50 Class Excavator Comparison

I own an 80 class excavator (a 2005 NH EH80CS = Kobelco SK80CS, with 24" steel tracks), I love it, but someday I might want to replace it with something just a little bit smaller. That would probably be a 50 class machine. That size is probably one of the most popular compact machines on the market.

So, one of my winter projects this year was to create this specification comparison for current 50 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.

50 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 50 class, but you might like my listing of specification topics. Slightly larger midi excavator users will want to refer to my other thread on a spec comparison of 80 class excavators: http://www.heavyequipmentforums.com/...tor-Comparison

Referring to the attached comparison, I make the following observations (in no particular order):

1. There are 10 makes/models listed. When you list specs side-by-side, it becomes
   REALLY clear that in this class Case = Kobelco, both made by Kobelco, & Hitachi = John Deere, both made by Hitachi.
   
   
2. 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.
   
   
3. I have limited the models to those that offer a wide steel track in the nominal range of 16". I deal with wet ground, so flotation is important. This criteria eliminated the following:
   
   1. Kubota U55-4, ZTS, because their widest steel track offering is 13.8".
   2. Bobcat E55, minimal tail swing, because their on-line & specification information is so feeble that I could NOT verify that they even offered steel tracks, let alone in this width range. This is really too bad, because this is the ONLY 50 class machine that has an option for a extendable stick, & it is still thumb-compatible.
   
   I have elected to still include the Kobelco SK55SRX, even though it appears to have only rubber tracks available, because it is identical to the Case CX55B, which does offer steel tracks. On the other end of the scale, the Volvo EC55C offers a wider than normal track in this class at 19.7".
   
   
4. I have further concentrated on the longest stick available for each model. Most 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.
   
   
5. I have adopted 3 colors for high lighting:
   
   1. Green = best in class
   2. Yellow = 2nd best in class
   3. Red = a spec so bad it disqualifies the machine (you may not find any of these)
   
   
6. Excavators are classified by weight (in metric or long tons = 2,205 lbs). So, a 50 class excavator is at the top of the "mini" category, which usually runs from 2 tons to 5 tons. It should be expected to weigh about 11,025 lbs. But, in fact, there is/has been some "class creep", because the machines in my chart run from the lightest @ 10,560 lbs (John Deere 50G) to the heaviest @ 12,755 lbs (Kubota KX057). This is acknowledged by the OEMs as witnessed by the model designations for some machines (e.g., 260 for Takeuchi, 5.5 for Cat, 57 for Kubota, 55 for Volvo, 8055 for JCB, 55 for Case & Kobelco, & 55 for Komatsu).
   
   
7. 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.
   
   
8. 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.
   
   
9. Bucket breakout:
   
   1. Takeuchi TB260 highest @ 12,756 lbs.
   2. Cat 305.5E2 next @ 11,443 lbs.
   3. Kubota KX057 ranked 3rd @ 11.177lbs
   
   
10. Stick breakout:
    
    1. Volvo EC55C highest @ 6,392 lbs.
    2. JCB 8055 next @ 6,250 lbs.
    3. Kubota 057 ranked 4th @ 5,644 lbs.
    4. Cat 305.5E2 ranked 5th @ 5,575 lbs.
    
    
11. Reach at ground level:
    
    1. Volvo EC55C longest @ 20'-6".
    2. Takeuchi TB260 next @ 20'-1.4".
    3. Cat 305.5E2 ranked 5th @ 19'-9".
    4. No data on Kubota.
    
    
12. Tractive force (drawbar pull):
    
    1. Kubota KX057 highest @ 14,480 lbs.
    2. Takeuchi TB260 next @ 13,997 lbs.
    3. Cat 305.5E2 ranked 8th @ 10,745 lbs.
    4. No data on John Deere = Hitachi.
    
    
13. Aux 1 hydraulic flow:
    
    1. Tak TB260 highest @ 27.0 gpm.
    2. JCB 8055 next @ 23.8 gpm.
    3. Cat 305.5E2 ranked 4th @ 21.1 gpm.
    4. Kubota KX057 ranked 5th @ 19.8 gpm.
    
    
14. Aux 2 hydraulic flow:
    
    1. Tak TB260 highest @ 11.6 gpm.
    2. Kubota KX057 next @ 9.8 gpm.
    3. Cat 305.5E2 ranked 3rd @ 6.6 gpm.
    
    
15. 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, Cat, Kubota, & Volvo. I could find no data on others.
    
    
16. A angle blade is another distinguishing feature. Almost all (9 out of 10) offer it as an option in this class. I could find no data on JCB.
    
    
17. Re: engines, 5 of the 10 (Tak, Case, Kobelco, John Deere, & Hitachi), use the identical Yanmar engine. Only JCB uses an Isuzu. All the rest (Cat, Kubota, Volvo, & Komatsu) use their own-branded engine. The fuel injection type data in this class is not published for 7 of the 10, but it looks like 3 use direct injection (Case, Kobelco, Kubota, & Volvo).
    
    
18. 6 of the 10 (Tak. Cat, Kubota, Case, Kobelco, & Komatsu) come thumb-ready, meaning they have an integral thumb-cylinder mount already welded to the stick. And most of these have aux 1 hydraulics piped to the stick as std. (Tak, Cat, Kubota, Case, & Kobelco). There is no data on the others. Only the Tak has aux 2 hydraulics piped to the stick as std, it's optional on 4 of the rest (Cat, Kubota, Volvo, Case & Kobelco), with no published data on JCB, John Deere, Hitachi, & Komatsu.
    
    
19. The Tak, Cat, & Kubota are all strong contenders, but the Tak TB260 is 1st or 2nd in a lot of categories, so it should be looked at hard.
    
    
20. 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.

Attached Images

• 50 Class Excavator Comparison.pdf (30.8 KB)