This machine has a lot of power and makes a hell of a multcher. Two were test last year in the heat of summer in Texas. Its been nicknamed the animal!
the local Cat dealer is getting them in next mounth. Cat still don't have them on there website.
http://www.cat.com/cda/files/3267224/7/299D+XHP_AEHQ6565(P2).pdf
It even has a custom paint option
Saw them at their plant a little while back. Look like tanks. Almost need a backup camera haha. The way they made it sound, custom paint is available on any of the skids and has been an option. It'll set you back a little bit, but I thought for the price, it really wasn't that out of line when you think about it.
With a 4550 lb 50% capacity that's a 1 & 2/3 yard bucket machine. The 933 & 939 have been replaced, by an over sized skid steer loader on tracks! I wonder how the prices of the 299 vs 933 & 939 compare?? I doubt the skids will last as long as the 939 or 933 do. Lets see a 939C weighs 22,000 lbs with 1.5 bucket and the 299D weighs 11,000 lbs with a 1.5 bucket, it will be interesting.
Looks good on paper. I would love to be able to try one out. I am pretty impressed with the rated lift capacity.
I am pretty impressed with the price tag on these little gems ! Insane !
Have they hit 100K yet?
from what I have heard, they are closing in on the 6 digit mark.
I won't be trying one anytime soon then. Have to wait till they come down into the used market a few years to rub some of the new off the price tag.
6 digits fully loaded
Looks great!
Cat is playing its Jedi mind games again with their ratings.....Industry standard for CTL rated operating capacity is 35% of Tipping Load (vs 50% for wheeled skids), so based on the 50% rating you posted, this machine is, in reality, only a 3185lb ROC machine, which is right on par with everyone else making CTL's right now, and most weigh around 11K. Not trying to sound like a smart ***, just trying to level the playing field!
I'll stay with my deere and Bobcat CTL's.............CAT can keep their overpriced iron.....Never really bought into paying more for less.
How are they playing with their ratings? They clearly list both 50% and 35% ROCs, just like many others. Your 320T, the T770/870 and the Deere 333D are the only ones that are equal two or greater. All others are less, so "on par with everyone else" is a very broad term for only a handful of units out of all CTLs with equal or greater ROCs.
I have a 287, and its rated capacity at 50% is 3500#. I pretty regularly lift and carry over 5,000# with it. I also carry nearly 3,000# in a grapple with the load center between 4 to 5 feet away from the machine. If the 299 is nearly 1/3 stronger, by it's rating, it may lift a good deal more.
what about the 110hp? i was thinking our 953 only had 100hp!!!!
I suppose I should have qualified "everyone else", but yes, as you mention, JCB, Deere, and Bobcat specifically. And yes, I am aware that they list both ratings. I guess my point was to establish that Cat is not in a league of their own in terms of ROC. That award would have to go to Bobcat. I will say that the hydraulic HP on that unit is impressive. GPM's aren't much higher, but their operating pressure is up there.
They have stepped up in power department, having brought up the rear in torque since CAT came to the market they certainly have changed that with this machine. If these things loaded out are over 100K however selling them could be a slow process. Mulching contractors will certainly be interested with those specs, perhaps asphalt planer guys will also see the value, after that I am not sure how many will be able utilize that much power at that kind of price. The machine is too light to utilize that kind of power in heavier dozing applications. It will no doubt be a niche machine, but if you can justify the price tag it certainly should be productive.
I agree with that assessment. Bobcat is definitely the class leader in ROC. I also agree with you about the hydraulics, but I think there the machine's hydraulic limitation is the ability of the engine to drive the pump under heavy hydraulic load. I think that 3.8L Kubota engine peaks at about 252ft lbs of torque even though it is 106 net hp. There are others that come close to matching or exceeding- Case, Takeuchi, NH, JCB (?)etc.. I think the Terex PT100 is around 310ft lbs of torque and has flows up to 45gpm at 3800psi.
Yeah, I find it very interesting what is happening to everyone's torque numbers lately. It's obviously tied to emissions and the need to fit smaller displacement engines, but seems like it would be detrimental to performance. Case, for example, cut theirs way down on the new machines, but maybe they made it up somewhere else??? Higher torque drive motors? Maybe KSSS can shed some light on that since he has owned machines with the 4.5L as well as the new 3.2L. Case isn't the only one either, just all I knew off the top of my head. That is where I think JCB deserves credit (albiet they had help from Ricarro (sp?)) for their T4i Dieselmax and its efficiencies. Using the same 4.4L engine, producing 301 lb.ft. of torque (92HP, 267 lb. ft. for 84HP) and meeting T4i is impressive.
I haven't heard what engine Terex is going to use for Tier IV in their PT100, but I have heard rumblings that they are going to have an engine that exceeds CAT's 106hp 299D. I'm sure their torque numbers will be much better too. ASV always used good torque to drive their large machine hydraulics.
The 3.2 makes very good use of its lower torque numbers (251 I bellieve). The engine recovers faster than the 4.5 does after being pulled down. Its hard to really compare the two because this 3.2 is in a CTL and my 4.5 machines were/are wheeled or VTS, I am not sure its an apple to apples comparision. Even the though the 3.2 gives up about 30 foot pounds from the 4.5 its really hard to say that I am missing it at least in day to day use. I think when I put the mulcher on the 3.2 I will be able to really compare it with the 4.5 I have in a 465. There is no doubt that the 3.2 is easier on fuel than is the 4.5L.
I agree that the mulcher will give you the best indication of the power difference. Planetary drives in CTLs and sprocket sizes in SSLs can do a lot to compensate for lower hp an torque.
I was told today that Terex's PT100G Tier IV engine will have more than Cat's 106hp and have much better engine torque than the current PT100G machine which is 310lb ft.
im told a loaded 299d is nowhere near 100k
Just found out that Terex's new PT100 engine will have over 330 lb ft of peak engine torque and will for sure have more hp than the 106hp in CAT's new 299D. Thats almost 25% better engine torque. I was also told it will be very quiet and will have much better fuel efficiency compared to the 4.4L they use now.
If you mulch alot and are in the woods stay away from 299D XHP, the regeneration system has ledge in front of it towards cab and it accumulates debris then catches fire because the regen gets up to 1300 or 1400 degrees, it has fuel injected into it to burn off. The debris will catch fire, then it moves down and catches diesel tank, wire harnesses etc. on fire. My cat dealer told me that its not their fault and that they make the best machines on planet. Tracks kick 1-4 times per day. I have had all brands with mulching heads, Bobcat holds up better and service seems better than the rest. Cat is the most disrespectful to their customers I have seen.
Thats a bummer that you had a bad experience. I've spoken to a few guys that work for a very large Right of Way clearing company here in my home state. They have purchased two 299s and had great things to say about them after running them through the summer. All total, they operate 25+ CTLs of a couple different makes so have a relatively large sample of machines to base their opinions on.
I also had right of way guys tell me they were great to but in the woods is a different story. Thats why the problems arise, all the stumps, trees and overhead debris. I had a 299C two years ago and it was constant headache as well, my salesman said they had fixed all the problems, main one was tracks, they have not. We constantly are turning on stumps, not grass. Its a fast powerful machine when running but if you consider downtime and problems Bobcat is much better in the line of work in the woods.
I've yet to throw a track off. I must be doing something wrong....
I have set up quite a few of them for customers. Had a couple bugs to work out of the early sn#'s but they seem to be doing well.