27 / 44
CAPITAL EQUIPMENT NEWS
APRIL 2017
25
even terrain where larger bucket capacities
are required, then a compact wheel loader
would be the ideal choice. “It has a wider
wheel base resulting in a more stable and
less bumpy ride,” says Kundra.
Justin Nicoll, MD of Force 8 CC, the local
distributor of the Atlas Weyhausen range of
articulated wheel loaders, says there is no
clear check list that lets you tick off relevant
factors and come to an irrevocable decision
about which machine – skid steer or compact
wheel loader – will work best in your
operation. The choice, essentially, seems
to be a matter of thinking through several
considerations and then evaluate which
solution is, overall, most advantageous.
According to Nicoll, there will always
be a place for both machines, adding that
skid steers are well suited for very confined
circumstances on sites, but outside of this
parameter, “there is no contest that a compact
wheel loader is a significantly more productive
option”. “The compact wheel loader is less of
a compromise on a variety of design features
that on a skid steer are barely optimal by
virtue of the machine’s fundamental design
mandate, which puts manoeuvrability as top
priority,” argues Nicoll.
Key considerations
Leask says pricing plays a key role in any
decision-making process but it is not always
the main criteria. “In terms of purchasing,
generally there is about a 25% difference
in price between the top of the range skid
steer loader and the mid to low range wheel
loader. Thus, in terms of price, the skid steer
loader has a significant advantage.”
In today’s challenging economic environ-
ment, one of the key factors that determines
the choice of one machine type over the
other is cost of ownership. Comparing the
compact wheel loader and the skid steer by
horsepower, the skid steer, because of its
mode of steering, significantly requires more
horsepower, perhaps 30 or 40% more than a
compact wheel loader of similar rated oper-
ating capacity.
Van Wyk adds that a compact wheel
loader doesn’t need such a high horsepower
motor as that found on a comparable skid
steer. “Smaller horsepower means reduced
fuel consumption,” he says, adding that an
articulated wheel loader generally uses six
times less fuel than a comparable skid steer.
“The articulation of the wheel loader
doesn’t require huge amounts of power for
steering. Skid steers need added horsepower
to generate a greater volume of auxiliary-
hydraulic flow than most comparably sized
compact wheel loaders. A positive upshot of
less horsepower is lower fuel consumption,”
says Van Wyk.
The reason for reduced fuel consumption
is not only down to the engine size. Van
Wyk adds that a compact loader is throttle
driven, which means that the engine revs
only when the throttle is used. In contrast,
a skid steer loader is regularly used at full
throttle or at high runs per minute, even if it
has a foot throttle. Van Wyk says the engine
revs required for a skid steer to move are
higher as it needs maximum torque to pull its
heavier weight. He adds that the articulated
loader’s generally smaller engine places
A compact loader scores on a variety of features, namely longer wheelbase, longer reach,
better fuel consumption, better tyre wear, as well as ease of maintenance as accessibility to
service points is generally better.
MultiOne South Africa says the compact loader is a better choice in digging applications than
the skid steer, and believes it is one of the reasons why there is increased uptake in the local
agricultural sector.