ACE AG 176 VS Komatsu GD705-5 Motor Grader

₹ 74-76 Lakhs^*

ACE AG 176

Engine

Ashok Leyland 180 HP
Blade

3650 mm
Weight

15000 kg
Turning Radius

7800 mm
Max Forward Speed

36 km/hr
Max Reverse Speed

22 km/hr

Medium (12-20 Ton)

Price Available Soon^*

Komatsu GD705-5

Engine

Komatsu 260 HP
Blade

4320 mm
Weight

19300 kg
Turning Radius

7600 mm
Max Forward Speed

42.5 km/hr
Max Reverse Speed

30.0 km/hr

Medium (12-20 Ton)

Add Equipment

The comparisons provided are based on the technical specifications published by the respective OEMs on their official websites and brochures. Please confirm these details directly with the OEMs before macking any final decision.

Key Highlights	ACE AG 176	Komatsu GD705-5

ACE AG 176 VS Komatsu GD705-5 Motor Grader

ACE AG 176

₹ 74-76 Lakhs

Komatsu GD705-5

Price Available Soon

Particulars	ACE AG 176	Komatsu GD705-5

Overview Summary

The ACE AG 176 offers suitable power and maneuverability with a strong blade down pressure for grading, while the Komatsu GD705-5 brings a higher horsepower and larger blade length that may deliver higher productivity for large-scale projects.

ACE AG 176 Motor Grader

Pros:

Offers a decent power output of 180 HP suitable for various grading tasks.
Equipped with a powershift transmission and 4-wheel drive for better maneuverability.
Blade down pressure of 7140 kgf allows for effective ground penetration and grading.
Standard AC Cabin improves operator comfort during long working hours.

Cons:

Lower engine power compared to the Komatsu GD705-5.
Shorter blade length than the Komatsu model, potentially affecting productivity.
Lower fuel capacity may require more frequent refueling stops.
Max forward speed is lower than the Komatsu GD705-5, which may impact efficiency on large sites.

Komatsu GD705-5 Motor Grader

Pros:

Higher engine power of 260 HP, which can be advantageous for heavy grading work.
Longer blade length of 4320 mm, allows for wider swathes and potentially higher productivity.
Greater fuel tank capacity that can lead to extended operating times between refueling.
Improved turning radius that is slightly better can provide improved maneuverability.

Cons:

Price information is currently unavailable, making cost comparisons difficult.
Greater operating weight might limit maneuverability in certain conditions compared to the lighter ACE AG 176.
Advanced features such as GPS come standard, which could imply a higher price point, potentially impacting the cost-benefit analysis.

Closing Recommendation

If the budget is not a limitation and the focus is on handling larger, more demanding projects, the Komatsu GD705-5 with its higher power and blade length appears to be a suitable choice. For operators prioritizing machinery that combines efficiency with maneuverability for a variety of tasks, the ACE AG 176 can be a cost-effective alternative. Final recommendations should also consider the total cost of ownership, including purchase price, fuel efficiency, maintenance costs, and the availability of service and parts.