Track'd CATs

[CA Grown]

Can anyone explain to me the differences between the CAT CH45/55 series tractors with the Challenger MTB155 (probably grossly wrong)?

I mean, I get it, but the price deference makes me scratch my head. There's got to be a serious difference, no?

Would a CH55 be just as good as the equivalent Challenger model?

It'll be my first belted tractor and its kind of a new world to me.

[MBTRAC]

We've previously run various Challengers from a new Cat 65 in c.1989 to more recently MT865's.....with no till/minimum till farming IMO the advantages of belted machines have been largely superceded by changes in farming practices.......arguably it's only in lower compaction no tramline farming & getting into wetter fields marginally quicker where belted tractors now have any competitive "edge", & these can be equalled by running triples on wheeled machines...

[catdozer]

Also the ride difference is amazing. You dont feel ruts or wheel tracks etc. Its like your driving on a fresh paved road. With tracks you also get better pulling while you keep compaction at a minimum. Does it have wide or narrow tracks?

[MBTRAC]

Also the ride difference is amazing. You dont feel ruts or wheel tracks etc. Its like your driving on a fresh paved road. With tracks you also get better pulling while you keep compaction at a minimum. Does it have wide or narrow tracks?

True you can achieve greater drawbar pull with a belted tractor, but the extra lugging comes at a cost of lower speed - for us "crunching the numbers" wheeled machines & matched implements pulled at a greater speed comes out in front over the higher running costs of rubber tracks on a cost/acres basis......all depends on your country, crops & cultivation techniques

[CA Grown]

Also the ride difference is amazing. You dont feel ruts or wheel tracks etc. Its like your driving on a fresh paved road. With tracks you also get better pulling while you keep compaction at a minimum. Does it have wide or narrow tracks?

It'll pull a huge lettuce bed former (5 beds wide). Compaction footprint needs to be at a minimum because if there's a rut, the bed former will pull in less dirt in that track.

It'll be wide track, I guess.

[CA Grown]

True you can achieve greater drawbar pull with a belted tractor, but the extra lugging comes at a cost of lower speed - for us "crunching the numbers" wheeled machines & matched implements pulled at a greater speed comes out in front over the higher running costs of rubber tracks on a cost/acres basis......all depends on your country, crops & cultivation techniques

Speed isn't that much of an issue. We pull slow- it seems the bed former "floats" more whereas at high speeds it digs in more and the dirt starts building up clogging the machine.

To me, at 30-50k, a CH55 is a good deal when compared to the MTB series (I'm sure I'll keep getting that wrong, the model #'s) where those are 130k+.

Which is why I was wondering, what's the big difference? Are the CH's that undesirable to the point that they command a far lesser cost?

[CA Grown]

Seems I'm not the only one in the dark as to the differences between the CAT CH series and Challenger series.

:lol:

[npalen]

Just a quick comment on the pros/cons of belted tractors: The belted will, under some conditions, be more prone to slippage than a wheeled tractor. An example is in crop stubble that has a slippery texture. The less PSI footprint of the belt will actually tend to slip more in this condition.

[MBTRAC]

Seems I'm not the only one in the dark as to the differences between the CAT CH series and Challenger series.

:lol:

The Cat CH55's generally had a reputation for low engine & track life, & relatively higher fuel consumption - they didn't tolerate abuse well - & the engines were wound up & stressed to met the rated HP demand.
On any S/H machine make certain to get an oil sample prior to parting with the $$$$ & apart from checking the sprockets/idlers/rollers, the track tensioner & track frames can fail on higher houred machines.

In all respects the MT series (e.g. MT745) is a far superior machine, but worth the extra substantial $$$$'s ? That only you can answer in your operation/ application.

[CA Grown]

The Cat CH55's generally had a reputation for low engine & track life, & relatively higher fuel consumption - they didn't tolerate abuse well - & the engines were wound up & stressed to met the rated HP demand.
On any S/H machine make certain to get an oil sample prior to parting with the $$$$ & apart from checking the sprockets/idlers/rollers, the track tensioner & track frames can fail on higher houred machines.

In all respects the MT series (e.g. MT745) is a far superior machine, but worth the extra substantial $$$$'s ? That only you can answer in your operation/ application.

That's what's killing me. I see the CH's around all the time. A friend of mine has one and says nothing bad about it. That's why I'm thinking, heck, I could do the same.

I'm not hard in equipment. It won't be used for any heavy ground work (like deep ripping)- just discing and toothing. Then for pulling a bed former. Nothing I'd consider heavy stuff.

After reading, the tracks were an issue for me as far as life. I guess that's something (along with the rollers) to pay special attention to.

Oil analysis is a given. How were the engines? You said they break? What exactly is the issue there?