I've never been around logging operations, but have always loved the equipment. The thought of crawling around in the woods instead of digging holes in the city has always been attractive. Lately the roadbuilders have caught my attention since bunchers will only do some much for me these days Don't know much about them besides the fact they flip-flop between being log loaders/shovels or can be set up as an excavator/ roadbuilder - or strictly have one application. Point being...besides the obvious physical differences in appearances and armor plating/ guards, what is the real difference between a roadbuilder and a traditional excavator? Or are they essentially the same machine, just kitted up differently? I do speak mechanic to a degree, so technical information doesn't scare me For example: a new CAT 568 roadbuilder weighs in around 95,000 - 106,000 pounds and has 296 horsepower, whereas, a CAT 345D weighs 100,000 pounds and has 380 horsepower. Obviously the 345D has 80 more horsepower, so it'll be able to move more dirt, but both machines weigh about the same; so what is the advantage to a roadbuilder? Better swing torque? Different frame ~ better stability? Magical powers? If someone could enlighten me, I would greatly appreciate it might have to see what it would take for the CAT dealer to get one on their lot...
Don't have a clue on the subject but would love to sit in the seat for a day. Interesting it doesn't have a progressive link thumb.
no logging background here but i have an eye for machinery (i like the shiny ones ) now when i look at that i see a very high clearance wide base track frame with lots of track support to prevent jumping and a short boom for decreased weight i would imagine so it can lift more now you have compared the 568 to a 345 and said its light on power id probably look at it and say its a 336 heavy on application specific attachments from track frame to cabin and guards and protection :my2c
I can certainly see the argument for comparing the 568 more towards something like a new 336E; when you look at the HP ratings, they're very similar machines. I work for old school operators who have seen (and probably ran most of) the equipment come and go over the past forty years, and when it comes to excavators, they strictly care about how much a machine weighs and what sort of power you can squeeze out of the engine - that's why I made the initial comparison to a 345D (they weigh the same). I think the 336E is actually more appropriate in comparison; the 586 just carries around some more beef :tong Still, I'm curious as to how the machines would compare...
Chopper95, I see one of Columbias vertols in your avatar. Do you work for CHI? I cut for them quite a bit in the 90's-early 2000's.
OK so i'll dive into this a bit. Yes a 568 is and 336E with add ons. No expert but since you ask ill put in what I know. To make a 336E a 568 you first all put on larger (called hi-walker) and higher u/c so you now have 345 HD size finals and u/c. 1-2 grouser pads instead of triple grouser. The cab is a low rise forestry cab with bars and shatter-proof windows. Log loaders use 2 swing drives instead of 1. Roadbuilders can have bigger counterweights much like the log loader. Booms with more internal baffles, 2 fuel tanks instead of fuel tank and storage box. Engine, pumps, control valve, etc should be the same for 568 and 336.
Hallback, I'm currently a student pilot aiming for my commercial license for helo's, but I would do just about anything to land a job with Columbia :naughty Rob a bank, give away a first-born child, sell a kidney ~ if it meant a job flying dual turbine birds, why not? Hopefully I'll be able to seriously apply for them someday down the road, but we'll have to see; those guys don't mess around. I'm already somewhat jealous you've been able to work with them. Big Ben, Thanks for the reply. :beerchug It seems to me the forestry excavators are somewhat superior to a regular excavator after they're 'juiced up/ kitted up', but then again, that statement is fairly debatable since it's all in applications. If I was looking at purchasing a machine in that size / weight range, I would probably consider a forestry hoe here in Colorado.
I work on both,so here"s my 2 cents. A roadbuilder is how an excavator should be built. An excavator is what the customer is willing to pay for.
That is a good way to put it.
The thing is, you are gaining a bunch of weight from the high walker u/c, forestry cab, and extra guarding but not gaining any digging performance. Road Builders are great for their application but you could never justify the added cost if you're mainly a dirt worker. For the same money you could get a substantially larger standard excavator and get way more performance. EI; the difference between a 336 and a 345 is pretty substantial when you start moving dirt.
That's what I was thinking. If I did just demo or clearing then maybe the extra cost could be justified but I see that heavy machine being stuck in my working conditions. So it's not what I am willing to pay for, as I would opt for the bigger machine and gain production moving dirt but then again I'm not a logger.
CM, about the thumb setup. Many roadbuilder packages use a mechanical quick coupler for the bucket. The thumb actually attaches to the bucket via 2 short pins instead of being pinned to the stick like usual. That way all you need to do is pull the thumb cylinder pin and release the coupler to remove the whole bucket/thumb assembly. Then you can attach a heel rack and grapple to load trucks or deck the wood.
Yup all in the application. Loggers could not get to work most days without the bigger u/c. I have gone to so many low travel power complaints and 9/10 there is no issue, it's just the fact they work in extreme slopes and conditions. The costs for road builders can quickly be justified when some of the working conditions are seen. Its like buying a stock truck to take to work, then giving it a lift kit and mud tires so you can go places your friends stock trucks can only dream of !!
Deeretracks : I think big ben & cutting edge Pretty much nailed it on the head …. but a point being missed here is A Roadbuilder is NOT Purpose built to move Dirt but to build Road … I'm Not familiar with the 568 but What I know about past road builders is that if lets say you took a PC300 and compared it to a PC300 Road builder it has a PC400 under carriage under it providing more power to the ground for climbing due the to the way bigger drive motors … the taller high-walker under carriage gives it the much needed clearance to climb over stumps and boulders plus the have way heavier under carriage protection (like Amour plating …. LOL) …. rail protectors, extra top idler rollers, extra support for those top rollers, (many times I had seen where they took the bottom rollers and mounted them on top, sometimes seen without any at all and just sliders ….. If I didn't have to deal with the extra weight for transporting one (road builder) I'd own one in a Heart beat …. there is a lot more to them than just the weight ……. LMHO & $0.02 worth …… Cheers
Some of the other mods that are different -Extra plumbing for attachments - grapple/processor/brushcutter/grapplesaw/hydraulic quick change -Bigger engine and hydraulic cooling -Thicker side panels for rubbing trees and falling debris -Definitely bigger and higher undercarriage -Roll over protected cab and heavy duty lexan windows usually 1/2 thick for rock and other projectiles -Reversing fan with fine screens to filter needles and leaves and other debris -Sometimes boom cyl guards to protect pipes -More swing power for off level -Slightly raised cab for visibility -sometimes more fuel capacity for extended shifts away from the fuel truck or tank -usually heavy duty catwalks -more guarded lighting -Bigger rotec (eg the new 568 uses a 345 Rotec bearing not 336) -thicker belly pans to protect all the goodies -more fuel filters the 568 has 4, two secondary and two primary -lots of fuel tank guarding on the right front corner -the one thing that sucks is no opening windows ( to protect operator from projectiles falling branches rocks spitting off ) Nice machines but definitely heavier and built to take a severe beating in severe conditions Day in and day out if you were to put one on a sewer water job it would last a long time But it's a bear to climb up, there's less visibility, harder to move, ie tilting cab to make it on low bed And everything is heavy !! DSL
In the nineteen fifties and sixties logging roads were built with dozers almost exclusively. You pushed a shelf into the side of a slope and dropped the spoil over the bank. When you came to a draw you put a culvert in for the water draining from above and then filled over the top of it. In the early seventies the eco movement came in and convinced the powers that be that all that spoil over the bank was contaminating the stream beds and making places for water to infiltrate into the slopes and causing land slides. The new edict that came out was there would be no more dozer roads with spoil going over the banks. Any cuts in the slopes had to be carried back to some storage place and then used later for any fill site. This required an excavator that could pioneer road in a way similar to what the dozers did. When we first started building these machines where I worked we called them pioneer machines. Basically they go off road tearing out the brush and loading what top soil there is off to the sides. They rough the bed in and trucks carry rock in to cover. Sometimes there is a dozer there to smooth out the rock and sometimes they just use the excavator bucket. The road will be roughed in and any final finish done with other machines. Lots of times rock will have to be mined and the excavator will then move back to whatever gravel pit they are using and load the trucks. Road builders get far more traveling in than any construction excavator. They also get stuck way more and are subject to material packing in from the bottom and causing lots of problems. We started out changing the sheet steel out for 3/16" plate and then going to 1/4" and then on to 1/2" in some places. You see a lot of road builders with eighteen inch cab risers and on some of the machines the cab will tilt but that isn't common in the states. We used to put high risers on the machines down here and all those had to tilt to allow for transporting the machines by truck. Any added height at all is a help in viewing what you are doing, especially loading high sided dump trucks common in the woods. I've seen plenty of quick change units over the years that go from a bucket and thumb to a heel rack and grapple. The log loading setup allows cleaning up the right of ways on the road with out walking a log loader in. Most of the time those set ups have the boom cylinder bosses mounted underneath the boom to allow a higher lift. As far as mounting the bigger undercarriage under the smaller house item, PC300 mounted on a PC400 carbody, that has always been a mixed bag. The ground power isn't much different because you are using a smaller engine and pump combination to drive the bigger and heavier undercarriage. The build up generally just gives you stability in the adverse terrain, better flotation and more metal to wear against. What the build up does not give you is a bigger slewing bearing which takes a severe beating over time and generally fails way more often than any construction excavator.
Love seeing all the feedback, there's some great information in here :notworthy The biggest question I have at this point is a few of you have touched on the fact that roadbuilders carry a heavier price tag, but how significant is it? You can get into a low hour 2013 CAT 336E for around $285,000 - $310,000, so how much more would it cost to step up to something like a 568/ a forestry model? It doesn't have to be a CAT specific reference (other members have brought Komatsu up), those are just the machines I know most about - the majority of my seat time has been in a Link Belt Again, these are fairly application specific machines, but pound for pound, I think the forestry models have an edge on a regular excavator - at least in my opinion. Now, they'll never be able to replace a large-scale, high-production mass excavator (CAT 365/385/390/ etc. , JD 470G/670G/870G , etc.) in a strictly dirt moving scenario. But I'm sure there's a good market and scope-of-use for these machines currently - the price must be the speed bump Decided to throw some extra pictures in
Hopped on the CAT used equipment search engine and did my best to look up some 568s. Was able to find three machines, but only one had a listed price. $371,000.00 I apologize for the branding in the middle of the photo, but this is the actual machine for sale. It's a 2011 with 4,200 hours; not sure if the rear-entry cab and grapple configuration affects the value (since we are talking about roadbuilders after all) but that's a pricey piece of kit! I looked up what a 2011 336E/D with similar hours was running (about $175,000 - $200,000), and to say the least, I now see why people have brought up the pricing difference :eek2 I wasn't thinking the price jump on a regular excavator to a forestry model was going to be THAT much.
Chopper95 …. This last picture you posted of the 568 …. is NOT a Road Builder excavator, But it is a Forestry Machine called a "Butt -N- Top" Loader …. it has a way different Boom and Stick combination, also the cab is a very raised and forward of a standard location ….. Probably the reason for the more extreme price tag ……
CRAFT, I realize the machine pictured isn't configured as a roadbuilder, but it's still a 568. I mentioned this in the previous post (wasn't sure how the rear-entry door and loading grapple effected the value), but it was the best I could do - at least while looking at the used CAT site. I haven't been able to find a 568 (or any newer model) for sale that's configured as a roadbuilder unfortunately.
The machine in the photo is a Canadian build for Canadian use. They only show up in the states as used machines and they are significantly heavier than the same model built for US consumption. The only 568 machines I've seen in the Washington State market are log loaders. All have been side entry cabs with heel rack and grapples. The other item not mentioned about forestry machines is the double swing motors means nearly if not more than twice the swing power. I know of one of the 330D loggers that a wayward operator turned over on a side hill not realizing how much swing power they have.
What is it with you guys and side entry cabs on high riser machines anyways? What a pain in the ass to work on!!!!
Agreed. Weyco in Vail ordered their Hitachi shovels with rear entry cabs. They were so much nicer to work on also way more room inside. But John is correct they are pretty uncommon around hear. I remember when Deere/Hitachi started building their own forestry packages. The doors would sag to the point you couldn't unlatch them and would trap the operator inside. Damn those doors are heavy.
Both Weyerhaeuser White River and Bay City refused the edict to have rear entry cabs. No one ever documented an operator falling off the side of a machine so no cost benefit study could be completed to show the rear entry did anything but drive the cost of the machine up. It was pretty well documented though that the extra weight on the slew bearing caused them to fail early on Komatsu log loaders. Deeretracks is right about the door, it is a meat locker door that weighed at least a couple of hundred pounds. It has to be kept closed because it will absolutely kill anything in the way if the house slams it shut. Closed up cabs are pretty universally hated in this area. It seems our gents like the fresh air in their faces when mowing down the forests. The other issue I've had is that the electronics are moved below the cab where there is now lots of room. Seems the forest rats just love to move in there and nibble all that nice wiring. I was in the cab checking things and a partner was underneath checking the computer. I heard a shout and looked down just in time to see a body launch out through the hatch and make a graceful arch to the log deck five feet away. He said he saw eyes and tail about a foot apart and decided the critter might not want to share the space. We drove the critter further into the machine by hitting him with a pry bar. To tell the truth I wasn't sure that the bugger wouldn't try to take the bar out of my hands and use it on me. At least with the small cab the critter couldn't have had any swing room to use the bar on us.
There are many 568 roadbuilders here in SW Washington. Tim Brown, Jerry Debraie, ect.
When shovel logging it is much easier to get around when you can see and those rear entry cabs are a bitch to see your tracks out of. I prefer a non forestry cab with the door open myself.
Thanks for the info Hallback. I don't get down there much anymore.
Photos or they don't exist :laugh Not really... But interesting bit of information! Great to hear the machines are out there!
I always forget that Volvo plays a part (no matter how small ) in the forestry industry. But I will admit, they have put some very interesting machines on the market over the years. I apologize about the small size of the one, but this Volvo FC3392C would probably be quite the ride. This is the only self-leveler I've seen out there without digging into Google too hard.
That's pretty trick! I saw an old case with a leveler but not like that.
That volvo belongs to North construction out of Vancouver, BC. As far as I know it replaced one of their cat 330 c fm's. Looking at the background in the first picture it looks like it's working somewhere in the sea to sky corridor.
I believe all of these machines were purchased back my Volvo. I think that picture was from Revelstoke BC, Looks like one of these machines went back to korea... http://www.marketbook.ca/listingsdetail/detail.aspx?OHID=9678297&LP=MAT