StumpyWally
Senior Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2011
- Messages
- 525
- Occupation
- PE Civil Eng'r, Computer Sys. Mgr., Retired
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):
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.
- 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.
