Cat or JD skidder?

[cheyenne]

IMHO Cat is highly over rated.....Cheyenne

[wi woodcutter]

IMHO Cat is highly over rated.....Cheyenne

You got that right! Cat is not everything they think they are.  We have all Cat equipment where I work, it isn't any better than other equipment just ALOT more money. Cat goes thru fuel like crazy.

[racer9]

I have also heard the Cat loves the fuel.

[ironmule2004]

I prefer a John Deere but here is a pic of a Cat "with a tiger by the tail."   

http://www.heavyequipmentforums.com/Forum/showthread.php?t=7778&highlight=tigercat
 

[thompsontimber]

You wanna try a fuel guzzler, get you that 630 Tigercat!  Not to mention its much slower on the ground with that hydrostatic tranny than the Cat or the Deere...that being said, I don't doubt that the TC will out pull the Cat.  However, if you really want a beast that will pull a massive load, do it fast on the ground, and sip the fuel, get yourself an 848 JD!  Having experience with the 630 TC, 545 Cat, and 848 JD, I can vouche for it.

[ironmule2004]

What about the Prentice Skidders?

[thompsontimber]

I've seen a few of the small Prentice skidders but never worked them or been around them in the woods.  They haven't caught on too strong around here, though the majority of the loggers in this area do run Prentice knucklebooms.

[arbo71]

Is Cat getting it's parts from China now?

They are already yellow 

[Ironman]

Well, in my opinion (and I have customers that run both because I sell used equipment), The CAT is the better option because it is simply more productive and will drag more wood to the landing with every skid.  In the end, productivity is what matters and that is what CAT is designed to achieve.

I would add that CAT's powertrain is more reliable.  You can be sure the CAT will give you at least 10,000 hrs without a major powertrain repair if it is properly maintained.  Can you get 10k hrs out of the Deere, certainly.  But the CAT will do 10k on the original engine and another 5-10k on the rebuilt engine before you have to go into the transmission.  No other skidder out there will do that with any degree of consistency.

The powertrain is just built heavier in my opinion.  Let me add some facts to the discussion.  We sell more CAT Skidders than any other dealer in the world.  We have older high hour machines and almost new 2008 model 525C's with 500 hrs, so our inventory is pretty diverse.  We sell over a hundred of these machines every year.  We practically never go into the transmissions on these machines.  I am going on 5 years here at Ironmart and in that time I have seen maybe 3 to 5 machines total, out of 4-500 hundred that had legitimate transmission issues that required going into the transmission.

The Deere Skidder is a fine machine and don't get me wrong because I like them and they are reliable.  But the 525C is just not in the same class as the 648GIII.  A CAT can drag that 648GIII around the yard.  Most Deere salesmen won't admit it but they just are not in the same class in terms of weight and production capability.  The 525C is really more directly comparable with the 748GIII and the 535C is directly comparable to the 848GIII.  The 848GIII used to be something special when it was an actual 660 Timberjack, but Deere in their infinite wisdom decided to get rid of that.  So the 848GIII is now just a turned up motor on the 748GIII.  The best thing that it had going for it, SWEDA Axles, I beleive are no longer available.

The 545 has no Deere equivalent and really the only machine that can work alongside the 545 is a Tigercat E620C or 630C.  Those are truly impressive if you have the money to look at one of those.  I love the Tigercat machines to be honest and I'm a CAT dealer.  But I have to give credit where credit is due.  They are making a truly impressive machine and the powertrain technology seems to be more promising in terms of fuel economy than what Deere and CAT are doing.

Jesse


www.ironmart.com

[spencerhenry]

ironman, just to be clear, you are a CAT salesman right?

[thompsontimber]

I certainly won't question Ironman's expertise in equipment, as I know those folks deal in a lot of it and he should have plenty of knowledge.  I also find his commentary on the 848GIII interesting and I can't say with any personal knowledge how accurate his assessment might be.  However, what I can comment on with knowledge is the comparison between the 848G (which indeed is the old TJ660 which Jesse does profess to like) and the 2002 version of the 545 CAT.  He says there is nothing comparible in the Deere lineup to the 545, and I firmly stand in my position that at that time, the 848 (TJ660 with JD 6081) was a superior skidder to the 545 cat.  We ran the 848, 545, and 535...all 3 had 130" grapples, and each had the power to fill the grapple and pull the load.  The difference was that the Deere could take the same drag and move it faster.  The Cat had more horses, but failed to ever notice a lack in power requiring any more horses than the Deere had to offer.  Fill it to capacity and it would drag it without a grunt.  The real place where the Deere won out was on the slopes though.  You could pull yourself out of a hole and utilize the dual arch fully with the 848 whereas the Cat dual arch was hardly functional at all on the slopes due to the steering completely overriding the rest of the hydraulic system.  If you turn, you can't use the arch, i mean even having your hand on the steering wheel would stop the arch from functioning, any pressure at all and it was over.  The 545 was a beast of a machine, yet it would be sitting on the side of the hill trying to get a grip and come out while the 848 was utilizing the arch and moving right along.  Now perhaps in the flat country such a difference in functioning is a non-issue, but we don't log on flat ground and you can bet the 848 was superior to the 545, and not only that, but the 535 was superior to the 545 in working the slopes and had plenty of power to utilize that 130" grapple. All 3 machines are big skidders, but the 545 is a big machine that operates like a big machine. It runs "bulky" in the woods, and lacks the manueverability of the 848 and the 535.  With the added weight, it seems to bog down and the added horses aren't sufficient to overcome that shortcoming. Where we were logging at the time we tried these machines, I believe the 535 would have outproduced the 545 and I know the 848 outproduced them both.  Add to that, the fuel consumption in the JD was appreciably less than the Cat machines.  We bought the JD over the Cat back in 2002 after having ran them, and we still run the JD today with no regrets.  Perhaps Cat has improved on the limitations of their machine since 2002, I dunno.  Perhaps, as Ironman suggests, JD has regressed in their product since 2002, dunno that either, though it doesn't seem very logical.  What I do know is that if I were in the market for a used skidder, say 2002 model  , I'd be picking the JD over the Cat without hesitation.

[semologger]

Ive ran both the 525 and John deere 648s. I have a 648E now and like it. I ran a cat pulling in pulp wood and it would pull in the wood. he also had a tigercat and it would out pull the cat though. I couldnt keep up with the tigercat.

My JD hasnt let me down so far though i am cutting a bunch of big wood and been pulling 1000 foot trees. Some of the biggest trees ive got a grapple around and it dont seem to slow it down. I cant wait to get ahold of the 1500 foot trees on theis job.

Same as a ford to chevy to me as long as it gets the job done and the price is right I will take it.

[spencerhenry]

i have never run a JD, or a CAT, i have a franklin 185 which is about the size of a 748. i have a client that owns 13 Deere dealerships, obviously any machine they have is JD. last summer i was building a barn for them and had a chance to run their 332 skidsteer tire machine. i hated it, it was horribly loud, hydraulics were slow, didnt seem to have much power, overall i didnt like it. it was a like new machine with only 300 hours. it was also last summer that i bought a skidsteer of my own. i bought a mustang 2109, compared to the JD 332, it was a whole other animal, way more power, better visibility, faster travel, faster hydraulics, quiet, can run without the door on easily. the local dealer when i first started looking went on and on about how great the 332 JD was, telling me it had better power, better visibility, blah blah blah. if i had bought a JD 332 i would be *pithed. my client got rid of his tire machine and got a brand new track machine, i have run it quite a bit, and i HATE it. it is not quite as loud as the tire machine, but it is severely lacking in power, you cant run hi-flow and low flow at the same time, the joysticks are so stiff that my left forearm gets tired after about 30 minutes, visibility is not as good, rear overhang is excessive, blah blah blah. what i am saying is that the dealer really tried to sell me on a machine that in his experience is a great machine, and looks good on paper. the reality is that the machine isnt all that. my mustang isnt perfect, but i like it alot better than the JD. but then i own the mustang, and could be biased.