Since I own an 80 class excavator (a 2005 NH EH80CS = Kobelco SK80CS, with 24" steel tracks), I'm always interested in how it compares to the current offerings. Besides, I may want to replace it someday. Never mind the fact that I love it, & I think it, & Kobelco, are under rated. But that's another topic... So, one of my winter projects this year was to create this specification comparison for current 80 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 80 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 80 class, but you might like my listing of specification topics. Real mini excavator users will want to refer to my upcoming thread on a spec comparison of 50 class excavators. But, for you in between guys, like me, the 80 class might interest you because it's big enough to do some serious work, yet still is fairly small & maneuverable. 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 = Link-Belt, both made by Sumitomo, & 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 22"-24". I deal with wet ground, so flotation is important. This criteria eliminated the following: Doosan DX85R-3, because their widest steel track offering is 17.7". Bobcat E85 & Wacker-Neuson 8003, because their published/on-line info is so feeble that I could NOT verify that they even offered steel tracks, let alone in this width range. On the other hand, the Takeuchi TB290 is the only machine that does NOT have a 23.7" wide steel track (only 21.7" wide), but I included it because its specs otherwise are so outstanding. I have further concentrated on the longest stick available for each model. Some 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 = 2,120 lbs). So, an 80 class excavator is squarely in the "midi" category, which usually runs from 6 tons to 10 tons. It should be expected to weight about 16,960 lbs. But, in fact, there is/has been "class creep", because the machines in my chart run from the lightest @ 18,700 lbs (Kobelco KX085) to the heaviest @ 20,410 lbs (Volvo ECR88D). This is acknowledged by the OEMs as witnessed by the model designations for some machines (e.g., 290 for Takeuchi, 85 for Kobelco, 88 for Komatsu, 85 for Hitachi & John Deere, & 88 for Volvo). Even my 2005 NH EH80 weighs 18,210 lbs. 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 TB290 highest @ 16,565 lbs Kobelco SK85CS next @ 16,465 lbs Kubota KX080 ranked 3rd @ 14,660lbs Cat 308E2 ranked 5th @ 13,534 lbs. Stick breakout: Kubota KX080 highest @ 8,554 lbs Komatsu PC88MR next @ 8,161 lbs. Cat 308E2 ranked 5th @ 7,891 lbs. Reach at ground level: Hitachi ZX85USB & John Deere 85G highest @ 24'-9". Link-Belt 80X3 next @ 24'-4" (don't know why the Case CX80C shows less). Cat 308E2 ranked 3th @ 24'-1" (& Kobelco SK85CS) Kubota KX080 ranked 7th @ 23'-6" Tractive force (drawbar pull): Takeuchi highest @ 19,783 lbs Kobelco SK85CS next @ 17,300 lbs. Kubota KX080 ranked 6th @ 14,615 lbs. Cat 308E2 ranked 8th @ 14,500 lbs. Re aux 1 hydraulic flow: Cat 308E2 highest @ 33.8 gpm. Tak TB290 & Kubota KX080 next @ 26.4 gpm. Re: aux 2 hydraulic flow: Cat 308E2 highest @ 16.9 gpm Tak TB290 next @ 14.5 gpm. No data on Kubota. 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, Kubota, Cat, & Volvo. I am still perplexed as to why Kobelco doesn't have one...they don't even seem to offer it on their bigger "Blade Runner" model!! A angle blade is another distinguishing feature. Only Tak & Kubota seem to offer it as an option in this class. Re: engines, 3 of the 10 (Kobelco, Link-Belt, & Case), use the identical Isuzu engine, which brand, at least, I've heard some claim is a real fuel saver, & reliable & easy to start. My NH EH80 has an Isuzu engine, which I can attest has never failed to start. Also, it looks like at least 5 of the 10 are using common rail vs. direct fuel injection. I would love to hear some opinions & reasons on this. At least 2 of the 10 (Tak & Kubota) come thumb-ready, meaning they have an integral thumb-cylinder mount already welded to the stick. And they both also have aux 1 & 2 hydraulics piped to the stick as std. The Tak TB290 also has some other notable & unique specs: Dual boom cylinders, even while maintaining a center-swing capability! "Auto" track tensioning. whatever that means?? It seems that the Tak TB290 should be looked at hard when considering a machine in this class. I recently had occasion to at least sit briefly in every one of these new machines in dealer's yards (except Volvo), & I came away with strong impressions of the Tak TB290 as having a very spacious cab & very good visibility (owing to the very slim front pillars & the gull-wing design of its upper structure). And no, I don't work for or own a Tak...I just "tells it like it is...." 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.
Wow...263 views & no replies to date...I expected better...what's the problem? ...don't like specs?? ...aren't interested in 80 class excavators?? Give me some feedback....
Um, an MT is 2204.6 lbs. Andrew
Looks like you did your homework and there is not much to ad to it??? I have a Kubota kx080. It has around 2500hrs. It's been a great machine. Only thing I had to do was replace one hose under the cab, bit PITA. And the outside door handle broke. Nice smooth machine to operate. Hydraulics could be a little faster, tracks could be a bit stronger. And there is a terrible blind spot at the front top of cab. Other than that great machine.
Whoops...my mistake...you are absolutely correct...where did I get that #??? Anyway, 1 metric ton = 2204.6 lbs. as you pointed out. ...& 1 short ton = 1 ton = 2,000 lbs, ...& 1 long ton = 2,240 lbs.
I did a similar exercise when searching for a 14 ton class excavator. A big reason is that I am a rank newbie and have no prior experience with the machines. In an attempt to try to cut through some of the brand loyalties and brand dislikes, I decided to "spread the numbers". Recognizing that the specs don't tell the whole story. Your analysis is very thorough. Just wondering why you do not mention engine torque, swing torque or weight. Torque, not hp is what really does work. Yes the hydraulic capacities and system is important, but all a driven ultimately by the main power plant. Swing torque of course is important for movement. Whenever operating any heavy equipment, weight is your friend. Not challenging, just wondering.
Have you ever seen a rabbit with a pancake on it head ?
What's the word on the Volvo? First impressions? Found anything negative yet?
No real performance impressions yet... been too darn cold & snowy. With the winter we are having in Vermont, the snow is really deep and we are in negative numbers every night. Things are frozen solid. I pretty much have just been cranking her over weekly to keep the batteries going. Then moving around a bit on logging trails to see if the zero clearance tail was the right choice... it was. Glad that I did not go bigger, or smaller. As soon as things thaw out a bit, will render a fuller report. One sidebar.... when the dealer was prepping the machine, I asked him to put on a set of Montana Track Claws. We are up in the hills and it gets pretty icy. Was concerned about going for a sleigh ride on triple grousers. They did not think that it was necessary, but did so to humor me. When they delivered the ex, the truck could not get up the road to our property. They had to walk the ex in about a mile to the drive & another quarter mile up the drive. Both gents agreed that they would not have made it up the drive without the Track Claws on the triple grousers. On the bright side, the skiing has been great, but that also cuts into my time in the woods...
What does that mean....???
I did...they are all in the chart, although I did not highlight them with a separate comment. So here: Re: Weight ...Volvo ECR88D heaviest @ 20,410 lbs. Takeuchi 2nd @ 19,604 lbs Kubota KX080 ranked 6th @ 19,250 lbs. Cat 308E2 lightest @ 18,519 lbs Re: Engine Torque ...Specs are incomplete, only 5 of 10 machines have published values, & they are almost all at different rpm's, so I don't think a comparison is meaningful. Re: Slew Torque ...Specs are incomplete, only 6 of 10 machines have published values, & they are all at about 12,250 ft-lbs.... EXCEPT the Volvo ECR88D @ an outstanding 16,910 ft-lbs. But, the Volvo has the lowest slew speed @ 9.3 rpm. Wait a minute...did you buy a Volvo???
Always liked the Takeuchi products. First excavator I ever ran was a TB135. When my dad and I were looking at buying a CTL last year Takeuchi was one of our first choices. Got to sit in the new Takeuchi's at last years hard hat expo and liked the machines feel. The one thing you have to know about tak and this is something good/bad about them is that they are a no frills machine. They don't use an Electric over hydraulic system. They use an Air over Hydraulic System I believe is what it is. Excellent Machines, and would recommend one.
Yes sir.... ECR 145DL but what difference does that make? I am always interested in learning why folks make different buying decisions, so I expect differences of opinion, findings, etc.
No difference...just jerking your chain...& I also like learning about others' reasons for decisions... BTW, I liked your previous story about the Montana Track Claws...good solution, I think.
In my companion thread on 50 Class Excavators, , member KSSS writes that he had a chance to run a Tak TB290 recently, & he opines "that it is an animal". So, KSSS, have you run any of the other 80 class machines in my comparison, so that we can gauge the context of your opinion??
We just got a Sany 75, havent put it to work yet but looks like a good machine, isuzu engine. standard pumps and motors, hy dash, kawasaki, so on
We are signing the papers this week on a 14' Tak TB290. Had it on rent to own for 3 mos and converting it as the Tak rates are very good right now. It lifts like a beast. I'll have to post some pictures here soon.
Pics:
Sorry, img here is a bit different than other forums I'm on...
Great comparison. We are going to be in the market for a 7-8T machine this year. I will definitely refer to this spec sheet.
I don't have much to add here. I bought a Bobcat E80 last spring. On the plus side, its great on fuel, starts and runs great, even in the cold cold cold. Cab is decent. Smooth etc. Its as good as I expected. Until I got a look at a buddies' Terex 8 tonne machine. Don't know the number, but its nearly new. 20 more HP. Longer tracks, bigger everywhere. Runs a 48" bucket all day long. Mine would even lift a 48" bucket. Huge difference. That Terex, whatever it is, is identical to Bobcats old 8 Tonne machine. He gets his parts at the bobcat dealer. I don't know much about it, but I would say bobcat's older units are better than the newer ones.
Which model did he have, TC75? If so that is the old bobcat 442 I believe. Has the top mount cylinder? We rented a TC50 and didn't like it at all. I have heard that the Bobcat E85's were a big improvement over the 80's though.
We bought a JD75G last fall. Had never owned anything smaller than a 20MT. The 75 has the Excavator style boom vs the Backhoe swing style. Looks heavier duty to me. Quick,Quiet,Fuel efficient,Super Comfortable. Will handle Pre cast manhole sections. Has coupler & aux hyd for Hoe Pac. Yanmar Diesel. Very pleased so far.
Hey, me too! I just bought one this past winter and I've been learning how to use it. The first tracked vehicle I ever ran was an M113 Armored Personnel Carrier and the Tak, with it's twin stick control, is very reminiscent of that. No frills is right, although I think that's a good thing in this case. It also seems to be really sturdy and whenever I talk to people about it they always mention that they are a really tough machine than can take a lot of hard use. They really punch above their weight. I also have a fondness for Kubota because that's the brand of Tractor/Loader I run and it's a tough little machine too. ( L3130GST )
Your article describes in great detail
Bringing this one back to the top with some comments on out Takeuchi TB290. We have had the machine for just over a year. So far we love the machine. Great power, crazy fast, and we'll balanced. The only con that we have is that the top window on the cab is useless which makes it hard to see overhead obstacles.Because it is flat it very quickly gets covered with dust. The window is plastic so it can easily scratch when cleaned. I would much rather have a solid Hatch that can be opened to provide a clear view.
ive been studying these two machines on paper specs, (Cat 308 & Takeuchi tb290) and they seem very comparable to each other, i love my Takeuchi skid loaders, i feel they are the best on the market place however would love to hear pros and cons btwn these two excavators as i do not own any Caterpillar From what ive read, the Tb290 is slightly lighter, but has a higher lift load and dig depth. Would love to hear some feed back thanks. specs for both units https://www.takeuchi-us.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/TB290-Trifold-Optimized-July_2017.pdf http://s7d2.scene7.com/is/content/Caterpillar/CM20181002-32771-62524
I just saw this StumpWally, only 4 years later....sorry. I can chime in now though. I went to Austria by invitation and ran the TB290, Kubota 80, JCB 85, and the Wacker ET90 which was just releasing. Spent a couple days on them. My preference overall was the Taki, but the ET90 matched it in everyway in the dirt. I rated the Taki higher simply due to the cab layout which I preferred over the WN (Although I hated the Taki graphics on the display and still do, looks like it came from an Atari 2600 game system). However as far as operationally, the ET90 was just as fast and powerful as the Taki was, which is really a compliment, because that 290 is as I said "an animal" in my opinion. The Kubota was slower and did not dig as well in my opinion as the other two. The JCB embarrassed itself in this shootout. Great cab and very nice fit and finish, but as far as competing in the sling dirt portion, it could not compete. The European guys that were there (from all over the EU), most saw it the same way. As I understood they ranked them WN or Taki number 1, followed by Kubota and then JCB. That was a while ago and I am not sure where this weight class sits currently. The CAT salesman told me recently that they improved their 308 significantly with their latest release. I have not run a new one. I have not run a Hitachi/Deere in this class in years, so I don't have any current info on them.