New 148 Pics and a Video Link.

   / New 148 Pics and a Video Link. #41  
Whats your average density per acre? You said you are dealing with 9"dbh.. I have a 421 with head on it. Still very similar to the new prentice(I ran One) I also own a new 930. The fuel burn is not as different as you were led to belive. And the Barko does cover significant more ground per hour. I noticed you were looking at the JD powered Barko, mine has the cummings.
 
   / New 148 Pics and a Video Link.
  • Thread Starter
#42  
The main difference that I am looking at is the $100k to buy the Barko over the Prentice. I had a guy up the mouintain a few days ago who said that his Prentice will burn 60-70 gallons per day. The horsepower is not my problem the rocks are, so either machine will solve my problem. I know that the Barko will grind more big stuff faster but my material is mainly small and all soft. 200 horsepower is all that I think I need in my current area. If I can ever get myself back in TN to work I would love the bigger machines but for now I will let my wife spend the money and I will run the cheaper to own and operate machine.
 
   / New 148 Pics and a Video Link. #43  
Sounds like you made the right choice. Both machines are animals, my 421 has been relatively trouble free for 5000 + hours all running the head. I have set it up as a dedicated machine. The Barko has 2000 hrs and has been trouble free. I am a stickler for daily maintenance/grease. And filters changed on time. I find it cost a little more up front, but I don't break down as often as my competitors who in general ignore service schedules untill something is broken.
 
   / New 148 Pics and a Video Link. #45  
That 148 looks like an awesome machine. I think they should have gone with more horse power, like 180 would be nice. How do they run it at 60 gpm and 6,000 psi ? If you calculate that into hydraulic HP it comes out to 210 HP. How does that figure with only 140? I have a machine made by Bombardier, that is a purpose built brush cutter with a Fecon BH-99 mounted on loader arms. They built it back in late 1999 and were considering building mulchers back then, it took them long enough. Bombardier, I believe was the originator of these machines back in the 60'S with the Muskeg with a rotary brush mower mounted in the front. Identical in a lot of ways to the Gyro-trac. Keep us posted on the reliability.
 
   / New 148 Pics and a Video Link. #46  
APS your are a little sharper than the average joe. Most here know that but it is lost in the shuffle. You loose 20% of engine power converting to hyd. So multiply your available hp times 20% and if your hyd hp is higher then it's impossible.
Now some will try and they are the ones that if you watch mulch if the head stalls then usually the tractor will or close. BAD for the tractor. If you find a manufacturer that when you run there numbers it works out they are the one's that perform as they should and you can count on there published flows.
This even holds true to skid steers, there are several brands that are playing the hyd hp game that a little calculation will tell you they are stretching things a bit.
Lastly even if you are at the correct hyd hp verses engine hp if your engine is a small displacement unit and lacking proper torque when the pumps are calling at there max you will still suffer. I would rather run with accurate lower flow and psi than exaggerated higher and the overall performance may be actually worse.
 
   / New 148 Pics and a Video Link. #47  
So on paper it makes the tractor better than the competition I suppose. The numbers sound impressive though. I guess that's the point. Not only is 140 HP not enough to pull that kind of load but the tractor must soak up at least 25 or 30 HP to move the tracks and hydraulic cylinders. I'm not knocking the 148 by any means, I would like to own one someday. Does anyone know if the 148 uses a two speed hydraulic motor to drive the head? I heard that they make a difference.
 
   / New 148 Pics and a Video Link. #48  
APSmulching said:
So on paper it makes the tractor better than the competition I suppose. The numbers sound impressive though. I guess that's the point. Not only is 140 HP not enough to pull that kind of load but the tractor must soak up at least 25 or 30 HP to move the tracks and hydraulic cylinders. I'm not knocking the 148 by any means, I would like to own one someday. Does anyone know if the 148 uses a two speed hydraulic motor to drive the head? I heard that they make a difference.
Click to expand...

I know Fecon is on this site so I imagine they can give a better explanation as to why its rated that way I asked before and was given a explanation but i don't want to butcher it and give the wrong idea. I ran a direct competitors machine for around 23hrs and I settled on the 148 its here now just waiting for the BH85 its coming from Ohio (on its way now) and some couplers to mate my Cimaf 180D to it. The 148 is undoubtedly a purpose built machine vs a modified skid steer, and I have no doubt it will serve me well. Yes Robbie I'm posting pics with the 180D on it as soon as I can that should make you drool. :D
 

Attachments

  • IMG00031-20091103-1652.jpg
    IMG00031-20091103-1652.jpg
    452.1 KB · Views: 199
Last edited:
   / New 148 Pics and a Video Link. #49  
I agree it is a good machine. I like the steel tracks better but that my opinion. With the power of the 148 I think the days of stalling the rotor are gone. Happy Mulching. You have to get Gilles to come a tune her up!
 
   / New 148 Pics and a Video Link. #50  
now THAT is a good looking 148

I agree on the carrier quality....I am a big fan of the 148...just not the head :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
 

Footer Links 1

Top