burnetma
Gold Member
I finally got the opportunity to perform a field trial on both machines thanks to the fine people at Mabie Brothers. This is the first time that I have ever operated any form of mulching head, so I am looking at this from a novice's view point. Please note that the comparison isn't truly apples to apples so let me set up the scenario.
Unit One: ASV RC100 with properly sized 63" cut Fecon Bullhog with no pressure or RPM guage.
Hydraulic HP = 65
Hydraulic Flow = 38 GPM
Hydraulic Pressure = 3300
Unit Two: ASV SR80 with properly sized 63" cut Loftness Carbide Cutter with standard pressure guage.
Hydraulic HP = 48
Hydraulic Flow = 30 GPM
Hydraulic Pressure = 3000
Due to the difference in hydraulic flow, it was not possible to switch out the heads, thus I had to keep that in mind during the trials. I will try to discuss only the cutting heads in this thread and save the RC100 vs. SR80 observations for another thread.
Tests to be performed:
1. Compare ability to cut various materials from grass to trees.
2. Compare ability to mulch various materials from briars to trees.
3. Compare final mulch sizes.
4. Compare features and ease of use.
5. Cost
Observations:
First let me say that these are very heavy cutters and it was obvious when moving the heads. Both heads appeared to have some use prior to the demo but the teeth appeared to be in compariable condition and near new.
Both heads cut fine materials surprisingly well. My first impression was that these heads would not cut grass and briars well, but both did a great job. I mowed several paths over 40 feet long with acceptable results (as good or better than a rotary cutter). I cut down a total of 4 trees (2 per cutter), all in the 6" diameter range. This operation was effortless for both machines.
I mulched everything from overgrown weeds to trees and stumps with both heads. Both machines did an excellent job. I found the Loftness a little easier to mulch with and was able to get a little smaller pieces, but I think that was due to operator not machine. Both machines when working trees and stumps produced a stringy mulch of max fiber length of about 3". I think anybody would be hard pressed to tell the difference.
As for features, the Loftness comes from the factory with two nice features. First, the hydraulic pressure guage on the head. This will help indicate the load on the hydraulic motor and stall. I found this particularly useful when stump and tree grinding. The Fecon offers two different pressure guages and a tach for an extra cost. Second, the Loftness has free swinging arms that can be used to drag material to a better position for mulching. This is a HUGE help. Fecon does not offer this feature, but it could easily be fabricated and added to the Fecon head.
Cost is a push for compariable features. The two companies have different cost structure, but the end result is about the same.
Summary:
I honestly could not declare a winner, within the limited time of the demo. Both heads performed equally well. I was able to stall the Loftness head more easily than the Fecon head, but this was most likely due to the difference in hydraulic pressure (HP), not the design of the head. I would have to live with both heads for several days to see any meaningful differences. Sorry, but it is a push...
Mark
Unit One: ASV RC100 with properly sized 63" cut Fecon Bullhog with no pressure or RPM guage.
Hydraulic HP = 65
Hydraulic Flow = 38 GPM
Hydraulic Pressure = 3300
Unit Two: ASV SR80 with properly sized 63" cut Loftness Carbide Cutter with standard pressure guage.
Hydraulic HP = 48
Hydraulic Flow = 30 GPM
Hydraulic Pressure = 3000
Due to the difference in hydraulic flow, it was not possible to switch out the heads, thus I had to keep that in mind during the trials. I will try to discuss only the cutting heads in this thread and save the RC100 vs. SR80 observations for another thread.
Tests to be performed:
1. Compare ability to cut various materials from grass to trees.
2. Compare ability to mulch various materials from briars to trees.
3. Compare final mulch sizes.
4. Compare features and ease of use.
5. Cost
Observations:
First let me say that these are very heavy cutters and it was obvious when moving the heads. Both heads appeared to have some use prior to the demo but the teeth appeared to be in compariable condition and near new.
Both heads cut fine materials surprisingly well. My first impression was that these heads would not cut grass and briars well, but both did a great job. I mowed several paths over 40 feet long with acceptable results (as good or better than a rotary cutter). I cut down a total of 4 trees (2 per cutter), all in the 6" diameter range. This operation was effortless for both machines.
I mulched everything from overgrown weeds to trees and stumps with both heads. Both machines did an excellent job. I found the Loftness a little easier to mulch with and was able to get a little smaller pieces, but I think that was due to operator not machine. Both machines when working trees and stumps produced a stringy mulch of max fiber length of about 3". I think anybody would be hard pressed to tell the difference.
As for features, the Loftness comes from the factory with two nice features. First, the hydraulic pressure guage on the head. This will help indicate the load on the hydraulic motor and stall. I found this particularly useful when stump and tree grinding. The Fecon offers two different pressure guages and a tach for an extra cost. Second, the Loftness has free swinging arms that can be used to drag material to a better position for mulching. This is a HUGE help. Fecon does not offer this feature, but it could easily be fabricated and added to the Fecon head.
Cost is a push for compariable features. The two companies have different cost structure, but the end result is about the same.
Summary:
I honestly could not declare a winner, within the limited time of the demo. Both heads performed equally well. I was able to stall the Loftness head more easily than the Fecon head, but this was most likely due to the difference in hydraulic pressure (HP), not the design of the head. I would have to live with both heads for several days to see any meaningful differences. Sorry, but it is a push...
Mark
