CAT 236 Skid Steer vs Waldon 5100 Articulated Loader Comparison

[MikePhua]

Test Setup and Context

• Two machines of nearly the same weight were compared: the Waldon 5100 articulated loader at about 7,100 lb versus the CAT 236 skid steer at around 7,000 lb.
  
• Objective: Digging into a stockpile of excavated dirt (not a virgin pit), filling the bucket. Each machine took turns under identical conditions.
  

Observed Differences

• The Waldon 5100 struggled to bite into the pile; it couldn’t get full bucket penetration. The front tires often spun, digging holes rather than pushing forward. Its bucket would only contact the surface, not deep enough for a full scoop.
  
• By contrast, the CAT 236 skewed forward into the pile, using the bucket and boom in sync to load it fully, with less wheel spin and more traction. It overcame the resistance of the material more effectively.
  

Technical Factors Behind the Performance Gap

• Drivetrain & Differential Setup: The Waldon 5100 employs Dana 60 axles front and rear, both powered by hydraulic motors, but without locking or limited-slip differentials originally. This setup allows tires to slip more easily under load.
  
• The CAT 236’s skid steer design inherently keeps all wheels locked together in steering and drive functions, providing more consistent torque to all wheels during digging. This makes a major difference in traction under load. Participants in the test pointed to the lack of a locking differential on the Waldon as a key weakness.
  
• Weight Distribution & Center of Gravity: Skid steers tend to shift more weight rearward into the drive tires during loading and bucket lift. This improves traction. The Waldon, being articulated and with its front bucket geometry, cannot shift weight as effectively; its front end tends to get light or lose grip when the bucket enters the pile.
  
• Bucket Penetration & Boom/Kinematic Geometry: The CAT 236 could engage its bucket and boom more deeply; the Waldon’s geometry meant its bucket only skimmed the pile’s face rather than digging in. The deeper penetration gives more load per pass.
  

Modifications & Solutions

• The owner later installed a locking differential in the rear axle of the Waldon 5100, which yielded major improvement: it could push into dense material nearly like the skid steer. Then added one in the front axle too, which further reduced tire spin and improved bucket fill.
  
• Tire/tread selection was also noted: tires with better traction and possibly more aggressive treads helped. Proper tire pressure (neither overinflated nor underinflated) plays a role.
  

Lessons & Recommendations

• For digging into stockpiles or other piled materials, machine types matter: skid steers or loaders with good front-traction and proper differentials will outperform articulated loaders without such features.
  
• If using an articulated loader in digging/stockpiling tasks, consider these enhancements:
  • Locking or limited-slip differentials on both front and rear axles
    
  • Appropriate tire tread designed for grip rather than just smooth surfaces
    
  • Operator technique: keeping bucket rolled back, lifting slightly as entering the pile to help weight transfer
    
• Check geometry: bucket shape, boom angle, load height—all affect penetration and load per bucket
  

Conclusion
Even machines of equal weight can perform very differently depending on traction, weight distribution, and drivetrain configuration. In this case, the CAT 236 skid steer significantly outperformed the Waldon 5100 articulated loader in filling its bucket from a stockpile due to better traction, drivetrain locking, and bucket penetration. With modifications like locking differentials and better tires, the Waldon’s performance improved markedly—but still, the test highlights that certain machine designs are inherently better suited to digging into piled material than others.