Will be getting an excavator for property maintenance. Main use will be in the woods, stumping, moving logs, trail maintenance, etc. Secondary uses around property, pond construction & maintenance, walls, culverts etc. Was originally headed in the mini-ex direction, but folks advised against it. Then thought maybe 8-9 ton models. But demoed them & they appeared light. I appreciate the counsel from forum members. Am now pretty much focused on 12-15 ton machines. Will need enough power & weight to stump (I know, I know, many experienced folks believe that 20 tons is minimum bid. I also realize that I will be digging vs pulling), but also want to keep machine small enough to get through the woods, not have to enlarge existing trails and also minimize unwanted damage. It also needs to be versatile enough to do other jobs around the place. So pretty much want to stay in an 8' 10" track width. Also want to stick with a reduced radius swing or "zero swing" machine. Reasons of maneuverability and damage, both to trees and to the machine. Was focused on Cat 314 & JD 135, but then started looking at other machines. Now considering Case CX 145 as well as Volvo ECR 145. All with front blades. In looking purely at the numbers, the Volvo ECR 145D looks like a very good machine for my applications & needs/wants. It has the most hp, torque and swing torque of any of the models in this size envelope. It is at the upper end of the total weight for similar models. These weight & power considerations will be helpful in heavier applications like stumping. JD/Hitachi and Case, around 32,00-33,000 pounds. Cat at 35,000 to 36,000 pounds, as is Volvo. But then Volvo has 113hp. JD & Case at 97-100hp, not surprising since it is the same Isuzu diesel. Cat, tied for the heaviest machine is at the low end of the hp range at 89. In terms of torque, Volvo is putting out 395 ft pounds vs the next closest Case at 265. Neither Cat nor JD publish their engine torque, only their swing torque. Again when it comes to swing torque, the Volvo is out in front at 30,912. Cat is least at 22,790. JD & Case in the 25,000 to 27,000 range. Case also looks compelling vs the Cat & JD. Slightly beefier hydraulic in Case vs JD. I know that specs don't tell the whole story. But in looking at the numbers, in most categories all of these machines are very close. But when it comes to weight and power, the Volvo seems to have a slight advantage. It has the most interesting combination of weight and power in an 8'10' wide package and a reduced/zero tail swing. What am I missing? I realize that this is "paper research" and need to try the machine, but I have to narrow the search somehow. What are folks experience with Volvo in the 12-15 ton range? How about Case? their numbers also look quite good.
I know we were talking last night, but do you know if the Volvo is open-center hydraulics? That could explain the extra hp. Also, what about gallons per minute? Volvo might have slightly larger cylinders that require more flow, but less pressure to operate comparably. As all the oldtimers will tell you, it takes more hp to produce flow than it does to make pressure. Just my observation.
Not ignoring your advice or comments at all on the Case, just trying to look at things in a full manner. Have not ruled out other options, just trying to digest research. Don't know about the open center hydraulics. GPM are comparable. Cat at 67, Case at 68, Volvo at 66, JD at 56 has lowest flow. PSI for equipment & travel very comparable. JD & Case slightly higher with PowerBoost, but that is an on call feature, not an day-in, day-out work number. Deere beats them all in swing circuit. Bore diameters very comparable. Like I said, I know that this is only a paper analysis, and would greatly benefit from real world experience.
No problem. Thought hadn't even crossed my mind. You really seem to have done the research. That's awesome. Sounds just like us this fall with a CTL. Even had the Kubota guy pissed when we decided to go with the Bobcat. I sure hope someone can give you advice on a Volvo.
you can can cross examine the specs till you are cross eyed that's what I normally do when buying a new machine but until you get some seat time all you are doing is guessing
Have to agree with clintm completely. Published specifications don't mean a thing, particularly with excavators. I've found that at best all factory published specifications are approximates only and most if not all are spun to imply better comparisons to the competition. The dealers in this area will arrange demonstration machines for you to try for short periods of time. Only the transportation comes out of the customer's pocket at that stage. You can make a far better machine comparison from the seat than you can from a piece of paper. Support is probably the most important factor if you are buying new and expect to make a living on that machine. You get paid to operate it, not fix it. I would suggest you figure out what parts the dealer carries in stock. Track links, front idlers, bottom rollers, main pump, engine, swing machinery and final drives that have to be shipped across the country will just kill a profit margin when you have to wait a week. What is their policy on charging freight? I would also look deeply into how to troubleshoot the electronics package. Do you need a laptop and subscription software or are the diagnostics in the machine? What are the warranty policies? Will the dealer pay travel time and mileage or will you need to figure hauling the machine into their shop? What if you experience a crack in a main structure like the boom or carbody? What can you expect the dealer and manufacturer to do? What happens when you get the lemon built on Friday and you experience continuous failures? Will the dealer take the machine back? I really don't have any big preferences when it comes to excavators and as you have noted there isn't a lot of differences on paper. Having been through many of the wars I've mentioned above, there is far more to consider than specifications written by a marketing department.