I am looking at buying a new 450-3 hitachi excavator,which is the same machine as the new 450d deere. The machines have'nt been out very long and I have not heard much about them. Has anyone heard or had any experiance on them? The only guy I talked to about them was very unhappy with the fuel consumtion.Thanks for any feedback.
Scott Machinery brought us both for demo, a brand new Hitachi 450 and John Deere 450. We're working between Park City and Kamas in very rocky conditions. The only difference we seemed to see between the two machines was that the Hitachi seemed to be a little better on fuel consumption. Could be coincidental though. When loading 740's in topsoil, both machines smoked the CAT 345C's, they're fast. When working in rock, cutting slopes, loading trucks, etc., the 345C's were superior due to the greater power and weight. The John Deere and Hitachi needed a D10 ripping/pushing to them to keep trucks from lining up. The 345C's only needed a D8. For that reason they were moved from the mass-ex/mass-grade crews and given to pipe crews. I do know that the utilities guys liked them due to the speed, and said they're better than Komatsu 400's. I don't know exactly what the pipe crews thought of them other than that. All I know is they were returned to Scott and the pipe guys stuck with the 330D's and 345C's. From the seat time I got in the Hitachi and John Deere, I was very impressed with the machines and really liked them. They have a lot of attributes most of those mid-size excavators lack; speed, fluidity of motion, etc. But they couldn't cut it to meet the production standards they needed to in the conditions we worked them in. I will say though, Scott Machinery is one of the finest dealers you can work with as far as service/support.
farm_boy, do you have thoughts on the matter? I was watching a Hitachi 450 and a Deere 450C yesterday (can post pics later) and was thinking the same thing. Mass X, a few questions: 1) Did you demo the Volvo 460 as well? 2) Did one set of machines (Cat or Deere/Hitachi) seem more stable? 3) Were they all ME versions? 4) Did you do a fuel study? 5) What were other criteria your firm used to decide the purchased machine? Did one aspect tip the purchase heavily? 6) Any other details on why the firm stuck with Cat?
1) Did you demo the Volvo 460 as well? No. Our local Volvo dealer has offered excavators and loaders for demo but we have not followed up on the offers as of yet. 2) Did one set of machines (Cat or Deere/Hitachi) seem more stable? The Deere/Hitachi was more stable. I would probably attribute that to the additional 5,000lbs the machines had over the CAT's. The 345C seems to need a little more work on its platform to keep from rocking while working. I had about 7 hours in each machine in a couple varying conditions in which to draw conclusions on the machines. 3) Were they all ME versions? John Deere 450D LC ME and Hitachi ZX450LC-3 (16' stick). The CAT's were 345C L 's and 345C's with mass excavation boom/stick configurations. 4) Did you do a fuel study? Not officially. 5) What were other criteria your firm used to decide the purchased machine? Equipment performance is paramount. Price was not a large deciding factor in the purchase. When running all the machines side-by-side in similar conditions under numerous circumstances; mass-ex(loading ADT's) in both rock and topsoil, utilities, etc., the CAT's came out on top, even though by only narrow margins in some situations. I would say that was the largest deciding factor in purchasing more 345C's. Caterpillar service support (Wheeler Machinery) is vital to our operation (24hr parts/service guarantee). Though the local Deere/Hitachi dealer (Scott Machinery) is equal by almost all counts in my experience. Did one aspect tip the purchase heavily? Operator preference. 6) Any other details on why the firm stuck with Cat? The hourly operating expense of the machines are equal. And the CAT's consistently moved more dirt/dug more trench per hour than the Deere/Hitachi.
Thanks for the feedback. Which stick do you think is better for general utilities and excavating,the 11'2 or the 12'10? Also what size track pads would you reccomend for general excavating,not very rocky? The machine I am looking at has 24inch track pads and I think that may be too narrow. Also what machine burned more fuel hitachi or cat. Thanks alot
Kudos to Tigerotor and Mass-X for the great questions and answers. It interesting that you ask about stability because I find these machines are so capable power-wise and so fast on cycle times that the inertia of the loaded bucket can make the machine feel quite unstable especially if the hydraulics have been 'tuned-up'
if you don't own, can't buy any of em...are pullin a w-2......what dif does it make? the boss drags an old drott 120 out and says run it, you have 2 options....run it, or leave
I RAN A NEW VOLVO 460 LAST SOMMER IN THE LEVEE IN SACRAMENTO CALIF. :throwup . WHAT A PEICE OF CRAP!!!. I LIKE THE 345C BUT I CURENTLY WORK FOR A CO THAT HAS ALL DEERE AND HITACHI,S:notworthy . I PERSONLY DONT THINK ANY HOE CAN TUCH THE BIG ORANGE..... THE ONLY DIF BETWEEN HIT AND DEERE IS MOTERS HIT HAS IZUEZU DEERE IS THERE OWN UP TO 450. I CURRENTLY RUN A JD 600LC. AWWSOME! :usa
MassX..when did you demo these machines? The 450DLC's currently being put out will perform better than when the machines were first launched as there have been several software updates since. In measured productivity all three machines (345C, 450D and Hitachi) should perform pretty much equal. The Deere/Hitachi will use less fuel though while moving the same material making them a much more efficient machines. Many of us here on this forum get tied up in the "operational" aspect of machines, but the poor guys that are spinning wrenches on these machine to keep them up and running for you operators are often overlooked during the purchasing decision. You have to remember that the easier (and cheaper) a machine is to maintain, the more time you will have in the seat and the more money the machine will make for the company. I guess what I am trying to say is this....if production output by two machines is close enough that it is within the range of error, then the machine that is cheaper to maintain and has more uptime will ultimately be the machine that makes the company the most money. There seems to be a lot of emotion wrapped up in that manufacturer is better than this manufacturer. At the end of the day if you are spending several hundred thousand dollars for a tool that makes you money, that purchasing decision should be based upon the factors that effect how that machine makes (or saves) you money. Getting back to the 345C versus the Deere/Hitachi 450.....both machines will produce about the same material. The Deere/Hitachi will use less fuel while producing that same material. The Cat will also cost you ~$3,000 more in the first 5K hours in maintenance costs alone. This is mainly based on Cat recommending that you change hydraulic oil at a 2K interval versus a 5K hour interval in the Deere/Hitachi. Other features in the Deere/Hitachi make it easier and faster to perform daily checks by the operator such as checking engine oil, hydraulic oil and coolant levels....which all can be done from the cab via the standard monitor. It is not always which machine produces more, but which machine will also cost you less to operate . Of course these are only my opinions and observations.:IMO In order to judge for yourself there is no better way than to get in the seat. I would also look at the OM for each machine and compare some of the maintenance items. This will give you a feel for what it takes to maintain each machine.
Wulf -- if I can't find out things firsthand, might as well ask those who can. Mass X: thanks for the replies. You had mentioned that in loose dirt, the Deere/Hitachi (DH I'll call them) outdug the 345C. I take it that the job application these machines were intended for wasn't loose dirt? Are you allowed to say which machines came out using less fuel? Was there a different between the Deere and the Hitachi, since they use different engines? Any other differents between D and H? farm_boy: What follows is my opinion as well. I do agree with you in stating that the long-term costs should be as worthy a look-over as the performance numbers, but the odd thing is that Cat says the same -- and pushes its 345C as the better one [in regards to those data]. I'm not nearly well-enough versed with construction equipment to know maintenance data down to the hour, and completely forgetting the color of blood I have, I feel that it's up to the dealer to describe those costs. If brand A and brand B each say that their machine is lower in the OMM, or at least equal, then it's hard to decide which one truly is. Getting the mechanics and operators and managers alike to look at a machine is great, but it's up to the dealer to showcase the benefits of each machine to all those groups.
The new 450d and the 450-3 hitachi both have isuzu motors.
You're right. I didn't notice that.
I agree 100% :iagree I have said this before....it really doesn't matter how good the machine is....the dealer is the difference maker!!
Let me wade in here: Wulf: "these machines are so capable power-wise and so fast on cycle times that the inertia of the loaded bucket can make the machine feel quite unstable." Very true. We have a 345C L with a 2.71yd bucket that has this problem. If you swing much more than 110-120 degrees you're going to overswing unless going very slow. It also "hops" something terrible. I don't like running it because of this. farm_boy: "when did you demo these machines?" September/October of last year. Would that make them the older models? farm_boy: "the poor guys that are spinning wrenches on these machine to keep them up and running for you operators are often overlooked during the purchasing decision." Often, but not always. Our lead mechanic has a lot (too much in my opinion) of say in equipment purchases. He's partial to Komatsu, but will openly admit he prefers working on CAT machines for several reasons. More room to work in the engine compartment. Easier access to many components, etc. I don't know what mechanic preferences are on Deere/Hitachi machines. farm_boy: "In measured productivity all three machines (345C, 450D and Hitachi) should perform pretty much equal." I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with this statement based on the conditions in which I operated, and saw these machines operated. There were situations in which the Deere/Hitachi outperformed the CAT, but the CAT did move more material per hour in all conditions overall. This is based on a test of close to 250,000 cubic yards of material these machines handled while on the mass-ex/grade crews I ran while the machines were being demo'd. farm_boy: "The Cat will also cost you ~$3,000 more in the first 5K hours in maintenance costs alone." Yes. But in the first 1,000 hours the CAT will move at least $3,000 more material than the Deere/Hitachi in these conditions . Tigerotor77W: "You had mentioned that in loose dirt, the Deere/Hitachi (DH I'll call them) outdug the 345C." In topsoil the Deere/Hitachi did outdig the 345C's. We strip the topsoil with dozers, amassing it in long piles, strike off the top with the dozers and then have the excavators load it out. The piles are wide enough on top to allow a 345 sized machine to comfortably sit atop the bench. The bottom of the bench is built (ideally) so the bottom of the excavators tracks are level with the bed of the ADT for the fastest possible excavator cycle times. The Deere/Hitachi really shined in this situation. Tigerotor77W: "I take it that the job application these machines were intended for wasn't loose dirt?" Not loose dirt per se. We worked them in numerous conditions. From stockpiled topsoil (the softest dirt you can dig) to native rock; very dense, calcium laden granite/conglomerate rock (very hard). The rockier the conditions, the better the CAT's performed over the Deere/Hitachi. When a dozer was ripping and pushing material to an excavator (so all the material was loose) the Deere/Hitachi again shined. It was fast and smooth and loaded more trucks/hour than the CAT. When a dozer was ripping/pushing but couldn't keep up and the excavator was forced to dig native material, the CAT's pulled out ahead of the Deere/Hitachi (based on number of trucks loaded per hour). In shot rock, the real test of the machine on this job, the CAT was very impressive. While the excavators are loading out shot rock without dozer assistance I pre-plan (the best that I can) the cycle times of the ADT's so the excavator will have the time needed (20-45 seconds usually) in between trucks to generate enough material in front of them to load the truck as fast as possible. When digging to generate material, the Deere/Hitachi routinely needed 20-30% more time than the CAT to generate a sufficient amount of material to load the trucks. Tigerotor77W: "Are you allowed to say which machines came out using less fuel?" The Deere ME was about 10% more fuel efficient than the CAT ME. The long stick Hitachi was less fuel efficient than the long stick CAT's by a small margin; <10%. Tigerotor77W: "Was there a different between the Deere and the Hitachi, since they use different engines?" Not a difference I could notice. I personally preferred the Deere over all others, but that was more based on aesthetics and comfort. What I really liked about the Deere was the complete lack of machine "hop" - the CAT's, especially with the long stick are notoriously bad for this. The Deere was stable as a shovel. I found it a real pleasure to operate. Tigerotor77W: "Any other differents between D and H?" One had orange paint and the other had yellow and black paint.
Mass-X.....:notworthy :notworthy Wow:thumbsup , thanks for the well thought and stated message. If you demo'ed September/October time frame then it is very likely that the machines that you demo'ed did not have the latest and greatest software. New software makes night and day difference on these machines.
Mass X, I thoroughly enjoyed reading your post. An excellent unbiased assessment. Its interesting because about 20 years ago a mate of mine worked up the mines (a place called Leinster) and he drove excavators. I would get up there for a few weeks when I wasn't at sea. When the Hitachi ex's first arrived it was the first time any of the operators had a chance to drive something other than Cat. The conditions were real harsh, all hard rock, hot as hell and dust everywhere. It was found the multi-function capabilities of the Hitachi really outshone the Cat when it came to benching haul roads and load out platforms etc. When it came to straight up digging in the blast rock the Cat were favoured by the operators (who were performance/bonus paid) despite the Cat being way less comfortable to operate. My mate would stick the Hitachi way up the side of the hill and bring down otherwise inaccessible but unstable material. The Cat wouldn't even make it up the hill. Again, I enjoyed the read.
That is totally one of the best posts I've read here -- well-organized, first-hand information that points out flaws without attacking or provoking. I could take some lessons from you. :notworthy Curious that the D and H had different fuel efficiencies -- anyone know why this might be?
I've enjoyed reading this post and am finally caught up with. I have my own question(s) to ask you Mass-X The Cat's you demo'ed, did they have the variable gauge undercarriage or standard, because that might have made a different in the "hopping", but I honestly would not know for sure:beatsme Do you have any pictures? :drinkup LOL. When truck loading, what size buckets were you using on the Cat ME vs the Deere ME? Your description of topsoil stripping sounds the same as how we will strip topsoil when we're using a hoe and trucks. Have to get a lot moved in a day to make it cost effective though.
JimBruce42: "The Cat's you demo'ed, did they have the variable gauge undercarriage or standard, because that might have made a different in the "hopping"" I asked one of our mechanics that question today and he told me to stop being an equipment nerd. :beatsme I'll try to find out though. We have six 345C's and four 345B's on site that are owned by company. Not all (that I've operated) hop. I notice the hop the worst in the 345C L with a 2.71 cubic yard bucket that is on my crew. JimBruce42: "Do you have any pictures?" Not of the demo of the Deere/Hitachi (I got my digital camera for X-mas) but I do have some of the project with the other 345's. I even figured out how to upload them to Webshots, resize them for this forum, go through the steps to post them, but; I can't figure out how to compress them to an acceptable size to post? Anyone got a minute to explain that process to me? JimBruce42: "When truck loading, what size buckets were you using on the Cat ME vs the Deere ME?" They both had XHD rock buckets, 60" width, tiger teeth. They were very close in size. I want to say capacities were 3.16 cubic yards and 3.25 cubic yards. Those numbers seem right, I just can't remember which machine had which bucket. That may sound small for a mass-ex bucket, but when working in these rocky conditions the more PSI per tooth, the greater the effectiveness. We tried large buckets and it resulted in a 320, a 330 and a 345 all peeling the frog of the bucket back to the heel (I was running the 320 when it happened, pretty cool actually). The other instance was our 375 pulling it's stick in half [twice] while using a 7.5 cubic yard bucket. We went to smaller buckets on the machines to solve this problem and allow us to work in the rock better.