I own an 80 class excavator (a 2005 NH EH80CS = Kobelco SK80CS, with 24" steel tracks), I love it, but someday I might want to replace it with something just a little bit smaller. That would probably be a 50 class machine. That size is probably one of the most popular compact machines on the market. So, one of my winter projects this year was to create this specification comparison for current 50 class excavators, which I hereby share with you in attached PDF form. I invite your input & comment. If you would like my original spreadsheet version for your use/revision, just PM me. View attachment 50 Class Excavator Comparison.pdf I realize the dealer, & their service behind the machine, can be of utmost importance to some. This is NOT a rating of dealers. This is an objective look at the specs as best I can determine them from scouring the OEM spec sheets, brochures, & web sites. And I think you have to at least compare the specs when considering machines. I know that some of us have a distrust of published specs, thinking they are skewed by the OEMs. But, I have to work with what I can find. You will find a lot of "??" in the comparison for spec items that I can't find because they are not published. Maybe some of you can help supply values to these. Further, finding a consistent listing of specs between OEM's is tough, partly because the OEMs tend to list the specs that their machine excels in, & partly because I think the marketing people don't realize what specs are important to some users. (A perfect example are lifting capacity specs...some are with bucket, some without; some use feet for lift radii & height/depth, some use meters.) So, my listing of specs attempts to combine those two views. You large excavator users won't be interested in the 50 class, but you might like my listing of specification topics. Slightly larger midi excavator users will want to refer to my other thread on a spec comparison of 80 class excavators: Referring to the attached comparison, I make the following observations (in no particular order): There are 10 makes/models listed. When you list specs side-by-side, it becomes REALLY clear that in this class Case = Kobelco, both made by Kobelco, & Hitachi = John Deere, both made by Hitachi. I have limited the makes to those that are prevalent & popular in my area, & have dealer representation. For example, you won't find Hyundai or Yanmar. I have limited the models to those that offer a wide steel track in the nominal range of 16". I deal with wet ground, so flotation is important. This criteria eliminated the following: Kubota U55-4, ZTS, because their widest steel track offering is 13.8". Bobcat E55, minimal tail swing, because their on-line & specification information is so feeble that I could NOT verify that they even offered steel tracks, let alone in this width range. This is really too bad, because this is the ONLY 50 class machine that has an option for a extendable stick, & it is still thumb-compatible. I have elected to still include the Kobelco SK55SRX, even though it appears to have only rubber tracks available, because it is identical to the Case CX55B, which does offer steel tracks. On the other end of the scale, the Volvo EC55C offers a wider than normal track in this class at 19.7". I have further concentrated on the longest stick available for each model. Most models only have one stick length, others offer a short & long option. I've often wished my NH EH80 had the longer stick option. Of course, the longer stick option reduces the rated stick breakout force. I have adopted 3 colors for high lighting: Green = best in class Yellow = 2nd best in class Red = a spec so bad it disqualifies the machine (you may not find any of these) Excavators are classified by weight (in metric or long tons = 2,205 lbs). So, a 50 class excavator is at the top of the "mini" category, which usually runs from 2 tons to 5 tons. It should be expected to weigh about 11,025 lbs. But, in fact, there is/has been some "class creep", because the machines in my chart run from the lightest @ 10,560 lbs (John Deere 50G) to the heaviest @ 12,755 lbs (Kubota KX057). This is acknowledged by the OEMs as witnessed by the model designations for some machines (e.g., 260 for Takeuchi, 5.5 for Cat, 57 for Kubota, 55 for Volvo, 8055 for JCB, 55 for Case & Kobelco, & 55 for Komatsu). IMO, force, & reach are all important. Everything else is "icing on the cake", albeit important to individual users. Some of that "icing" can be VERY critical, like hydraulic control systems & cab comfort, but those items can't be evaluated in pure chart form. So, I've resorted to generally listing, or ranking, the makes/models in order of bucket breakout force , stick breakout force , & reach at ground level. Keep in mind that bucket breakout is directly dependent on the bucket tip radius. The published specs are for a std. pin-on bucket. Any quick coupler that extends the tip radius, like a pin-grabber style, will reduce the bucket breakout in direct proportion to the increase in tip radius. To maintain the original tip radius, you must use one of the close-coupled quick couplers, like some wedge-styles, or a Klac from Werk-Brau (I use a Klac). All of these close-coupler styles require a bucket with hangers dedicated to that style/ (& usually size) coupler. Bucket breakout: Takeuchi TB260 highest @ 12,756 lbs. Cat 305.5E2 next @ 11,443 lbs. Kubota KX057 ranked 3rd @ 11.177lbs Stick breakout: Volvo EC55C highest @ 6,392 lbs. JCB 8055 next @ 6,250 lbs. Kubota 057 ranked 4th @ 5,644 lbs. Cat 305.5E2 ranked 5th @ 5,575 lbs. Reach at ground level: Volvo EC55C longest @ 20'-6". Takeuchi TB260 next @ 20'-1.4". Cat 305.5E2 ranked 5th @ 19'-9". No data on Kubota. Tractive force (drawbar pull): Kubota KX057 highest @ 14,480 lbs. Takeuchi TB260 next @ 13,997 lbs. Cat 305.5E2 ranked 8th @ 10,745 lbs. No data on John Deere = Hitachi. Aux 1 hydraulic flow: Tak TB260 highest @ 27.0 gpm. JCB 8055 next @ 23.8 gpm. Cat 305.5E2 ranked 4th @ 21.1 gpm. Kubota KX057 ranked 5th @ 19.8 gpm. Aux 2 hydraulic flow: Tak TB260 highest @ 11.6 gpm. Kubota KX057 next @ 9.8 gpm. Cat 305.5E2 ranked 3rd @ 6.6 gpm. Another important spec, I think, is whether the dozer blade has a float function. My NH EH80 does not, & I wish it did. IMO, any designer who puts a blade on something & does NOT include a float function should be fired!! You will note that I was able to find a float function on only 4 of the 10 makes/models: Tak, Cat, Kubota, & Volvo. I could find no data on others. A angle blade is another distinguishing feature. Almost all (9 out of 10) offer it as an option in this class. I could find no data on JCB. Re: engines, 5 of the 10 (Tak, Case, Kobelco, John Deere, & Hitachi), use the identical Yanmar engine. Only JCB uses an Isuzu. All the rest (Cat, Kubota, Volvo, & Komatsu) use their own-branded engine. The fuel injection type data in this class is not published for 7 of the 10, but it looks like 3 use direct injection (Case, Kobelco, Kubota, & Volvo). 6 of the 10 (Tak. Cat, Kubota, Case, Kobelco, & Komatsu) come thumb-ready, meaning they have an integral thumb-cylinder mount already welded to the stick. And most of these have aux 1 hydraulics piped to the stick as std. (Tak, Cat, Kubota, Case, & Kobelco). There is no data on the others. Only the Tak has aux 2 hydraulics piped to the stick as std, it's optional on 4 of the rest (Cat, Kubota, Volvo, Case & Kobelco), with no published data on JCB, John Deere, Hitachi, & Komatsu. The Tak, Cat, & Kubota are all strong contenders, but the Tak TB260 is 1st or 2nd in a lot of categories, so it should be looked at hard. A very important spec area is the hydraulic system...the design (open vs. closed center, load sensing), the number of pumps & what they are dedicated to, # of spools on main control valve, etc. Unfortunately, the OEMs specs in this area are VERY inconsistent & sketchy. So, I would welcome all input. From you experienced hydraulic guys, I would really like to here your explanation & opinions of open center vs. closed center & pump type & dedication to function, all as relates to excavators.
I just came back from Europe assisting an OEM with some product evaluations. I spent a lot of time on 6 and 9 ton machines and the Taki 260 and 290 specifically. I own Taki excavators and I like them, I was not impressed with the overall performance of the 260. The 290 is an animal and does nearly everything right (in my view). The 260 is not the 290. The Taki 260 specs well but spend a day on one before you sign on the line for one and make sure it does everything you need it to do. I was not impressed with the multifunction capability of the machine was in my view its biggest issue. It may spec the best in breakout but honestly in actually digging conditions, it was difficult to see that advantage especially against the Kubota. Honestly I feel the machine could be a lot better, it seems to me to be about 80% completed. The short story is that looking at the numbers is only a part of the equation (it is important, and I am a numbers guy myself), but especially on excavators the way the machine works in harmony with its components is really where the rubber meets the road. I was really expecting more from the 260, since Taki will no longer be building the TB153 I thought the 260 would be its replacement in my own business, and after my time on the 260 that is not going to happen until it performs better.
Here is a link on Bobcat's website that says that you can get the E55 with steel tracks. Thanks for the right up. I am hoping to be able to pick up a 5 ton sized excavator in the next couple of years. http://www.bobcat.com/excavators/models/e55 If you click on the OPTIONS tab it will show you what is available. One of which is steel tracks.
Most of the 5 ton machines can either be spec'd with rubber, steel or hybrid steel tracks with rubber pads.
I posted that link because the OP said he eliminated the Bobcat E55 because he said he couldn't confirm that Bobcat has steel tracks as an option. I agree that you can also get the Hybrid (Steel with rubber pads) for the E55 as well.
Sounds like you put the Tak 260 to the test...& it failed. But glad to hear the TB290 came up a winner!! I agree that looking at the numbers doesn't tell the whole story...thanks much for your hands-on input!!
OK...thanks for that link, I missed it...but now find the width??
The 290 is one of the most impressive machines I have run. It is fast, powerful, very well controlled. I would buy one is minute if I needed that big of a "Mini".
Gotcha!
Fyi, the Kubota U55 has more breakout force than the kx057
Komatsu PC50 > Volvo ECR50 is my only two cents on this experience vice.. For small/compact machines I hear Komatsu does very well compared to other brands IMO in terms of comfort and maneuverability / stable movements and less jerky. That said, there is a big leap betweem 5t and 8t machines. These are two different world for me.
Kss, is tak shutting down the fr series completely? I love mine, even if it is the older 53fr... It does what no other can do.
Welcome to the Forums hmk!:drinkup I agree, two different animals. If the budget would allow it, I'd have one of each.
Specs are a thing, but the Deere 50G and Bobcat E50 in my opinion are the best 5 ton class hoes now. When I had the 335 that thing was the best mini hoe I have ever run. Did everything, only issue was it liked fuel
I give you that it is hard to find things sometime. Brings to meaning the term "Time well wasted!" I think the US site does not list the brochures, they want you to contact them in order to receive the extra info that comes on them. However, I did find two sites that state the listed track width. One in metric from Europe and one non Bobcat site. The Europe brochure is interesting because it compares 3 models and gives lots more information, even gives the slew rates. Hope this helps. http://mtsplant.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/E45-E50-E55.pdf http://www.specguideonline.com/product/bobcat-e55
Yes that is true. I don't know if Tak intends to redesign the FR series or just what the plan is. However there is no doubt for the time being there isn't going to be one. I am really not happy about it either. They are a very popular machine here, the dealer is considering bring some down some new ones from Canada. The FR is one those machines that stumbles in some areas, the track power is lacking and some work group functions are slower than they should be, and there are a lot of grease points. However as you stated the machine can do things that no other mini ex can. I have come to rely on that ability and it makes us very productive. I am hoping that Tak will come to market with a machine that does what the FR does by the time I am ready to replace the machine I have.
Thanks :beerchug
Revised Spreadsheet Comparison Here is a revised spreadsheet comparison that includes the Bobcat E55. View attachment 50 Class Excavator Comparison.pdf Thanks to some info & links from Equip Junkie, I was able to determine that the Bobcat E55 does offer steel tracks as an option & they are 15.7" wide. You will note in the comparison that some of the Bobcat E55 info is in red text. This represents the info that I could NOT find on Bobcat's US web site, but had to resort to their UK website. So, I still fault them for being "information non-friendly"!! Otherwise, the Bobcat E55 is not particularly notable spec wise, except in one area, where it is UNIQUE. It is the only machine that has an option for a extendable stick, & it is still thumb-compatible.
The extendahoe feature on the E55 is a very cool idea, I have never run one. I would be concerned that the extra weight on the end of the stick would create some stability issues. I have no doubt that they combine the Ehoe feature with a counterweight kit. That capability helps offset one of the disadvantages of a 6 ton mini ex compared to a BH that being the lack of an Ehoe feature.
Great looking chart. Lots of work has obviously gone into it. Thanks. Here is a lift chart off a E55 to fill in the blanks. LOL. I have too much time on my hand. We need some snow to plow. http://www.constructionbusinessowner.com/sites/default/files/E55_Lift_Chart.jpg
You have done a lot in preparing your spread sheet, I did similar before I bought my tak. But in the end it came down to economics and a test drive. I was able to find a leftover unit that the dealer was being forced to buy and I was able to buy it at a substantially reduced price and it test drove well. After being in the biz for awhile, I've learned this. No one cares if yours is the class leader on the spec sheets, they have 2 concerns. Can you do the job correctly, and what will it cost? Whatever you can do to do better work, and manage your costs, is what sets you apart. Not to hijack, but if you want my detailed thoughts, let me know.
Revised Spreadsheet Comparison Here is a revised spreadsheet comparison that includes updated lift info for the Bobcat E55, that Equip Junkie provided. View attachment 50 Class Excavator Comparison.pdf You will note in the comparison that the updated info for the Bobcat E55 is shown in blue text.
Spec's are great for those of us that need spec's to judge equipment. At the end of the day specs don't pay the bills nor do they gain us jobs or sign us contracts. Specs are developed by equipment manufacturers , tested by those same manufactureres and twisted to most suite those that publish them. There are no testing standards or third party test houses , therefore specs are to be taken with a grain of salt in my humble opinion. Buying a peice of equipment based solely or at all for that matter on published specs is a fools game. A good operator can make junk look great and a poor operator can make a great machine look like junk. All of today's equipment is decent when compared to each other, it's the operator that really make a peice of iron perform not some self promoting , thumped up specification listing....I owned and operated a E50 for two years, that unit payed for itself in 6 months time and not one person ever asked me about its spec's during that time...My 2 cents...Sorry to have rained on the specification parade...but at the end of the day they really aren't worth the paper they are published on....
I look at the dealer first when it comes to purchasing equipment - the best piece of equipment is not worth $.02 if you can't get parts in a timely manner or service to fix it when it's down. Time is money when that iron has to produce in order to pay for itself. The GC's I work for don't care what kind of equipment you have, the shape of it or even if it's a rental - all they care about is getting the job done on time and within contract price. If you are running several or many pieces of equipment the relationship you have with the dealer(s) of that equipment is key to a successful excavation company. Now dealers vary more than the spec's on the equipment they sell - some great, some good, some so-so and some just down right horrible. All machines break down and will need parts and service in their lifetime, how that's handled is the key.
Amen brother. Spoken like a man who has pay his dues in the dirt !
I think specs are important, but it is about context. A great operator can only get out of a machine what an engineer put into the machine. If a machine only has 13' of dig depth and the others in the same class have 14', that is important and I want to know that. Things like breakout are a little harder to quantify. Bucket tip radius and the machines articulation ability effect breakout. So I generally look at that number in a general sense. The more the better, but if a machine I really like has 12K of breakout and the class leader is 12.5K I am not going to get excited about that. So in some specs they are what they are on their face, and others need to be looked at more generally.
You make a great point....dimensional specifications are important as is weigh , height , things of that nature , it's when they start the , My Chevy is better than our Ford nonsense. Is where they loss most experienced people. Hydropower is also Note worthy feature to look at from a manufacturered point of view.
I completely agree with the view expressed by KSSS, & that's the spirit in which I offer the spec comparison. The specs are not everything, but they are a place to start. If you look carefully at the comparison, not all the items I've compared are specs that have non-dimensional number values that can be "slanted" or "self promoted" like PaFarmer mentions. Some are really features, i.e., listings or descriptions of things that either "are" or "aren't"...they can't be fudged. Some of these can be significant, like does the stick include a thumb-ready mount.
:deadhorse:deadhorse
OK...gotcha...new subject...it's too damn cold here & I'm sick of winter!!
No argument there my friend... -20 degrees here on the farm this morning. I am so over Winter too. I have a bad case Of cabin fever myself....Hate Winter with a passion....
Me too ! -20f degrees here this morning....Bad case of cabin fever....I'm am so over Winters in the Northeast !!
Re: engines, 5 of the 10 (Tak, Case, Kobelco, John Deere, & Hitachi), use the identical Yanmar engine. Only JCB uses an Isuzu. All the rest (Cat, Kubota, Volvo, & Komatsu) use their own-branded engine. The engine in my Cat 305.5E is actually a Kubota engine. I agree with all the good advice given above. I have purchased many excavators, loaders, dozers, etc. and always look at the specs like you have. However, I found it will come down to actual seat time to make the best decision. We bought a Cat last year and tried a comparable Kubota. After running the Cat, it took me about 2 minutes to decide I liked the Cat hydraulics far better than the Kubota. Good luck with your decision.
Jump on a plane, come over to Qld, Aus, ill even put you up for a week, free, board & lodgings, Your shout at the pub but.
How does the Tak 250 stack up? I realize the specs are all a bit less than the 260, but wondering if anyone has hands on experience. I.E. does the 250 have the same problems as the 260?
Appreciate the work put into the spreadsheet. :notworthy One thing that stuck out for me was the Taks bucket breakout force...50% more than some of the others!?...makes one wonder how is that possible? Larger ram? All the other specs are 'relatively' close (~10%). In my mind, I would want a machine that is overbuilt. That is, it isn't balls to floor while running. Not only for the engine, but the hydraulic pump and travel motors. Another thing is how tight excavator makers are getting nowadays...to comply with Tier 4 emission targets, they throw in smaller engines, then throw on a turbo. To me, that is taking the easy way out. Then, your stuck with a headache if something goes wrong. Don't get me started on the razzle dazzle they employ on hydraulic load sensing and management... Oh well, by the time I can afford a new one, they will be electric. By then, they will have auto lube sensors...collision avoidance... This sounds silly, but I wonder which one has the largest pin size at all the joints. Usually means the bushings and pins will last longer...less slop.
so true
Anyone with seat time on Tak 250? wondering if it got better reviews than KSSS's review of 260?
After switching to old Komatsu's with a center mounted boom.... I don't think I could ever buy another new machine with that boom out front again. I'll take a pc50uu or my ideal machine a pc58uu over any current machine.
Not to dismiss the work put into the spreadsheet (thank you!)..especially the immutable facts like engine size, reach, track size etc., but all those numbers related to performance are wholly suspect, in my mind. Have no idea how they tested their machine's performance. I do wish there was a machine standard for testing. Verified by independent sources. I look at engine size disparities or similarities, pressures and pumps, and there is no rhyme or reason to some of the numbers. If ever there was wild west mentality to performance metrics, excavator manufacturers win hands down. I can easily get 20,000lb breakout force on my mini...raise boom and arm as high as it will go, then hammer the works into the ground...works well if you are on uneven ground, like a rock ledge, so you are rocking off the edge a bit, then time it so when machine rocks off ledge, you are hitting paydirt. btw - don't try this...
Meli...I agree that the OEM's numbers are suspect....they want to sell their stuff....but you have to start a comparison somewhere. I offered the comparison in that vein...
And I appreciate it Stumpy. You see other power equipment get sliced and diced under some detailed reviews, so one knows exactly how they stack up. With Ex's, you get videos from each competitor showing how their machine excels against the others, but of course, it is all staged to highlight the best of that machine. Never a review of like 5 machines going head to head by a third party like Consumer Reports. Guess buying 5 machines for a review is a tad steep or the manufacturer doesn't want to lend their machine. That's what we need...a review by an independent third party. One that can delve deep into why the disparities in spec numbers if they have the same engine, and in some cases the same pump. And measuring pressure/flow rate at the rams. Getting metal gauge numbers for vital areas, like boom, arm and blade. Turntable size, bearings, how much hyd metal pipe, ram diameter, stuff that matters for longevity. /rant