Here are some pictures of our PC128UU excavator. The Koehring in the top of the pic picked it up to put it in the hole.
that looks sweet, boy that sure looks like one of my trucks?
hows the cab... seems kinda cramped
I have the same machine...yeah, its cramped. It was made for Asian men of somewhat smaller stature. But the AC is right behind your head, and nothing touches it for digging on tight roads (with a decent sized machine). Mine has rubber pads on the triple grousers, too.
That truck has a home made dump body on it that we fabricated in our shop.
0-swing Nice iron,handy size to.We have two Cat 321CLCR's and they are a little tight in the cab as well.Hard to beat them on a narrow street and can really lift for their size. Like the sheet piling job in your pics.What are they installing? Dominion
That is on a 15 million dollar waste water treatment plant. Its for a UV (ultraviolet light ) building new technology for cleaning raw sewage. we had to go down 40 feet. we looked at buying a 385. but there wasn't alot of room to work with it. so we used to old koehring and the komatsu dug the last 5 feet out of the hole.
i understand zero swing! but it cant dig like counterwated machine , or am i stupid!
The whole back of these machines is a counterweight.
When we bought it it came with two big eye hooks to take the counterweight off so you can do pretty much any engine work needed
counterwieghted excavators ty for the reply! im still learning!if the same little round house machines had the same capabilities as the traditional machines, there would be no use in building the traditional machines.
excavaters i dont want to appear to be a smart ass! but if the laws of leverage have"nt changed lately,how can one compare the two points of the counterwieght! ??????????????
did anyone notice the size of the skid steer and mini compared to the size of the excavator above them
Check our my post with the older cats and koehrings you will see that excavator the koehring picked the little komatsu up to put it in that hole
At this point, I don't think anyone knows what you are talking about? Everything is a compromise. These machines will work in areas that conventional machines do not, HOWEVER, they are not comfortable to operate - if you want to dance, you have to pay the fiddler. My 128 can turn around in a 10 story alley, but it won't lift as much as a 312 over the side.....see? Compromise. Both types of machines have thier practical uses.
Leverage I think the Zero Turn Machines weight more than a regular machine to make up the difference in the length of the counter weight. BTW, I've been wrong before.
The Case cx135 I am buying is a zero swing model. I found that the cab is comfortable and big enough for me. I am 6'4" tall. I was not comfortable in the Komatsu PC 128. With the thumb and a 48" cleanup, how tippy do you think it will be?
What is the spec on the bottom? Probably not too bad - mine is tippy over the side for sure because I have a thumb, artic boom (very heavy), and a small bottom with the rubber shoes. Everyone who runs it knows this, and we do not load high over the side more than 10 feet out. 1066's machine will be more stable than mine because that bottom is bigger than mine.
They don't have much reach but in the right place that machine pays for itself no problem. that boom is pretty much the only thing thats keeping that thing around
thank-you so much " special tool" , someone here lead me to believe that both machines were equally capable of duty! and i just couldnt buy it!i thank you again to help me with that matter! im not an operator, my dad was ,from the 50's till the 90's!, i did auto collision repair and refinishing for 31 years! but i still love hwavy equipment!!!!
I don't know how to make myself more clear.. Both machines ARE equally capable of duty, but under different circumstances. What you DON'T want to do is take the advice of someone who has experienced only ONE side of the coin.
Like special tool said they have their place.
thank you all for filling me in!! you guys are a great bunch!!!!!!!!!
I personally don't like the things because hardly do any cramped area work. They could make the things stick out just a little bit more and that would help a lot.
Help a lot with what ? If you dont work in confined spaces ( you say you dont ) then stick with the normal machine you will find it fit for purpose. If they made the zero or reduced swing models stick out just a little bit more that would defeat the whole purpose of making them. :drinkup It should be noted that some manufacturers actually widen the undercarriage or fit wider pads to keep the *ss within the width when crosscarriage.
Not make them stick out more than 6 or 8'' 's!
I'm wondering where you got that impression from. Particularly in terms of duty?
i have run many excavators, and was really impressed with the capabilities and feel of both cat and deere zts hoes. i would hate to have to wrench on one, though.
i will get some stats.............
The hard facts if you read the stats on the 135 size zero tail swing machines they will actually lift more weight "with" the tracks then there standard tail brothers...but over the side it is only a few pounds less then the standard tail swing. for example,,, at 15 feet a hitachi 120 will lift 9,013 pounds over the front while the hitachi 135 zero tail swing will lift 9,286 pounds over the front...clearly the zero tail swing will lift more... Now over the side at 15 feet the hitachi 120 will lift 5,750 pounds while the hitachi 135 zero tail swing will lift 5,747 pounds!!!!!!!!!!!!!That means you would loose THREE POUNDS!!! of lifting capacity. THAT is a Tremendous sacrifice :falldownlaugh:falldownlaugh. If you dont believe me look it up......THATS WHY WE BUY ZERO TAIL SWING MACHINES!!!Dont let any one tell you otherwise.we also have the extra counter weight on one of our kobelco 135's.. it is very very stable and the counter weight only sticks out another 3-4 inchs
Good info Rueben, but isn't the 135 a little heavier machine than the 120? Do you have the specs on a 312 and the pc128uu- these are both true 120's.
ya i will have to look those up those up...as far as weight goes your right..... 135=13.5 metric tons 120+12.0 metric tons 128=12.8 mwetric tons 312= series three 12 metric tons 314=series three 14 metric tons etc etc
135 heavier than a 312 Thats what i meant when I posted this: I think the Zero Turn Machines weight more than a regular machine to make up the difference in the length of the counter weight. BTW, I've been wrong before. I bought a 135 for a friend of mine to unload tin in his scrape yard. That way he don't have to worry about someone knocking the frontend off of a new pickup:Banghead I pulled a burned D7H off a lowboy with the 135 and it handled that OK. If I didn't do so much clearing I would have one in a Heartbeat. A 135 just isn't big enough for what I do.
Its important when discussing this issue to get the context right. I worked on a city site a few years back that had an older cat 307 (tail swing) and a late model 308CR. There was nothing between these machines in digging ability, When you look at a hydraulic excavator in a trenching situation the work is done below a horizontal line through the Fulcrum. In other words the bucket is being pulled up from below the tracks and the angle of your lever is called a reflex angle (greater than 180). Surface area (track area), machine mass and grip/holding are going to be the factors that allow a machine to apply work to the bucket. If, when the bucket is down in the trench, you drew a line from bucket up through the centre of the turntable (the fulcrum) and on up into the sky....as the line extends up past the turntable you could place the counterweight anywhere along that line and it wont make the slightest difference to the digging effort. It could be 1000 ft away, so long as the angle is reflex it wont make any difference. However, when the operator lifts the bucket up above the fulcrum the angle becomes obtuse and the amount or work (weight) the machine can do whilst staying its tracks is proportional to the effort (counterweight) and its location in relation to the fulcrum. The hydraulic excavator complicates this simplification by not being a rigid lever and it applys effort from other angles. At maximum extension over the side in the horizontal plane a tail swing excavator will generally be more stable than a ZTS. However, depending on the angle of stick the ZTS can sometimes lift more than a tail swing in closer because the weight is physically mounted lower and this makes the angle closer to a reflex than an obtuse or acute angle. All this in theory, hydraulics aside, I have yet to operate a CR or ZTS machine that "felt" as stable as a tail swing machine. And after that you come into manufacturer's specifications for bucket size/capacity, as well as stick lengths etc etc and a whole lot of other variables including track width, mass and so on. When it comes to duty both the machines will dig and swing all day pretty much on par. If I was loading trucks all day on an open site I can't think for one reason why I would bother with a ZTS machine. If I was trenching all day I wouldn't give a toss what it was, unless I was next to a building. ...and if I was a mechanic........
Good points! Let's not forget with reguard to zero-turn.. You don't encroach upon the remaining lane when you swing to load the truck in an URBAN setting.
I measured my Case CX135 today when it arrived. The pads are 28" wide. Tracks are 8' 9" wide and 11' 9" long.