JCB 527-58 vs 532-60

[Richard98]

We are currently looking to replace our matbro TS270 (2.7t 5.5m) and it will probably be a JCB, either new or up to 3000 hours second hand. I think we need to be going slightly bigger capacity than we've had, for future proofing and the overload lockouts etc on new machines. I don't think you can get a new 527-58 (2.7t 5.8m) any more, the 532-60 (3.2t 6m) being its replacement which is fine if we go new...but second hand, a 527-58 is a lot cheaper than say a 536-60. dad thinks a 527-58 will be fine as its the same size as we've got now (and a lot cheaper) but I reckon we will be disappointed with it.
The workload isn't heavy, 500 hours a year mainly loading grain, straw and fertiliser with occasional muck
My question is, would a 527-58 be ok as a replacement or do we need to spend the extra for higher capacity? the family have a long history of buying machines that aren't big enough and killing them by expecting too much and I don't want that to happen again

 

[Runs Like a Deere]

I would agree with you always go a little bit bigger than you have. Also worth checking horizontal reach with a new machine vs current.

Have you looked at any other brands? Bobcat or Kramer for example?

 

[cousinjack]

Whilst the old 525’s 527’s were good machines, they are somewhat outdated now….
I’d go for a newer model..

 

[Richard98]

Thanks both, thats reinforced what I thought. We have looked at Kramer and liked them, but £5k more for a new Kramer than a JCB. Don't really get on with the local manitou dealer. We did look at a merlo and it was ok but everything seemed a bit 'different' on them, we concluded a merlo would be fine if they were cheaper than a JCB, but they're not. bobcat might be worth a look though.
I guess thats the advantage of running a defunct brand, we've not got any brand loyalty, though if they still made matbros today, I doubt we'd look at anything else

 

[Sparkplug]

Would you not find the lower seating position not as handy? If you have plenty of room around the yard go for the 536 range - substantially more of a machine for the longer term than the 527-58

 

[SamN]

Recently got a 527-58 here. They are very compact, sat down low and it's only 2m wide. It's very capable but you can't see much compared to the bigger ones, visibility is restricted by sitting so low while still having the big bonnet. I'm used to driving 536-60 531-70 etc and they are definitely a better machine. 527-58 is a hydrostatic, completely different to drive than torque converter / powershift. Needs a lot more revs to get any meaningful speed. If you've got a heavy right foot it might not be such an issue but I find it a bit steady to drive and change direction. If you don't have reason for your handler to be compact, look at a 526-56? I know the numbers are smaller but would be comparable just with better visibility and powershift gearbox.

 

[roscoe erf]

What’s wrong with a 530-70

 

[cousinjack]

Telescopic Shovels

We specialise in low hours Telescopic Handlers and Wheeled Loading Shovels. We offer an extensive choice to suit all budgets.

www.andymellor.co.uk

 

[cousinjack]

Recently got a 527-58 here. They are very compact, sat down low and it's only 2m wide. It's very capable but you can't see much compared to the bigger ones, visibility is restricted by sitting so low while still having the big bonnet. I'm used to driving 536-60 531-70 etc and they are definitely a better machine. 527-58 is a hydrostatic, completely different to drive than torque converter / powershift. Needs a lot more revs to get any meaningful speed. If you've got a heavy right foot it might not be such an issue but I find it a bit steady to drive and change direction. If you don't have reason for your handler to be compact, look at a 526-56? I know the numbers are smaller but would be comparable just with better visibility and powershift gearbox.

View attachment 1018192

Didn’t even realise they still did a 527-58…

I was thinking of the 1990’s version !

 

[Badshot]

The smaller ones reduce lift as soon as you put the boom out now.
Go larger than you need or you'll spend your life pressing the override button.

 

[ACEngineering]

Never buy compact unless you need it to fit in a specific place, smaller they are the worse they are to fix.
Also easier to sell a standard sized machine than a compact.

 

[Ben B]

D

The smaller ones reduce lift as soon as you put the boom out now.
Go larger than you need or you'll spend your life pressing the override button.

Do the older ones have an override? ie we had 2009 jcb and I never found the override? Probably didn't need it either as the weight sensor screen was held into place with a bent pipe wall mount, so I'm assuming it broke and that was dads fix to make it look factory. I have found the button on the new one need it sometimes with the big buckets of silage.

 

[Badshot]

D

Do the older ones have an override? ie we had 2009 jcb and I never found the override? Probably didn't need it either as the weight sensor screen was held into place with a bent pipe wall mount, so I'm assuming it broke and that was dads fix to make it look factory. I have found the button on the new one need it sometimes with the big buckets of silage.

No, the safety bollix came in 2010 I think.
That's why I bought a 2009 one.

 

[Sparkplug]

On some of the over ride ones you can stick a metal washer to the sensor on the inside of the boom so it thinks the boom is still retracted! - most have a metal bracket that you can see from the cab when fully retracted- then it goes out with the inner boom as you telescope out- so I'm told!

 

[Richard98]

Thanks for all the replies, that has settled in my mind we do need to be looking bigger than a 527-58. we haven't really got any space restrictions other than one old brick building that only has crap in, so if we can't get in there its no bad thing!