gotten a few things right (I think Terex is a bigger threat to their existence than any OEM and will destroy the company because they have a weak dealership network and poor management). Also, over half of the CTLs ever built up through 2010 had an ASV undercarriage on them. They still have their place with lots of satisfied customers just like Bobcat, Takeuchi, Deere, CAT, Case, etc.
__________________
Digdeep
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 08-22-2012, 09:18 AM
muddywater muddywater is offline
LawnSite Bronze Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,813
That asv rc50 is a light machine. I think the heavier machines but more wear on the undercarriage.

I have flipped a few asvs over the years, rc 80, rc 100, rc 50, rc 60, and rc 30. The heavier machines show much more wear.
Posted via Mobile Device
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 08-22-2012, 10:01 AM
Digdeep Digdeep is offline
LawnSite Bronze Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 1,777
Quote:
Originally Posted by muddywater View Post
That asv rc50 is a light machine. I think the heavier machines but more wear on the undercarriage.

I have flipped a few asvs over the years, rc 80, rc 100, rc 50, rc 60, and rc 30. The heavier machines show much more wear.
Posted via Mobile Device
I think you hit the nail on the head. ASV builds their machines around an undercarriage to match weight, balance and hp to weight ratios. CAT takes an existing undercarriage and bolts it to an existing skid chassis. CAT's 247, 277 and 287s performed relatively well concerning their operating weights with the exception of their weight oriented significantly to the rear on their vertical lift machines. IMO the 257 should never have happened because it is just plain too heavy and has too much weight on the A$$ of the machine.

The PT60 has the exact same undercarriage and it only weighs about 6300lbs compared to the 257 coming in at just over 8000lbs. That's a 20%+ weight difference not to mention that a lot of that extra weight is toward the rear of the machine over that small rear idler.
__________________
Digdeep
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 08-22-2012, 10:26 AM
muddywater muddywater is offline
LawnSite Bronze Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,813
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digdeep View Post
I think you hit the nail on the head. ASV builds their machines around an undercarriage to match weight, balance and hp to weight ratios. CAT takes an existing undercarriage and bolts it to an existing skid chassis. CAT's 247, 277 and 287s performed relatively well concerning their operating weights with the exception of their weight oriented significantly to the rear on their vertical lift machines. IMO the 257 should never have happened because it is just plain too heavy and has too much weight on the A$$ of the machine.

The PT60 has the exact same undercarriage and it only weighs about 6300lbs compared to the 257 coming in at just over 8000lbs. That's a 20%+ weight difference not to mention that a lot of that extra weight is toward the rear of the machine over that small rear idler.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 08-22-2012, 11:55 AM
Digdeep Digdeep is offline
LawnSite Bronze Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 1,777
Quote:
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.
__________________
Digdeep
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 08-22-2012, 11:07 PM
excav8ter excav8ter is offline
LawnSite Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Holland, Michigan
Posts: 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digdeep View Post
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.
$5.60/hr!!!!! That's a big expense. My Takki is currently $2.35/hr for UC and track wear. And that's paying to have stuff done.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump





Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1998 - 2012, LawnSite.comô - Moose River Media
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:35 PM.

Page generated in 0.07072 seconds with 10 queries