Snow Plowing Forum banner
21 - 40 of 43 Posts
Discussion starter · #21 ·
JohnnyRoyale;997005 said:
That plow is massive!!! A trip edge would make me feel alot better about it though.
the blade measures 12 feet without the wings, the wings make it a touch over 14 feet. i agree about the trip but there isn't much to run in to on the airport so it works well
 
The machine actually has to be yellow if it is used at any airport, I think it's some sort of FAA regulation. My buddy sells Kioti tractors and the just had to special order a yellow one that the sold to a local airport, he's the one that told me this.
 
Discussion starter · #25 ·
miniwarehousing;1232153 said:
Bubba,
How is this machine holding up? It's a very nice set up and would appreciate any feedback from you on negatives and positives.
Thanks,
we have about 150hrs on it now and have only had some minor issues with it, hydraulic leaks, bad sensor, nothing major. positives are you are always facing the right way, hydro trans is perfect for running a blower. negatives are the hydro trans burns more fuel, heater could be improved and the cab layout could also be improved imo. we have a loader for it but i have only had it on the machine twice, so i can't comment on how well that works. over all it works good and if you are running a blower it the only way to go, but if you are just going to push snow a wheel loader or tractor would be cheaper and simpler. let me know if you have any more questions or want any more pics
 
Thanks Bubba,
I just met with the dealer and it looks like a real nice comparison vs a loader. The blower is ideal, because it eliminates our need to stack the snow and push it huge distances. We would want to use it as a plow and a blower. We really like the HLA Snow Wing on the cab end with the blower on the engine end. Price out the door with sweeper, blower and tractor/w loader is $160K. I would still need to purchase the HLA snow wing for ~$10K
The fuel consumption is of slight concern though.
I wonder how I can compare a wheel loader vs tv 6070. Is it measured by GPH?
Thanks for any insight.
 
Discussion starter · #28 ·
miniwarehousing;1233611 said:
Thanks Bubba,
I just met with the dealer and it looks like a real nice comparison vs a loader. The blower is ideal, because it eliminates our need to stack the snow and push it huge distances. We would want to use it as a plow and a blower. We really like the HLA Snow Wing on the cab end with the blower on the engine end. Price out the door with sweeper, blower and tractor/w loader is $160K. I would still need to purchase the HLA snow wing for ~$10K
The fuel consumption is of slight concern though.
I wonder how I can compare a wheel loader vs tv 6070. Is it measured by GPH?
Thanks for any insight.
My l70 wheelloader burns 2.175 gph that is a two year average. I don't keep as good of fuel burn record on the tv6070 but I can get you a number tomorrow. It would probably vary with how much blowing vs plowing you do, we mostly plow
 
bubba11;1233694 said:
My l70 wheelloader burns 2.175 gph that is a two year average. I don't keep as good of fuel burn record on the tv6070 but I can get you a number tomorrow. It would probably vary with how much blowing vs plowing you do, we mostly plow
Bubba,
If you could check, that would be great. I know it's not apples to apples, but I'm glad you can tell me that you plow more than blow, so you're fuel usage will be relatively apples to apples as far as tasks at hand.

I love that you have both the TV and the L70. These are the 2 machines we're most focused in on at this point.
Are there any major plus and minus points for either machine?
Thanks again!

Mini Warehousing
 
miniwarehousing;1233611 said:
Thanks Bubba,
I just met with the dealer and it looks like a real nice comparison vs a loader. The blower is ideal, because it eliminates our need to stack the snow and push it huge distances. We would want to use it as a plow and a blower. We really like the HLA Snow Wing on the cab end with the blower on the engine end. Price out the door with sweeper, blower and tractor/w loader is $160K. I would still need to purchase the HLA snow wing for ~$10K
The fuel consumption is of slight concern though.
I wonder how I can compare a wheel loader vs tv 6070. Is it measured by GPH?
Thanks for any insight.
So you are looking at spending $170K on a tractor. blower, plow set up and fuel is concern?
 
blowerman;1233702 said:
So you are looking at spending $170K on a tractor. blower, plow set up and fuel is concern?
When you're spending 170K either way, and one burns much more fuel than the other, than yes...Fuel is a concern. Isn't every cost a concern?

Over time, your costs on one unit will be signifigantly higher if you're using more fuel. If one machine is using 2.1 gph and the other is using 4.2. multiply that by 10,000 hours, and $4/gallon your talking an $84,000 difference.
 
miniwarehousing;1233717 said:
When you're spending 170K either way, and one burns much more fuel than the other, than yes...Fuel is a concern. Isn't every cost a concern?

Over time, your costs on one unit will be signifigantly higher if you're using more fuel. If one machine is using 2.1 gph and the other is using 4.2. multiply that by 10,000 hours, and $4/gallon your talking an $84,000 difference.
However that 10,000 hours will take 40 years of snow removal at a site with 60" a year.

There are a lot more things to look at. Like needing extra machines that each depreciate. Number of operators involved (labor costs). Productivity of machines (labor and fuel expenses directly related). etc...
 
IMAGE;1233883 said:
However that 10,000 hours will take 40 years of snow removal at a site with 60" a year.

There are a lot more things to look at. Like needing extra machines that each depreciate. Number of operators involved (labor costs). Productivity of machines (labor and fuel expenses directly related). etc...
I'm not limiting myself to fuel costs to look at. Just adding that it can be considerable.
We are looking at the machine to also do other facility tasks other than snow as well.
Even at 5,000 hours and 40K in difference in cost, it's still something to be concerned about.

Operator cost is static amongst machines based on hourly rates.
As is depreciation on these.

Maintenance and Fuel costs are not static and worth comparison at this point.
 
Is the operator cost static if it takes 10 man hrs with equipment "A" or 15 man hrs with equipment "B"? I don't know if your operators are salaried or not. Or if there is other work they could be doing instead during the extra time (opportunity cost)?
 
IMAGE;1234004 said:
Is the operator cost static if it takes 10 man hrs with equipment "A" or 15 man hrs with equipment "B"? I don't know if your operators are salaried or not. Or if there is other work they could be doing instead during the extra time (opportunity cost)?
Steve,
I agree, but for machine comparison, we're assuming both would do the job in equal amounts of time. This difference in actual time to complete the job is an unknown and for our comparison of which is quicker would be tough to figure out at this time.
So, at this point, we take which numbers we know are factual, ( ie, operator cost, fuel cost, maintenance cost, machinery cost) and we compare them based on an hourly basis.
The beauty about these machines is they don't really lose too much value upon purchase. If we find the one we chose isn't the right tool for the job, we can recover our costs relatively easily.
 
miniwarehousing;1235242 said:
Steve,
I agree, but for machine comparison, we're assuming both would do the job in equal amounts of time. This difference in actual time to complete the job is an unknown and for our comparison of which is quicker would be tough to figure out at this time.
So, at this point, we take which numbers we know are factual, ( ie, operator cost, fuel cost, maintenance cost, machinery cost) and we compare them based on an hourly basis.
The beauty about these machines is they don't really lose too much value upon purchase. If we find the one we chose isn't the right tool for the job, we can recover our costs relatively easily.
Ok I see where your coming from. I think that with a little digging you will be able to find productivity numbers for loaders or tractors w/pusher boxes pretty easy. I think finding productivity numbers for the blowing part will be pretty hard to lock down though.

If you have the 170k to spend, you might consider 2 pretty nice used pieces. Something like this: http://www.tractorhouse.com/listingsdetail/detail.aspx?OHID=6040373& setup with a nice blower and a nice pusher will be about $90k, leaving you 80k for a very nice used wheel loader like this: http://usediron.point2.com/Xhtml/Equipment/Details/P2/Loader-Wheel/JOHN-DEERE//842060/Photos.html

Both pieces pushing snow when needed, and the tractor blowing piles back after the cleanup is done. Usually 2 pieces working together on a lot is more productive then 1 working alone. For example a lot taking 4 machine hours with one piece of equipment might only take 3 machine hours if they work together(1.5 each) because one can feed the other.
 
IMAGE;1235302 said:
For example a lot taking 4 machine hours with one piece of equipment might only take 3 machine hours if they work together(1.5 each) because one can feed the other.
Thanks Steve,
Is this an accurate figure that one machine would take 4 hours and 2 would only take 1.5 hours? It seems to drastic
I really think a smart operator with the right machine can handle this site with one machine.
Trust me, I wish this was a square lot and something we could easily calculate by mph and area, but it's just not that easy.
Adding in the variable snow throwing, changes the game we're used to, as we now don't need to STACK the snow, and therefore don't need to push it such great distances.

The used machines are obviously a lower cost, but reliability steers us toward new equipment.
I like the idea of 2 machines, but that means 2 operators to rely on and possibly 4 if its a long duration storm and being a owner of the facility, we would rather keep employees to a minimum.
If you put a guy on payroll at $20/hour, our actual cost for that guy is above $32/hour, not including overtime costs, if that applies.

This is why this site is great. If I ask a contractor, he'll tell you what you need, by what he has to use and therefore bill you for.
Thank you everyone again for your help.
 
Discussion starter · #39 ·
miniwarehousing;1233701 said:
Bubba,
If you could check, that would be great. I know it's not apples to apples, but I'm glad you can tell me that you plow more than blow, so you're fuel usage will be relatively apples to apples as far as tasks at hand.

I love that you have both the TV and the L70. These are the 2 machines we're most focused in on at this point.
Are there any major plus and minus points for either machine?
Thanks again!

Mini Warehousing
it looks like the tv6070 burns about 4 gpa this might be a little off because the hour meter doesn't read in tenths of an hour and there was a little idleing time. Blowerman what do you figure yours burns an hour running a blower?
 
bubba11;1235828 said:
it looks like the tv6070 burns about 4 gpa this might be a little off because the hour meter doesn't read in tenths of an hour and there was a little idleing time. Blowerman what do you figure yours burns an hour running a blower?
Thanks Bubba,
So this was estimated while plowing the snow or blowing. I know you had said you had been mostly plowing it, so I just wanted to check.

Double the fuel useage is considerable. Not a deal breaker, but something to consider.
 
21 - 40 of 43 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top