Salmon vs eiengineering: Who will dominate in terms of fuel efficiency?

In the world of construction, time and efficiency are paramount. Contractors are always on the lookout for tools and equipment that can save both time and money. One crucial piece of equipment in the construction world is the GP Trench Bucket, an attachment that can make all the difference when it comes to digging trenches. But not all Trench Buckets are created equal, as a recent test between two popular brands, Salmon vs eiengineering has shown. The results are eye-opening and shed light on the significant impact that your choice of bucket can have on your project’s bottom line.

The Test Parameters

• Location: Stocklands Aura Estate, Caloundra South, Queensland, Australia
• Excavator: Komatsu PC135
• Soil Type: General clay material from a former pine forest
• Buckets: Salmon vs eiengineering (450mm GP trenching Buckets)

The two contenders were put to the test under the watchful eye of Peak Civil. The objective was clear: to determine which bucket would outperform the other in terms of digging speed, fuel efficiency, and overall cost-effectiveness.

The Data

Salmon Bucket:

•   Litres Used: 3
•   Fuel Costs: $201.58
•   Time to complete the job for 28,975m³ of trenches: 311 days
•   Total Cost (including fuel, operator, and service): $129,998

eiengineering Bucket:

•   Litres Used: 1.8
•   Fuel Costs: $155.67
•   Time to complete the job for 28,975m³ of trenches: 253 days
•   Total Cost (including fuel, operator, and service): $97,812

The Verdict

Fuel Efficiency
In the battle of fuel consumption, the eiengineering bucket emerged as the champion. It required just 1.8 liters of fuel, while the Salmon bucket used three liters. This distinction is crucial when looking at the cost perspective of each attachment.

Time is Money
Digging speed is another crucial factor in construction, and eiengineering’s bucket proved to be the quicker option. It took 253 days to complete the same amount of work that the Salmon bucket needed 311 days for. This remarkable time advantage can lead to earlier project completion and, consequently, reduced labour and equipment costs.

Operator Costs
Based on the average operator costs at $55 per hour for 1,778 hours per year, the Salmon bucket would cost $129,998 to complete the contract, whereas the eiengineering bucket would cost $97,812.

Service Costs
Considering you service your machine every 500 hours, at a rate of approximately $4 per hour, the Salmon bucket’s servicing costs would total $9,454. In contrast, the eiengineering bucket would only incur $7,112 in service costs.

Total Costs Over the Life of the Contract
When we sum up all the costs, including fuel, operator costs, and service costs, the eiengineering bucket emerges as the more cost-effective choice. It would cost a total of $141,350.54 to complete the contract, while the Salmon bucket would require a substantial $202,143.38.

Efficiency Gains
When comparing the two buckets, eiengineering’s offering demonstrated a remarkable 40% increase in fuel economy, a 33% increase in digging performance, and a 48% increase in time efficiency. When looked at from a time perspective, it cuts 19.5 days off the completion time of the contract. These impressive figures highlight the potential for cost savings and faster project completion when choosing the right equipment.

Conclusion

When it comes to trench buckets, the numbers don’t lie. The eiengineering 450mm Trench Contractor bucket has shown itself to be the more efficient and cost-effective choice. This not only saves on fuel costs but also contributes to shorter project durations, potentially leading to higher profitability.

In the world of construction, where time is money, choosing the right equipment can make all the difference. The Salmon vs. eiengineering trench bucket test serves as a valuable reminder that innovation and efficiency are at the core of successful construction projects. It’s a testament to how making the right equipment choices can lead to better results, both in terms of project completion and the bottom line.

*Please note that this test did not account for public holidays and annual leave, so real-world applications may have some variability. Additionally, operator costs were assumed to be $55 per hour at 1778 hours per year, and servicing was projected at around $4 per hour. These figures may vary depending on location and specific contractual arrangements. Nevertheless, these results provide valuable insights for contractors looking to make more informed decisions in their equipment selection.

Want to experience the difference for yourself, contact us for a dig test today.