Well as an independent you would probably not have the support for the Lindi or Jungheinrich as they require a laptop and programing. Crown in my opinion makes a terrible 3 wheeler.
The Mitsi and Cat are the same truck for the most part and both seem to stand up very well in the A/C version, the D/C versions were also pretty good but did go through the odd transistor(not a huge cost or a difficult repair.
Toyota had some bad gear boxes and the masts were not great from the ones I serviced the electronics were quite good though with only minor repairs ever required.
Hope that helps.

I have a customer interested in trading in his old Clark TM15 for something new so I decided to read the entire post... It got so far off the tracks, it was mostly a waste of time.

What is the criteria of a best 3 wheeler? Uptime, TCO, servicability?
Are we talking about a new unit or a few yr old unit?

As an independent shop, I would not touch a Linde (or variant) or a Jungheinrich. But I have select criteria to keep my customers happy.

I have had good experiences with the Crown, Yale and Hyster's. I find with proper maintenance I have relatively few unscheduled breakdowns and the parts pricing on all 3 can be reasonable.
I find the newer Toyota's to we weak in an abusive environment, gearboxes going etc. I have a few I look after and the downtime is terrible.

darly j,
Just a little bit of history from the former colony on the other side of the pond, a lift truck company named Allis Chalmers developed the same technology (regen. hydraulic lowering system based on the principle of driving a DC motor backwards & it becomes a generator) on a proto type unit called the "QJ 37" that had the mast behind the operator & the operator had the option to go up with the forks or not. It was exhibited at the MH show in Cobo Hall Detroit in the mid 1970's (1974?).
They received an initial order for 150 units from a major airline company but corporate did not want to commit to the total development costs. From about that point Allis-Chalmers started "dying the death of a ragged doll" - not because of the QJ 37 but for other reasons.

stills r50 and now rx50 no contest

I have to agree 100%, for the Techs out there that are unfamiliar with these units seek one out and speak with the operators and the truck tech, they'll all tell you nothing even comes close.

Just to keep are friends over the pond up to date still already have a reach truck with regenerative lowering from the mast. They also had as of at least two years ago a truck with capacitors to collect the returned energy.

I like crowns sc4500. Go full speed around a curve with the mast up it will not but has had less factory bug than I have seen in the past.Most operators of any brand truck will not use truck corectly.I have seen Isle Masters loading and un loading trucks running the full length of a very long warehouse and just being used as a forklift.When you tell customer this is an isle only truck,to load and unload racks they smirk at you.They have the repair costs to prove my point but still wont change the way they use it.People who wont listen and dont think is what makes most forklifts unsafe.I have seen a Toyota with the SAS sitting on its side.I dont think Toyota made it to work that way and cant figure for the life of me what that operator was thinking.

It is a good topic. Reading they comments, there are two main factor: one is the controller,2008, we would use own designed controller. The safety, we take the European Standard.

Another is maybe the price.

ToyotaMan, you hit the nail on the head. The regen does little to recharge the battery. I think the next step in reducing energy consumption is to capture the energy in capacitors. It is just a matter of time before the manufacturers figure out a system to re use the energy from regen braking or for that matter regen when the truck is lowering. Jungheinrich has regen when their stockpickers lower. Not sure if that is going back to the battery or they have capacitors or some batteries besides the lead acid battery in the truck to re use the energy captured from regen.

It's nice to finally hear the truth about AC. From a part/maintenance standpoint I agree less part equals less maintenance. As far as the power consumption is concerned their is very little if any difference. I spent some time about 3 years ago witha few engineers from one of the smaller lift truck manufacturers in GA. We installed an oscilloscope on one of their AC (traction only) and then repeated the test on a DC truck. Depending on the manner in which the truck was driven the current draw was the close to the same. If anything it was higher on the AC truck. Over the course of several years and hundreds of sophisticated power consumption tests (not using Curtis unit) on all brands of forklifts the truth on regenerative braking. It saves the brakes on the forklift and it is better than nothing for putting power back into a battery. On average, the Ah return to a battery over the course of an 80% discharge is about 1.8%. What this means is another 8 minutes of run time assuming you would normally discharge a battery in an 8 hours shift.

An educated and correct answer. I wasn't going that technical, however you hit it on the money. If there was a way to make the draw on the inverter energy efficient, there might be some truth to the increased batt time on an AC system. But the inverter has to do it's job, so.........
Agreed on the regen point. The way technology is going it won't be long before more truly efficient systems make there way.

Quick note on battery life

Regardless of OEM or salesperson's claims the basic facts are as follows:

The energy required to raise a load a certain height is a constant regardless of the forklift drive system - AC, DC - the only difference is the losses in the system. And resistance in wiring losses are lower with AC but this is only a minor effect.

And the total energy used is minimised if regenerative systems are used to recover braking and other energy. But once again the AC versus DC difference is small.

So on a pure AC versus DC comparison with all other things being equal battery life with AC might be increased a few percent - nothing like the increases some might claim.

If you're really after increased battery life regenerative braking systems and similar energy recovery systems are the key features to look for

Yeah, I may have spoken too soon on that deal. I was quoting what the OEM's are promising, not actual field knowledge of the AC performance. One downfall I have seen with the newer AC trucks is parts pricing. Way out in left field, and not just Toyota and German trucks, everybody. I'm waiting to see if this levels out as more units are sold.

batman, I agree with you on 2 parts on AC trucks; less parts ( no brushes, most encoders are integral, less brake wear ), and quicker response and ramp speeds. However, about that less batt consumtion, it's in the eye of the beholder. A lot of mfg's are using key on hours to compare and promote the benefits of ac. It's an easy sale when you say an ac truck can get12 hrs out of a batt when your using the key on meter. If you compare apples to apples ( traction hours to traction hours) there is not that much difference. It's all about the operator, truck, batt condition. Don't get me wrong, I'm pro AC, but promoting 1 1/2 - 2 shifts is not real life.

batman,

I believe you are correct about Jungheinrich and Linde. I'm not sure when Toyota introduced the AC truck in Europe.