Heavy Equipment Forums Heavy Equipment Community

950H v 962H

Queenslander · 2015-11-30 05:44

Been looking around for a low(ish) hour loader in this size range. According to Ritchiespecs, the 962 has 14 more hp, and around an extra tonne in weight, but gives ground in other areas. For instance, less breakout force and lower dump clearance height. Just curious that Cat would have two models so close in spec, or am I missing something? Cheers, Greg

Replies21
  1. #1Nige2015-11-30 08:24

    Don't trust Ritchie specs. Try Googling for "950H Specalog" (and the same for 962H) which ought to lead you to a copy of the Cat sales brochure which contains accurate information. http://s7d2.scene7.com/is/content/Caterpillar/C811526

  2. #2ih1002015-12-01 17:41

    Interesting one this, the 950 & 962 are very close in spec. In fact the main frames are the same, with extra counterweights on the 962, same tranny, axles, C7 engine, etc. I never understood why they produce two loaders so close, particularly around this size. If you go to www.cat.com , you can get the specs directly off the site.

  3. #3ih1002015-12-01 17:46

    double post

  4. #4John C.2015-12-01 20:58

    It's a hot rod 950 and the people I have seen that have the 962 have mostly been working with crusher operations doing a lot of load and carry. Check the bucket sizes and see if the 962 is a touch larger.

  5. #5Queenslander2015-12-02 00:40

    Just a touch bigger..... also 672 has slightly faster forward travel speeds, reverse are the same. The 672 I have my eye on is working in the exact application you described.

  6. #6Queenslander2016-02-09 06:26

    Still looking for a loader... Missed out on the low hour "962" I had my eye on. There are a few 8000+hr machines around, but would prefer something a little fresher if possible. At the moment, I'am being tempted by a JD 644K with 4400 hrs. We ran a 624J for a while recently and where very impressed with the way it performed. Hope to check it out next week.

  7. #7Desertwheeler2016-02-09 11:07

    I have ran a 644k and didn't think it was a good as a 950. Seemed a lot lighter less stable to me. I just didn't care for it.

  8. #8Jim D2016-02-09 22:45

    I think the same thing. The Deere is faster but not as sure-footed. The Cat control response is better modulated, not as sensitive as the Deere's. I'm more tired at the end of a day in the Deere. PS: The Cat ride control seems to work better, IMO

  9. #9Desertwheeler2016-02-11 00:44

    Yes I agree the Deere did beat me up more and I didn't like the controls as much.

  10. #10Queenslander2016-02-12 02:41

    Thanks for the comments fellas. Before looking at the Deere I've had an offer of a 2012 950 with only 4100 hrs. Bad news is it's from a rental fleet. Good news is that it is the Cat rental store, so has full service history etc. Also has quick hitch and third valve and only asking 10k more than the Deere. No brainer?

  11. #11Jim D2016-02-21 14:19

    Yes. That is just the machine that I'm shopping for. I wouldn't care one way or another about being from a rental fleet; the condition of the machine and the repair history is what would matter to me. Good luck!

  12. #12Queenslander2016-02-21 18:14

    Still waiting for the dealer to fetch the machine back from another branch 1500 km away. Does this look like the standard gp bucket? We often have to load out of hard packed gravel stockpiles that have been sitting a long time so it is almost essential that the bucket have teeth. Any suggestions... weld on v bolt on adapters etc?

  13. #13Jim D2016-02-22 00:44

    I would shop for a package of bolt-on teeth. The loader has a coupler, you can get another bucket, say a 4-in-1, if you need to do other things.

  14. #14Queenslander2016-03-24 17:32

    Finally took delivery of the loader. The machine was actually in Darwin, 3500km away, so had to wait until the dealer brought it back from there and put it through their sale preparation program. They have quoted on k series adapters and teeth, but others have told me to steer clear of these and go for the ones with the horizontal pin.

  15. #15Nige2016-03-24 17:54

    Go for the teeth with the horizontal pin. I don't like the teeth that use the rubber wedge-style locks. Do you have the Part Number of the bucket that's installed on the loader..? I can probably come up with some Part Numbers for adapters and teeth based on what we used on 950/962H-series loaders on the last job.

  16. #16Queenslander2016-03-25 21:17

    Nige, the identifier plate is missing (they said they were going to replace it) but numbers underneath are, 311-6941 and 7NW09066 I've had no luck with these numbers on partstore, the bucket might be peculiar to the IT loader with Fusion coupler. Machine no is JAD 02141 Don't know capacity either but Iam assuming it is 3.1m/4.1y.

  17. #17Nige2016-03-26 06:42

    Those numbers are good. 311-6941 is the bucket Part Number, 7NW09066 is the Serial Number. The bucket is a 3.4cu.m General Purpose offering. Despite the fact that it's slightly smaller in capacity it uses the exact same base edge (141-4847) that was used on our 3.23cu.m. 141-3677 GP buckets. The rectangular wear plates at the back are 315-0096 (x2). Hardware is 4F-7827 plow bolt, 5P-8248 washer, and 2J-3506 nut. All times 8. Here are the Part Numbers we used for horizontally pinned teeth on that same 141-4847 Part Number base edge: - Tooth Adapters 6 x 4T-4307 - Adapter, Centre 12 x 5P-8136 - Bolt, Plow 12 x 8J-2933 - Nut 1 x 8E-5308 - Adapter, RH 1 x 8E-5309 - Adapter, LH 2 x 5P-8823 - Bolt, Plow 2 x 8T-9079 - Bolt, Plow 4 x 3K-9770 - Nut Pin-on Teeth 8 x 9N-4303 - Tip, Heavy duty 8 x 149-5733 - Retainer 8 x 132-4766 - Pin, GET If you want to go the whole hog and fit wear plates in between the tooth adapters on the base edge to protect the bucket lip (provided there are bolt holes for them but there should be) then you need: - 7 x 132-4715 - Edge, Segment 14 x 4F-4042 - Bolt, Plow 14 x 2J-3507 - Nut Drop me a PM with your email address if you want some illustrations to go with the Part Numbers above.

  18. #18Queenslander2016-03-30 03:33

    Thanks Nige, Found the bucket , with drawing, on partstore.... extra 1/3cu.m is a bonus. I ran the numbers past a local aftermarket GET supplier and Cat were actually $115 cheaper on the deal... also a bonus. Cheers, Greg

  19. #19mrappels2016-03-30 08:11

    the k series retainers tend to shear the rubber in them and the tip just drops off. but they do work alright. - just not very re-usable. all the buckets at the company i work for now sport j series adapters. they are also easier to get from generic suppliers. better cost per hour on most of the applications we run them in. and we can usually re-use the retainers two or three times. if you do modify a bucket with some adapters and a bit of half-arrow, make sure whoever does the fabrication either cuts a groove for the retainers or lines the adapters to give good clearance. have had a bucket arrive from our boilershop with freshly welded half-arrow and have had to cut slots in them to change the tips.. not fun when theres no cutting torch nearby.. but maybe you dont have those lapses in common sense where you are. good luck

  20. #20Queenslander2016-06-10 19:21

    Iam kinda embarrassed to admit it Nige, but I've gone against your good advice and allowed myself to be talked into k series teeth. Our Cat dealer is trying to entice customers to switch to the new teeth and offered me a set of adapters ($2300) for free, providing I purchased two sets of teeth. The irony is, though, after doing the deal, I discovered the nearest teeth are in Melbourne, half a continent away. At least I'll have a spare set of teeth when they do turn up. For fellow Qlders, I think the offer ends at the end of this month.

  21. #21Queenslander2019-10-21 16:21

    The tip deal is on again, this time with Advansys tips. From what I can work out they are around 50% dearer than the older style but include the retention components. So far, we’ve had a good run with the K series, no loose or lost teeth.