From "MTL" to Compact Track Loader: How CAT's Rubber-Tracked Naming Changed While Bobcat's Never Did

Shop for a used rubber-tracked loader online long enough and you'll eventually hit a listing calling it a "Multi Terrain Loader" instead of a compact track loader. That's not a typo or a different category of machine — it's Caterpillar's own former name for exactly the kind of equipment the CAT 249D3 and Bobcat T76 both are today. The naming tells a real story about how this equipment category grew up, and it's worth untangling before that confusion costs a buyer money comparing a used machine against a current one.

Caterpillar's "Multi Terrain Loader" Era

For years, Caterpillar sold its rubber-tracked loaders under the Multi Terrain Loader name — machines like the 247B MTL, 257B MTL, 277C MTL, 287C MTL, and 297C MTL were marketed as their own distinct product line, separate from the wheeled Skid Steer Loader lineup even though the two shared a very similar frame, cab, and hydraulic system. The "Multi Terrain" name was doing real marketing work at the time: rubber tracks were still a newer alternative to tires in the compact loader class, and emphasizing the ground these machines could cross — mud, turf, loose fill, snow — was the clearest way to explain to a buyer why a track undercarriage justified its added cost over a comparable skid steer.

Today's CAT Compact Track Loader Lineup

That separate branding is gone from CAT's current lineup. Today's D3-series rubber-tracked machines — the 239D3, 249D3, 255, 265, 275, 275 XE, 285, 285 XE, 299D3, and 299D3 XE — are simply called compact track loaders, the same descriptive term the rest of the industry uses. The 249D3 sits solidly in the mid-size end of that lineup, and it's a genuinely popular machine for contractors who need a track undercarriage's flotation and traction without stepping up to the larger 255 or 265 frame.

CAT has kept expanding that lineup rather than letting it stagnate — our coverage of the new CAT 253 compact track loader that landed between the 249D3 and 255 in 2026 shows the same platform still getting new entries, all under the same plain "compact track loader" naming convention rather than a reintroduced specialty name.

Bobcat Never Needed to Rename Anything

Bobcat's track-loader lineup didn't go through the same rebrand, because it never carried a separate specialty name in the first place. The T-prefix machines — T76 among them — have been marketed as compact track loaders for as long as Bobcat has built rubber-tracked machines, running in parallel with the S-prefix wheeled skid steer line using the same straightforward naming logic the whole time. There's no old Bobcat brand name a shopper needs to recognize as equivalent to a current model; the T76 of today and the T-series machines of a decade ago are described the same way on the spec sheet.

Why the Naming Settled on "Compact Track Loader"

The industry-wide shift away from specialty names like "Multi Terrain Loader" tracks with rubber-tracked loaders becoming a mainstream, high-volume category rather than a niche upsell. When tracked undercarriages were uncommon, a distinct product name helped a manufacturer explain why the machine cost more and did something different from its wheeled sibling. Once track loaders became a normal, expected part of nearly every compact-equipment manufacturer's lineup, the plain descriptive term won out — it's simpler for a buyer cross-shopping CAT against Bobcat, Kubota, or John Deere to compare "compact track loader" specs directly rather than mentally translating one brand's specialty name into the generic category first.

The compatible-carrier lists manufacturers publish for their own attachments are a useful, if unglamorous, way to confirm a current lineup's actual naming. CAT's own box blade attachment compatibility sheet, for instance, lists the 239D3, 249D3, 255, 265, 275, 275 XE, 285, 285 XE, 299D3, and 299D3 XE as its compatible compact track loaders — plain model numbers with no specialty brand name attached, which is as clean a confirmation as any that the MTL designation is fully retired from CAT's current catalog.

What Actually Matters When Comparing Today's Machines

Naming history aside, the real comparison between a CAT 249D3 and a Bobcat T76 comes down to the same fundamentals as any track loader shopping decision: lift geometry (vertical lift favors truck loading and stacking at height; radius lift favors digging and dumping close to the machine), rated operating capacity and how it's tested under SAE J818, ground pressure and flotation from the specific track and undercarriage design, and total cost of ownership including undercarriage wear — tracks cost more to replace than tires, but they more than make up for it on soft, wet, or turf-sensitive ground where a wheeled skid steer would simply get stuck or tear up the surface.

Our existing head-to-head on the CAT 249D3 against New Holland's C330 walks through the vertical-lift capacity math in more depth if that's the deciding factor for your application — the same lift-geometry logic applies whether the competing machine is a New Holland, a Bobcat, or anything else in this class.

Undercarriage cost deserves its own honest mention, since it's the single biggest difference in total cost of ownership between a track loader and a wheeled skid steer that otherwise looks similar on paper. Rubber tracks wear as a function of hours, ground abrasiveness, and how much time the machine spends turning sharply rather than driving straight, and a full set of tracks on a mid-size compact track loader is a meaningfully larger expense than a comparable set of skid steer tires. That cost is worth budgeting for from day one of ownership rather than treating it as a surprise a few thousand hours in — it doesn't change the case for owning a track loader where the ground genuinely calls for one, but it does change the total cost math against a wheeled machine on ground where either one would actually work.

Trades That Actually Need a Track Loader Over a Wheeled Skid Steer

Deciding between a wheeled skid steer and a tracked machine like the 249D3 or T76 in the first place usually comes down to ground conditions more than any other factor. A contractor working exclusively on compacted gravel, concrete, or asphalt rarely needs the added cost of a track undercarriage at all, and a wheeled skid steer will outlast its tires at lower operating cost on that kind of surface. The calculation flips the moment a contractor's actual job mix includes regular work on turf, mud, loose fill, or snow, where flotation and traction genuinely change what the machine can get done in a day rather than just making the ride smoother.

Landscape and turf contractors protecting a finished lawn or golf course surface need the lower ground pressure a track undercarriage provides, where a wheeled machine would rut the ground on the way to the job. Demolition contractors working an unstable rubble pile get more usable traction from tracks than tires, especially once debris is wet or mixed with mud. Site development crews doing utility or drainage work in wet, unimproved ground need the flotation to keep working through conditions that would simply bog a skid steer down. Land-clearing and forestry-adjacent operators running a mulching head benefit from the added stability tracks provide under a heavier, front-loaded attachment.

It's also worth noting the reverse mistake: assuming an older CAT Multi Terrain Loader is automatically inferior to a current D3-series machine just because the name sounds dated. A well-maintained 277C MTL or 287C MTL can still be a genuinely capable machine for the right job, and the naming era says nothing on its own about hours, maintenance history, or remaining undercarriage life — those are the things actually worth inspecting before financing a used unit, old name or new.

Shopping Used Equipment Without Getting Tripped Up by Old Names

A used-equipment buyer who doesn't know CAT's naming history can genuinely get confused seeing a "Multi Terrain Loader" listing and wondering whether it's a different, less-capable category than a current compact track loader. It isn't — it's the same machine type Caterpillar simply markets under different words today. The practical lesson for anyone financing a used CAT track loader: match the actual model number and year against CAT's published specs for that specific unit rather than reading too much into whichever generation's marketing name shows up in the listing title.

None of this naming history changes resale value in any direct sense — buyers and appraisers price a used CAT track loader on hours, condition, and model-specific demand, not on whether the listing says "MTL" or "compact track loader." But it does mean a contractor browsing used inventory nationwide should expect to see both terms in the wild for years to come, since plenty of well-maintained older Caterpillar machines built under the MTL name are still working jobsites today and will be for a long time yet.

Equipment Financing for Either Lineup, New Naming or Old

BFC Equipment Loans finances CAT and Bobcat compact track loaders nationwide, whether the machine in question is a current D3-series 249D3, a Bobcat T76, or a used older-generation CAT unit still wearing the old Multi Terrain Loader badge. Our skid steer and compact track loader financing programs size the deal around the specific machine's actual condition and value, not its model-name era. Down payment requirements range from as little as $0 down for contractors with a strong credit profile up to 20-40% for newer or credit-challenged businesses, with approval weighing time in business, the asset's value, and overall credit profile. If a used listing's naming has you second-guessing what you're actually looking at, our team can help confirm the specs before you commit to financing it.

Ready to move forward? Visit our home page, apply for equipment financing, browse our equipment for sale marketplace, or subscribe to our blog for more equipment spotlights and comparisons.