Lawn Care Forum banner

Lets talk mini excavators from 2.7- 6 ton.

30K views 60 replies 18 participants last post by  AWJ Services 
#1 ·
Things seem to be changing some in the way OEMs are marketing these machines.

I am curious what you guys think about the current market machine weights, tail swings and horsepower in the 2.7 – 5.5 ton weight range. I know the 3.5 sized machine is the most popular but every OEM seems to have a different philosophy in what other machines they offer around that machine. What is driving this? I would like to know your guys’ opinion on who has the best line-up and why?

Here is what I discovered with the Wacker Neuson 38Z3. It’s slightly heavier than a typical 3.5 ton machine but it had excellent reach. I enjoyed easily towing it, as opposed to my TB153 which is just over 13K lbs as spec’d. Are you guys buying certain machines based on transport weight to avoid the CDL requirements or is it certain performance abilities with the machines?

Here is what I would see as an ideal mini-ex OEM line-up: 2.7 ton zero tail, 3.5 ton conventional tail, 3.5 zero tail, 4.3 ton conventional tail and a 5.5 ton zero tail. What do you guys think about this and why? For instance, one thing I do not understand is why both Kubota and Bobcat offer 3.2 ton conventional tail excavator. Why not just make this machine 3.5 ton?”

I am not a real fan of a conventional tail mini ex but they still seem to sell, so others must see value in them. I am curious what some of the different views on this are. It used to be pretty straight forward. The sizes were 27, 35 , and 50. Times have changed, I am curious what the driver is.
 
See less See more
#2 ·
Conventional tail swing machines do not need too weigh as much as a zero tail swing machine in the same class size which leads too better performance with less weight. Take the Tak tb250 machine. It has virtually the same performance as the tb 153 yet weighs 2000 pounds less. The machine with the most promise in the 6 ton class is the new TB260. It looks like they took a KX161 and copied it which is a bonus since Kubota really screwed up with the KX057. I agree on the smaller min ex machines there is no need for a conv tail swing but in the 5 ton class I do thing it is a good option.
 
#5 ·
Has too much tail swing compared too the kx161
That's why you go with the u55. 800 hours on mine and I like it much more then the 50d I had. The 57 only has like 4 or 5 inches of overhang doesn't it?
 
#6 ·
I know this doesn't really fit with the original size of machines but I really would like to see something reduced tail swing or zero between 8 and 13-14 tonne
 
#7 ·
That's why you go with the u55. 800 hours on mine and I like it much more then the 50d I had. The 57 only has like 4 or 5 inches of overhang doesn't it?
Yes the U55 is a nice machine. The KX161 was a reduced tail swing with not much overhang. The KX057 has way more overhang than a KX161. I think there is a need for an in between style tail swing which really helps on counterbalanceing the machine with heavy loads at full reach in this weight class.
 
#9 ·
For me it is a weight issue. I have Bobcat 335 with thumb and angle blade and A/C. It's just shy of 10k without an operator.

I'm thinking I'm going to have to upgrade to a CDL soon but that means bigger truck and heavier trailer and then I'd be in the market for the strongest and heaviest mini I could still use in the tight locations I work in. I like having a 12' dig depth and 17' reach but this almost 5 ton machine feels tippy.

I'd like to see more hp crammed into the smaller machines like I have, too.
 
#10 ·
Talked too my salesman today and he should be getting a TB260 soon. They are already at Pendegrass and he has already seen one. Looks like Tak may have hit a homerun with this machine.

http://www.takeuchi-us.com/downloads/TB260ComparitiveSpecs08_14_2013.pdf
I just watched a Youtube of the 260 and it does look impressive. The options are also impressive, high hydraulic flow and dual hydraulics-standard! The cab looks much improved from what they have been like. I'm not sure what to think of the reduced tail swing, why not make it a ZTS? But, overall it looks very nice.

On to Shane's now, nice write up in the Equipment Today! :drinkup:

I am a little disappointed that the 10,000 pound mini has been supersized. It's nice to have the performance of the 55 size now but don't like the extra hassle of now being in CDL land to legally move it. I've always thought the 50(and I guess the 55, too) size is perfect but I am wondering/thinking that a 25ish size mini would be nice for work that didn't need the 55 size to do(easy to mobilize, not digging very deep, tighter work area). In a perfect world I would have a 17 and 50 size with a 25-30 for the tweener mini.

I am also a believer that all excavators should be ZTS(or near ZTS).
 
#11 ·
Shane,

Just like you I had my eyes on the 153 as I had a u35 Kubota I sold and wanted a little more machine but the weight of the machine stopped me dead in my tracks. If I had my CDL with a trailer to tow it would had owned it in a heart beat but I decided on the 138FR which I am glad I did, bit smaller keeps me under weight, great reach and the best part, finally a mini that I can use the foot controls in. Prior I had a U35 kubota and 35D Deere both not enough room to comfortably run the for controls. Just seems like for a mini 3.5 is best of both worlds, is small enough to fit a lot of places but big enough to be fairly efficient at many tasks.
 
#12 ·
I just watched a Youtube of the 260 and it does look impressive. The options are also impressive, high hydraulic flow and dual hydraulics-standard! The cab looks much improved from what they have been like. I'm not sure what to think of the reduced tail swing, why not make it a ZTS? But, overall it looks very nice.

On to Shane's now, nice write up in the Equipment Today! :drinkup:

I am a little disappointed that the 10,000 pound mini has been supersized. It's nice to have the performance of the 55 size now but don't like the extra hassle of now being in CDL land to legally move it. I've always thought the 50(and I guess the 55, too) size is perfect but I am wondering/thinking that a 25ish size mini would be nice for work that didn't need the 55 size to do(easy to mobilize, not digging very deep, tighter work area). In a perfect world I would have a 17 and 50 size with a 25-30 for the tweener mini.

I am also a believer that all excavators should be ZTS(or near ZTS).
I have not even seen the article yet.

The sizes have changed quite a bit and I am not sure what to think about it. I have the CDL and the necessary trucks and trailers to pull up to a 160, but that doesn't mean I want to. I really liked having that 38Z around. It allowed me to do fewer mobs, and I would pull it with a 2500HD. I like the spread that IHI has on their mini ex line. I personally think it is very complete and I like the spread, but no one machine can cover it all.

I am also on board with the belief that all excavators should be ZTS or near ZTS. I would not own a conventional mini ex. When I was looking for a replacement for my 9020B, I nearly bought a Kobelco SK140, just could not get the numbers where I wanted them. I would like to have a full size min. swing full size ex.

These machines will learn to do more with less hp. There is not a lot of room to put all that EPA bs on a mini ex and still put out 50 hp like they used to.
 
#13 ·
I am not wanting to turn this thread into a DOT thread, but I guess it kind of surprises me that a lot of guys buy according to the DOT laws. I know its a pain, but when you think about the productivity gains that the larger machines bring, the asstax involved with DOT is pretty insignificant (assuming you can utilize a bigger machine).

I know that when I went from an IHI 35J (good machine) to the TB53 my business easily tripled. I could take on larger jobs, easily load trucks, set much larger rocks for much cooler looking retaining walls. etc. Everyone's operation of course is different, but I got set up with DOT and took the tests (got legal) and gradually replaced smaller trailers with larger ones and smaller prime movers with larger ones. It was a gateway really to a much more profitable operation. I am a little curious if others would not find a similar result.

These newer machines are finally filling the gap between 5T and 9T. IHI came out with a 65 size, Hitachi a 60, TK 53, and so on. These machines are remarkable really in their capacity. I don't know the stats but I have to think the market must be moving toward these machine.
 
#14 ·
CDL aside I rarely find a 35 machine being an advantage size wise for me plus when I have a larger machine available and I am on a smaller machine the whole time I am thinking about how much faster the larger machine would make the job go. If your just billing hours then the size is irrelevant so I can see why some would not see things this way.
It also makes perfect sense too buy an excavator that will fit on your existing trailer rather than purchase a new trailer and possibly a bigger truck. I will also add that there is a huge difference in ability between a 6 ton machine and a 3.5 ton machine which makes the 6 ton so attractive that it is worth the cost and coupled with the fact that most all CTL's are 10k in weight it is getting too the point where a CDL is getting harder and harder too stay away from. Really always boils down too what you do the majority of the time, size of your work area and lifting capacity. We all do different things so it is a good thing that they make many different size ex's.
 
#15 ·
maybe some of the thought behind the over 50 sized machine is to better replace tlb's also. there is no arguement the 35 or 50 sized machines are more manueverable but they lack the power and dig depth of a 310 standard hoe tlb. getting closer on these issues may sway some that previously may have been shopping just a tlb's.
 
#16 ·
maybe some of the thought behind the over 50 sized machine is to better replace tlb's also. there is no arguement the 35 or 50 sized machines are more manueverable but they lack the power and dig depth of a 310 standard hoe tlb. getting closer on these issues may sway some that previously may have been shopping just a tlb's.
Will you notice little too no difference in digging power between a KX161 and a John deere 310. The 310 will have more digging depth. Thats the beauty of a 6 ton machine.
 
#17 ·
I like 35 size. May have to get a 50 but that's a lot of machine to move.

Ive always liked the next size up cat machines. They seem like they don't have much of a tall machine with the round looking cabs - I don't keep up with cat so I couldn't tell you the models lol

I seen someone doing roadside mowing with a gradall this week. That looked like a disaster when he was finished I would like to get the contract and an 80 machine for it
 
#18 ·
Will you notice little too no difference in digging power between a KX161 and a John deere 310. The 310 will have more digging depth. Thats the beauty of a 6 ton machine.
I guess I should have clarified. It seems the tlb's are more stable when craning with the backhoe. This is what i meant by power.
 
#20 ·
One of the biggest advancement in mini ex's in my opinion is dual aux lines with adjustable flow control in the cab. Is there a manufacturer who does not offer this?

One question. Generally some mini ex's always have a large amount more bucket curl force than other brands and in the real world is an advantage?
My TB153 has some of the highest bucket breakout forces of any machine in its class. I was on a job last week digging about 600 feet of water line the ground was not rocky but incredibly hard. With a 2' bucket the machine struggled with the material, I had never seen any nonrock material this hard. Utilizing the bucket curl almost exclusively was the only way possible to big (if I had frost teeth available that certainly would have helped). It was slow but effective. Between jobs like this and concrete removal, I think more is certainly better when it comes to bucket breakout.

However the bucket that the OEM uses to achieve these specs is very important. The shorter the tip radius the high the number. If you add a pin grabber style coupler, you will reduce the breakout force (some types of couplers don't negatively impact breakout). I suspect that TK achieves some of these very high breakout by reducing the bucket rollout. It is one of my only complaints of the machine, not enough bucket articulation. By reducing the articulation you can increase the power through a shorter hyd. stroke. I would be curious if anyone else has noticed this.

I cant adjust my hyd flow and my TK is a '12. The CAT E series I know does, maybe the newest Hitachi does, but the D series Deere I ran did not. I heard that TK is about to release this capability. I am not sure about others.
 
#21 ·
My TB153 has some of the highest bucket breakout forces of any machine in its class. I was on a job last week digging about 600 feet of water line the ground was not rocky but incredibly hard. With a 2' bucket the machine struggled with the material, I had never seen any nonrock material this hard. Utilizing the bucket curl almost exclusively was the only way possible to big (if I had frost teeth available that certainly would have helped). It was slow but effective. Between jobs like this and concrete removal, I think more is certainly better when it comes to bucket breakout.

However the bucket that the OEM uses to achieve these specs is very important. The shorter the tip radius the high the number. If you add a pin grabber style coupler, you will reduce the breakout force (some types of couplers don't negatively impact breakout). I suspect that TK achieves some of these very high breakout by reducing the bucket rollout. It is one of my only complaints of the machine, not enough bucket articulation. By reducing the articulation you can increase the power through a shorter hyd. stroke. I would be curious if anyone else has noticed this.

I cant adjust my hyd flow and my TK is a '12. The CAT E series I know does, maybe the newest Hitachi does, but the D series Deere I ran did not. I heard that TK is about to release this capability. I am not sure about others.
The tb260 has it. So does Kubota.
 
#22 ·
I wish I could dial in the flow rate, wasn't as big of a deal with my previous 153. It did not make enough flow for it to really matter. Now that they make some serious flow, I would like the ability to dial it down for some of the low flow attachments like a small hoe pac I have.
 
#23 ·
I wish I could dial in the flow rate, wasn't as big of a deal with my previous 153. It did not make enough flow for it to really matter. Now that they make some serious flow, I would like the ability to dial it down for some of the low flow attachments like a small hoe pac I have.
I get tired of opening the cowl and turning the pressure down to use the thumb. I am so looking forward too having the ability to adjust flow and also the second circuit for the thumb.
 
#25 ·
The 304E I operated was very nice. Any idea on how much Kubota charges for the option? I'm pretty sure it's standard on all CAT's E series from their 303.5 up. Not sure if it's only offered on Tak's tb260.
Optional on Kubota but appears to be standard on the Tak TB260.
Tak will probably include it in all machines as they update them.
 
#26 ·
I would be interested in hearing from the OEM's on the supersizing the 45/50 size. I could see bumping the size for more performance but why not stay under 12,000 pounds to fit 12,000 pound trailers? How many have a 14,000 pound trailer?

I do like how they are really packing the features in the 55 size now. I'm impressed with that Takeuchi TB260.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top