Programmatic Comparison · Engineering Brief
Side-by-side technical comparison of the ARJES Impaktor 850 and Terex TTS 620 twin-shaft shredders — drive power, throughput, service intervals, and TCO.
| Spec | ARJES Impaktor 850 | Terex TTS 620 |
|---|---|---|
| Drive concept | Dual-shaft asynchronous low-speed hydrostatic | |
| Engine | Volvo Penta TAD 581 VE (Stage V) | |
| Drive power (kW) | 340 | |
| Drive power (HP) | 460 | |
| Operating weight (kg) | 24,000 | |
| Cutting torque (Nm) | 204,000 | |
| Shaft speed (rpm) | 11–35 (variable) | |
| Hydrostatic service interval (hrs) | 500 | |
| Shaft cassette swap time (hrs) | 2 (quick-change) | |
| Setup time (hrs) | 0.5 (SCU auto-calibration) |
| Material | ARJES Impaktor 850 | Terex TTS 620 |
|---|---|---|
| Old wood / biomass | 29-57 ST/h | 22-44 ST/h |
| Green cuttings / biomass | 50-99 ST/h | 39-66 ST/h |
| Commercial waste | 17-35 ST/h | 13-26 ST/h |
| Reinforced concrete (with rebar) | On-demand shred | Not recommended |
Gate fees, landfill taxes, and electricity prices swing the verdict by ±30%. Run the live TCO model for your region to see real payback.
Yes. Both machines sit in the 22–25 tonne twin-shaft shredder class and target C&D, biomass, and commercial waste applications. The Impaktor 850 offers 28% more drive power and 36% more cutting torque in the same footprint.
ARJES hydrostatic drive delivers roughly 50% lower maintenance cost over a 10 000-hour horizon, primarily due to 2× longer service intervals and quick-change shaft cassettes that eliminate 70+ hours of hardfacing repair per incident.
The Impaktor 850 is rated for reinforced concrete on demand. The Terex TTS 620 is not recommended for rebar concrete — its mechanical driveline is vulnerable to catastrophic failure under steel contamination.
Need a detailed TCO model for your facility and feedstock mix?
AXE Machinery d.o.o. is an independent authorized dealer of ARJES recycling machinery. AXE Machinery d.o.o. is NOT affiliated with, endorsed by, sponsored by, or in any way officially connected with Doppstadt GmbH, Hammel GmbH, Lindner-Recyclingtech GmbH, Terex Corporation, Sandvik AB, Metso Outotec, Morbark LLC, or any other manufacturer referenced in this comparative analysis. All third-party company names, product names, and trademarks are the property of their respective owners and are used solely for technical comparison and identification purposes under the fair-use doctrine.
All third-party trademarks, service marks, and trade names referenced on this platform — including but not limited to Doppstadt®, Hammel®, Lindner®, Terex®, Sandvik®, Metso®, Morbark®, Komptech®, UNTHA®, TANA®, and Pronar® — are the property of their respective owners. References to these marks are made solely for technical comparison, identification, and commentary purposes under the fair-use doctrine. Such references do not imply endorsement, sponsorship, affiliation, or partnership. AXE Machinery d.o.o. respects all intellectual property rights and will promptly address any concerns raised by trademark holders.
All performance metrics (KTQ uptime, fuel burn, throughput, torque, clog-rate) are derived from controlled test conditions documented per AXE internal protocol registry. Each metric is cross-referenced to a methodology ID, applicable ISO/ASTM/DIN standard, test date, and verifier identity. Test conditions include specified feedstock (e.g. concrete B25-B45 with rebar ≤32 mm), ambient temperature, operator profile, and observation window. Actual field performance may differ; contact AXE Machinery d.o.o. for a region-specific TCO analysis tailored to your operational profile.
Per Google's E-E-A-T (Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, Trustworthiness) guidelines, every quantitative claim on this platform is traceable to a primary source. Click any ℹ badge next to a metric to view: methodology ID, ISO/ASTM standard reference, test protocol revision, controlled test conditions, ISO-8601 test date, verifier identity, and verification status (self-verified / third-party / pending).
