Duetz in it. We really don't hammer them but they do a lot of work gently. We have the Perkins in our Class Axos tractors and they are also very economical too.That will probably be the perkins 1104 common rail engine then? No DPF either, everyone that had one then moved on to the merc engine models and or the deutz ones said they used more fuel compared to the 1104 common rail
depends how high the tub is,Google 406 lift height and it says 9'9" .
Well it's an ex UK machine so maybe you'd be better importing a skilled operator. It did a bit of muck heaping last week and some general handling and haulage.However I stand by my records as they match our diesel usage and machine hours. I'd be really stupid to lie about this.
Also need to factor in the yearly Lola inspection with a telehandler and any faults/repairs that findsCurrently run 120hp loader tractor to carry out all tasks on 120 cow/200ac dairy farm. Thinking seriously about moving to a small telehandler e.g. Kramer for feeding up/scraping out/cubicle bed management.
What concerns me is the potential cost of telehandler ownership. I have heard some fairly frightening tales of repair costs from neighbours over the years, but I have no personal experience.
Does anyone have any realistic costs of ownership in terms of £/hr that they would care to share? Need some half accurate costs for future budgets
By way of comparison, the average cost of owning my last three loader tractors (excluding fuel) changed at 3yrs/3000hrs can be broken down as follows:
Depreciation £4.67/hr
Routine servicing every 250hrs £0.62/hr
Repairs £0.36/hr
Insurance £0.70/hr
TOTAL £6.35/hr
n.b. Tyre wear included within depreciation as it is always traded in on original tyres.
How is this likely to compare to running a telehandler
Thanks in advance
Is your figure actual hours or clock hours?
Clock hours. I know they might be a difference between proper time and Claas time . At least 3.6litres an hour makes me think I’m not totally mental.
12 hrs more like!
I have one of those in my MF5445. I find it very thirsty, probably due to its unregulated internal EGR to meet tier3 emissions. It also has a particularly pungent exhaust smell at low revs due to, again the internal EGR and the very fine particulate emissions which equates to no visible smoke.That will probably be the perkins 1104 common rail engine then? No DPF either, everyone that had one then moved on to the merc engine models and or the deutz ones said they used more fuel compared to the 1104 common rail
I haven’t seen one that counts with ignition off, ever, but I did have a combine back in the 1970’s that would record hours with the ignition on but engine off.
Well something must burn through it if you used 18,000 litres/month. At the rate your handlers are drinking you must have equipment covering nearly 10,000 hours a month. Even if each engine did 50 hours a week and average double your handler’s consumption, you would be running 100 such engines.
Class Axion 820
I mean fair play for posting that shag but what a sad sad world we are in when you have to post your companies assets to 'prove' a calculation
No it’s great I’ve been waiting for a TFF ‘what’s in your shed’ thread. Seriously though I don’t like to be rude and it was the only way I thought I could politely deflect the remarks.I mean fair play for posting that shag but what a sad sad world we are in when you have to post your companies assets to 'prove' a calculation
It’s still not really in the spirit of this place that you should be made to feel that you need to justify your self. Well done for the dignified way you handled it, many here could learn a thing or two from you…… on more than one level.
