I just got back from Phoenix at the CASE proving grounds prototyping the new track machines and the pilot controls. I can't discuss the pilots but I am free to discuss the track machines.
The CASE had their 445 track machine (prototype pilots) and also present was a Bobcat T250, and a CAT 277. We were given certain tasks to accomplish and then evaluate the performance of the machines.
The next class (which is what I can discuss the most) was the new CASE 440 tracked machine (with servos) compared to the CAT 277 and the Takeuchi 140. There were 6 guys from around the country including a CAT owner, Bobcat owner, an operator with Komatsu and CASE and three CASE owners (of which I was one). I will say that the 440 tracked is an incredible machine. The 277 was completely ineffective when forced to work. Universally it was the lowest scored machine on the digging, and power related excercises. It was the highest scored machine in the comfort area. The CASE was loud and had hydraulic noise issues. The machine was a prototype and still has some refining to do hopefully they will address those areas before it hits production. The work end of it however was amazing. I really have never been a big fan of tracked machines, but that machine impressed me. The Takeuchi was in the middle on the power and breakout ability. It had a great seat. It is a very large machine especially compared to the CASE, some felt it was too big and clumsy. I did like the pilots in that machine, but some did not. Perhaps because I am used to the feel after having a Takeuchi excavator. If anyone is in the market for a midsized track machine (I don't know what the ROC is on the 440CT, I do know it has about 85 hp) it would for sure be worth a demo. The 440CT should be released in the 2nd quarter I was told. I may hold off on my wheeled 440 and make it tracks.
Strange. I tried several machines before I bought my Cat and found just the opposite. Cat outworked them all. Of course I did not have the chance to try a Case, but I would not if I did. Over the years I have found Case equip. in general to be underpowered. Worst are their backhoe/loaders.
There were certain aspects of the Bobcat were well liked. I was a fan of the handles and I felt that in its group it dug well, most scored it second (it was not in the group with the 440 but with the 445. The controls I thought were a little hesitant. But I liked the feel. I actually scored the 220 Bobcat tops in the wheeled machines (verse CASE 440 with pilots, Komatsu and CAT 257).
The tracks are built from the ground up as their own system (CASE and NH share the same undercarriage). It is an unsuspended system similiar to Bobcat or Takeuchi. Surprisingly it was not a rough riding machine. Over the mogal track many thought it was more smooth than the suspended CAT track. I think due to the shorter track. The CAT and Takeuchi with its long track system tended to "teter tooter" then slam down at the bottom of the bump. Giving the impression it was rough riding.
There is no doubt that the CAT 277 is underpowered both in lift capacity and digging ability (bucket and loader arm breakout). I am pulling no punchs and favoring no machine. That is the way it stack up. Saying that all CASE equipment is under powered because of some backhoe that someone ran at some point was underpowered is like saying that all CAT equipment is underpowered because this 277 was a dog. I know thats not the case. The CAT skid steers were easily outworked when compared with these machines. There were areas that CAT did better than anyone else. It just wasn't in the digging/power tested areas.
To clarify I do not base my opinion on one machine. Merely said the Case Backhoe was the worst Case product I have ever ran. I have ran their dozers and wheel loaders as well. All fell way short of JD's or Cats.
And do you know how the other machines were set up? Cats hydro pressure can be turned up or down. I would guess the one you ran was not turned up all the way...and for a reason.
I sold Bobcat for 8 years before going fulltime into teaching and running a small landscaping operation on the side (sometimes I wonder if both jobs aren't fulltime!) and Avery makes a good point on pressure settings. It is common practice to set pressures at the high end of the range to gain maximum performance, especially right before a demo. Case AND Bobcat are well known for this practice. It's a huge advantage in breakout and lift. There are many "tools" that I used to tip a deal in my favor- dirt bucket vs. a low profile bucket (breakout), the teeth on a mini-ex bucket, pump pressures, tire pressures, etc. I used to sell against a John Deere salesman that used to always demo his skids with foundry buckets to make his machines breakouts seem superior. Many manufacturers that have gotten into the CTL market sell their machines with low profile buckets because their machines are too wide for the standard dirt buckets. JD uses foundry buckets to compute their breakouts on their CTLs. Read the fine print on the brochure the most important thing for the customer to decide on is if the machine will do the job he expects it to do, and most importantly, will the dealer provide solid product support because the machines will break down, all of them.
I have no idea where the pressures are set. These machines were rented from various sources. The point of comparing these machines isn't to show 6 guys that one brand is better than the other. The point is to improve their own product. This is accomplished by running their machine (CASE) against competetive machines as a benchmark. Adjusting pressures in these machines or derating them would not serve the purpose. If this was at an equipment expo (like the one in Louisville for example) I could see a manufacturer adjusting pressures because some may buy based on the trial run they had at the expo. There is zero incentive for anyone to do that in this situation. We were all flown in, picked up in a limo, put up in a nice hotel and feed three times a day for three days and dropped back off at the airport. I don't know what this cost but I am sure it was quite expensive. To say nothing of the fact that 6 guys were leaving as we were arriving. They were from France, Italy, and Spain. No company is going to spend this kind of time and money to get flawed results. However, believe whatever makes you feel better.
I wasn't stating that this was the case in your situation, only pointing out that this practice is very common. When I was selling, we always invited our best customers to Bobcat functions as well. It's a good way to get feedback on new models.
I had a customer that had bought over 30 machines from me and I flew he and his wife down to Florida in the middle of the winter to show appreciation for his business. Well worth the cost.
I've been to many a proving ground for many a manufacturer. Never have I gone to a proving ground where the host machines were sub par to the competitive machines. All brands have their good performance characteristics, as well as weaknesses. The job of an equipment company and their marketing arm is to highlight the strengths of their machine, as well as highlighting the weaknesses of your strongest competitors.
The job of an equipment company and their marketing arm is to highlight the strengths of their machine, as well as highlighting the weaknesses of your strongest competitors.
If that's the intent... at other times, as ksss mentioned, the intent may be to iron out the bugs.
But I agree -- a marketing demonstration would fail if the host machine fell apart during the comparisons! (Although it may be funny for the competition...)
I'm a strong believer in outside demonstrations, one's that aren't put on by a specific manufacturer. That way, the machines show up exactly as they would from the factory without a service tech tinkering with them. I'm not saying that in this situation that occured, but if an outside company sponsored the demonstration (much like a magazine "shootout") it would be certain there is no foul play.
I was thinking the same myself. It would be interesting to see a direct comparison of similar machines. Would manufacturers support that (public results of a product comparison)?
That's the problem, you'd have a hard time endorsing that sort of thing. You'd almost have to go and talk to every respective dealer and ask them for a demo machine for a day. Obviously you'd have to pay for it, but you could really cut past the BS real quick with a test like that.
About 3 or so years ago Bobcat was having a company sponsored event at the local Deere/Bobcat dealer. I am good friends with these guys and offered to bring my 95XT to run against their introductory S300 (If I remember correctly). They (Bobcat Company) declined the offer. I give credit to the dealer for taking it that far. Manufacturers typically wont go head to head in a shootout if they can help it. Too many variables (operators is a big one) and if their machines do poor the cost is big (in lost sales and a dimminished reputation in the area). I think the OEMs are much happier to let the customer perform their own comparisons. This way they win or lose one customer at a time, rather than potentially lose many customers at a OEM sponsored shootout. I have wondered why someone like "Compact Equipment" doesn't do a shootout. I don't know but I imagine that advertising revenue has a lot to do with it. Bobcat spends a lot of money with that magazine. Piss Bobcat off, and "Compact Equipment" becomes the real loser.
Haha, TF, you enter far too late... I seem to be the master of dragging threads OT.
Anyhow, yeah, you're right. Ooops.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Lawn Care Forum
7M posts
202.7K members
Since 1999
A forum community dedicated to lawn care and landscaping professionals and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about performance, modifications, classifieds, troubleshooting, maintenance, and more!