Modern take on an old(er) idea

[Wellytrack]

 

[Fendtbro]

A backhoe loader is one big heavy frame ( more than half of the total weight) with engines and transmissions hung off it, not the reverse

True, an easier way to build the machine and far easier to drop a major component out for repair. Better too for big impacts like catching a manhole lid with the front bucket.. but of course modern tractors don't fall in half like they used to

 

[Finn farmer]

Brings back memories from the 90's when almost every farm had a forestry trailer with quick release crane that could be made into a rear linkage mounted digger. Wouldn't be viable today though.

I'd see this digger as a contractors tool for small digging jobs around the city and villages near the city (as most contractors have tractors), maybe some private home landscaping etc. I'd want one with hydraulically adjustable width on the stands, seems a bit unstable when reaching to far side.

There was a story of a farmer that had bought a Lännen tractor excavator for farm work. Iirc he had a 3 point linkage and pto for it and liked it. I'd see it a bit too heavy and the tyres a bit too small for field work, but each to their own i guess. They certainly look good.

 

[Runs Like a Deere]

View attachment 1008709

This basically showing that in terms of depth and reach a 3cx is a match for a 13Te 360?

I’d agree that in terms of headline figures they are matched but put the two next to each other and a 13 would make a fool of a 3CX in terms of work rate, unless digging deep a 7.5Te would be more than a match for a 3cx.

I think people miss the extra benefit there is to being able to go past the 90 degree position when loading lorries or trailers to the side of the hole, gives twice as wide a sector of reach. Also moving position of a 360 can be done while booming down for the next bite where as a 3cx is a spin the seat, lift the jacks, into gear etc. Multiply that time over a whole day and I bet it adds up.

 

[ollie989898]

I seem to remember seeing a huddig on tracks now from memory.

 

[Wellytrack]

This basically showing that in terms of depth and reach a 3cx is a match for a 13Te 360?

I’d agree that in terms of headline figures they are matched but put the two next to each other and a 13 would make a fool of a 3CX in terms of work rate, unless digging deep a 7.5Te would be more than a match for a 3cx.

I think people miss the extra benefit there is to being able to go past the 90 degree position when loading lorries or trailers to the side of the hole, gives twice as wide a sector of reach. Also moving position of a 360 can be done while booming down for the next bite where as a 3cx is a spin the seat, lift the jacks, into gear etc. Multiply that time over a whole day and I bet it adds up.

I put up the spec sheet of that and the 360 to show both outpace that abortion of a Valtra.

 

[Runs Like a Deere]

I put up the spec sheet of that and the 360 to show both outpace that abortion of a Valtra.

ignore me then

 

[Wellytrack]

ignore me then

Hardly. Your comment was on point.

 

[Fendtbro]

I put up the spec sheet of that and the 360 to show both outpace that abortion of a Valtra.

That's a bit harsh.. sometimes I really don't want to track an excavator for miles just to sort a small job and it's often way too soft or steep for a 3cx. Tractor based digger has a big advantage on soft ground and if reach is an issue, it can all be scaled up with a bigger base unit.