7 hours ago
Engine Choice Shapes Ownership Experience
When Bobcat introduced the S850 skid steer, contractors were faced with a critical decision: choose the proven Kubota Tier III engine or wait for the newer Doosan Tier IV final powerplant. This wasn’t just a matter of horsepower—it was about emissions systems, fuel efficiency, long-term support, and field reliability. The Kubota had a reputation for durability and simplicity, while the Doosan promised modern compliance and a non-DPF design that appealed to operators tired of regeneration cycles.
Kubota’s Legacy of Reliability
Kubota engines have powered compact equipment for decades. Known for their mechanical simplicity and consistent performance, they’ve earned trust in agriculture, construction, and rental fleets. The Tier III version used in the S850 was a 3.8L diesel with a common rail injection system and a diesel particulate filter (DPF). While the engine itself was solid, the DPF introduced complexity.
Operators who ignored passive regeneration warnings or attempted to override them often triggered engine derates—reducing power by up to 75%. At that point, only a dealer-initiated service regeneration could restore full function. This made the Kubota engine highly dependent on operator discipline and dealer support.
Doosan’s Entry into the Bobcat Lineup
Doosan, a Korean industrial giant with over 50 years of engine-building experience, acquired Bobcat in 2007. The transition marked a shift in engine strategy. By 2015, Bobcat-branded Doosan-built engines began replacing Kubota units across the lineup. The Tier IV final Doosan engine in the S850 was a 3.4L diesel, smaller than the Kubota but designed to meet emissions standards without a DPF.
This non-DPF design appealed to many contractors. It eliminated the need for regeneration cycles and reduced fuel consumption associated with DPF burn-off. However, concerns lingered about parts availability, service training, and long-term support—especially in North America, where Doosan engines were less common.
Fuel Efficiency and Performance Tradeoffs
One of the key debates was fuel burn. Reports from the field suggested that the smaller 2.4L Doosan engines used in other Bobcat models consumed more fuel than the 3.3L Kubotas they replaced. This made sense: extracting the same horsepower from a smaller displacement often requires higher RPMs and more fuel.
In the case of the S850, the Doosan’s 3.4L engine was closer in size to the Kubota, but still slightly smaller. Operators noted that while fuel consumption was comparable under light loads, the Doosan engine worked harder under full load, potentially offsetting gains from the non-DPF design.
Support and Service Realities
Dealer support played a major role in engine preference. Some technicians reported that Kubota’s technical assistance became limited after the Doosan acquisition. Others found that Doosan engines received better support because they were now the standard across Bobcat’s fleet.
The reality is nuanced. Kubota engines were often treated as “stopgap” solutions during the Tier III era, while Doosan engines were integrated into Bobcat’s long-term strategy. This meant that parts, diagnostics, and training were more aligned with Doosan going forward.
Recommendations for Buyers
When choosing between Kubota and Doosan engines in Bobcat skid steers, consider the following:
Conclusion
The Kubota vs. Doosan debate in Bobcat skid steers reflects a broader shift in compact equipment design. As emissions regulations evolve and OEMs consolidate, engine choices become strategic decisions. Both Kubota and Doosan offer capable powerplants, but their differences in emissions systems, support infrastructure, and field history mean that buyers must look beyond the badge. In the end, the best engine is the one that fits your workflow, your service network, and your tolerance for complexity.
When Bobcat introduced the S850 skid steer, contractors were faced with a critical decision: choose the proven Kubota Tier III engine or wait for the newer Doosan Tier IV final powerplant. This wasn’t just a matter of horsepower—it was about emissions systems, fuel efficiency, long-term support, and field reliability. The Kubota had a reputation for durability and simplicity, while the Doosan promised modern compliance and a non-DPF design that appealed to operators tired of regeneration cycles.
Kubota’s Legacy of Reliability
Kubota engines have powered compact equipment for decades. Known for their mechanical simplicity and consistent performance, they’ve earned trust in agriculture, construction, and rental fleets. The Tier III version used in the S850 was a 3.8L diesel with a common rail injection system and a diesel particulate filter (DPF). While the engine itself was solid, the DPF introduced complexity.
Operators who ignored passive regeneration warnings or attempted to override them often triggered engine derates—reducing power by up to 75%. At that point, only a dealer-initiated service regeneration could restore full function. This made the Kubota engine highly dependent on operator discipline and dealer support.
Doosan’s Entry into the Bobcat Lineup
Doosan, a Korean industrial giant with over 50 years of engine-building experience, acquired Bobcat in 2007. The transition marked a shift in engine strategy. By 2015, Bobcat-branded Doosan-built engines began replacing Kubota units across the lineup. The Tier IV final Doosan engine in the S850 was a 3.4L diesel, smaller than the Kubota but designed to meet emissions standards without a DPF.
This non-DPF design appealed to many contractors. It eliminated the need for regeneration cycles and reduced fuel consumption associated with DPF burn-off. However, concerns lingered about parts availability, service training, and long-term support—especially in North America, where Doosan engines were less common.
Fuel Efficiency and Performance Tradeoffs
One of the key debates was fuel burn. Reports from the field suggested that the smaller 2.4L Doosan engines used in other Bobcat models consumed more fuel than the 3.3L Kubotas they replaced. This made sense: extracting the same horsepower from a smaller displacement often requires higher RPMs and more fuel.
In the case of the S850, the Doosan’s 3.4L engine was closer in size to the Kubota, but still slightly smaller. Operators noted that while fuel consumption was comparable under light loads, the Doosan engine worked harder under full load, potentially offsetting gains from the non-DPF design.
Support and Service Realities
Dealer support played a major role in engine preference. Some technicians reported that Kubota’s technical assistance became limited after the Doosan acquisition. Others found that Doosan engines received better support because they were now the standard across Bobcat’s fleet.
The reality is nuanced. Kubota engines were often treated as “stopgap” solutions during the Tier III era, while Doosan engines were integrated into Bobcat’s long-term strategy. This meant that parts, diagnostics, and training were more aligned with Doosan going forward.
Recommendations for Buyers
When choosing between Kubota and Doosan engines in Bobcat skid steers, consider the following:
- If you prioritize proven reliability and have strong dealer support for Kubota, the Tier III engine may be the safer bet
- If you want to avoid DPF-related downtime and prefer a simpler emissions system, the Doosan Tier IV final engine offers advantages
- Evaluate your dealer’s experience with both engines—support quality varies by region
- Consider fuel burn under your typical workload, not just spec sheet numbers
- Ask about warranty terms, especially regarding emissions components and service intervals
Conclusion
The Kubota vs. Doosan debate in Bobcat skid steers reflects a broader shift in compact equipment design. As emissions regulations evolve and OEMs consolidate, engine choices become strategic decisions. Both Kubota and Doosan offer capable powerplants, but their differences in emissions systems, support infrastructure, and field history mean that buyers must look beyond the badge. In the end, the best engine is the one that fits your workflow, your service network, and your tolerance for complexity.
