# New Holland TV6070 pics



## bubba11 (Dec 28, 2009)

here are some pictures of the new holland tv6070 bi di as most of you know the seat and steering wheel rotate 180 degrees so you are always facing forward so far it has been working pretty good except it seems to burn alot of fuel enjoy


----------



## wannabeplowing (Feb 9, 2008)

Very nice machine, I bet that thing can move a lot of snow! Hope it continues to serve you well.


----------



## JohnnyRoyale (Jun 18, 2006)

Nice machine....when did NH go yellow?


----------



## jomama45 (Dec 25, 2008)

Nice machine, it looks alot like another poster's here, blowerman. He insists it's the best investment he's made in snow removal.

Best of luck. :salute:


----------



## scag413 (Sep 30, 2006)

Nice machine. How many accounts do you plow? I take it they are big to say the least.


----------



## bubba11 (Dec 28, 2009)

this acually belongs to the city airport that i do all the snow removal for i also have a wheel loader that we use in town. you can order them yellow or blue the hydrostat transmission works great for blowing snow the blade is a Grouser Products 2200 series with some custom built wings they made its a brute


----------



## JD Dave (Mar 20, 2007)

JohnnyRoyale;996074 said:


> Nice machine....when did NH go yellow?


You can actually get the TV's in any colour you want.


----------



## Triple L (Nov 1, 2005)

how about John Deere green  Im savin up for now cause of that LOL


----------



## mercer_me (Sep 13, 2008)

Very nice machine. How big is the blower?


----------



## bubba11 (Dec 28, 2009)

heres a couple more


----------



## bubba11 (Dec 28, 2009)

your options on the paint are yellow or blue sorry no green the blower is a 96 inch Woods not impressed at all with it the blade works great except solid wings and no trip edge i wanted a Horst with hydraulic wings but we had to buy american


----------



## JD Dave (Mar 20, 2007)

Does that blade trip?


----------



## bubba11 (Dec 28, 2009)

no it does not


----------



## bubba11 (Dec 28, 2009)

JDdave hows the Horst snow wings and the Ebling back blades holding up


----------



## JD Dave (Mar 20, 2007)

bubba11;996280 said:


> JDdave hows the Horst snow wings and the Ebling back blades holding up


The Horst pushers stand up very well but this is the first year for the Snowing and Ebling so time will tell. So far they seem really good though.


----------



## Neige (Jan 29, 2008)

Very impressive machine. the Horst would have made a great blade, and the blower is tiny compared to what you could put on it. How about this one.


----------



## bubba11 (Dec 28, 2009)

it looks like that blower would work much better the Woods blower is just on there for weight there are some locally built blowers around here that work excellent but this was the lowest bid


----------



## JohnnyRoyale (Jun 18, 2006)

That plow is massive!!! A trip edge would make me feel alot better about it though.


----------



## Sticks (Sep 23, 2009)

if you wanted to switch the blower and the plow around could you?

so you could look right down at the plow?


----------



## bubba11 (Dec 28, 2009)

Sticks;997038 said:


> if you wanted to switch the blower and the plow around could you?
> 
> so you could look right down at the plow?


yes and no this machine wasn't ordered with a engine end pto but you can install a pto on the engine end , so if the machine is so equiped the answer is yes. there is a 12' broom that has to go on the cab end so thats why we put the plow on the engine end


----------



## bubba11 (Dec 28, 2009)

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


----------



## P.L. (Dec 15, 2007)

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.


----------



## miniwarehousing (Jan 28, 2011)

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,


----------



## Jelinek61 (Mar 16, 2009)

Awesome tractor. That silage blade is huge.


----------



## bubba11 (Dec 28, 2009)

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


----------



## miniwarehousing (Jan 28, 2011)

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.


----------



## KMBertog (Sep 9, 2010)

sweet machine you have there!


----------



## bubba11 (Dec 28, 2009)

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


----------



## miniwarehousing (Jan 28, 2011)

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


----------



## blowerman (Dec 24, 2007)

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?


----------



## miniwarehousing (Jan 28, 2011)

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.


----------



## IMAGE (Oct 21, 2007)

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...


----------



## miniwarehousing (Jan 28, 2011)

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.


----------



## IMAGE (Oct 21, 2007)

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)?


----------



## miniwarehousing (Jan 28, 2011)

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.


----------



## IMAGE (Oct 21, 2007)

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.


----------



## miniwarehousing (Jan 28, 2011)

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.


----------



## IMAGE (Oct 21, 2007)

Those times are just numbers i threw out there for example.


----------



## bubba11 (Dec 28, 2009)

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.
> ...


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?


----------



## miniwarehousing (Jan 28, 2011)

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.


----------



## blowerman (Dec 24, 2007)

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?


We burn in the 3.5 to 4 gpa. Just depends on the rpm's the machine is running at.
The harder expense is the change in the price of fuel this winter.


----------



## csx5197 (Sep 26, 2006)

I had a feeling this was for an airport. My dealership I work at sold a John Deere 6330 to our county airport for snow removal. They were going to attach it to a big de-icer sprayer.


----------



## bubba11 (Dec 28, 2009)

miniwarehousing;1236316 said:


> 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.


this was mostly plowing with about half an hour of blowing


----------

