Hi all, I have a Cat 928G with a pin on 3 yd bucket. What are my options for upgrading to having a coupler. I understand I need to make adjustments to my current bucket to fit onto the coupler. A JRB hydraulic coupler costs $5800. Are there any non-hydraulic but rather manual couplers? I know there are some for excavators. Ultimately I'd like to have my current bucket, a light material 5 yd bucket and forks at my disposal. I don't want to spend 20-25k on all that. Thanks for your advice.
That's a bargain price for a JRB coupler, if it fits and it works. I haven't seen JRB on a Cat, only Balderson and Cat's new Fusion coupler. You also need the hooks to weld on to your bucket, and the other attachments that you want to mount on the loader, so that adds to the cost. I wouldn't do cheep; a bad coupler turns the machine into a dog. Something like an old-style ACS coupler puts the bucket farther forward of the pivot pins, and it makes the bucket a clumsy turd to work with. Where I am, 20 to 25K would be a minimum to get a correctly working coupler, hooks on your bucket, an additional large bucket, and good forks. PS: hydraulic couplers are necessary, for the force to push the locking pins. I have a machine with a Weldon-Beals manual locking coupler. You can't push or pull the pins in or out by hand. It takes hammers and drifts to move the pins, not fun.
Thanks Jim. I did look at a balderson Manuel coupler but it was only $250 cheaper than the hydraulic style which was $6000. Part of the problem is my machine is so old, the arrangement of the arms is not common. If I had a 924g or a 930 there are plenty of couplers out there for $1000-$2000 Right now my options are Jrb $5800 Balderson $6000 Cat it $6000 However I think I can save $1500 on the cat and maybe the others if I don't purchase the hydraulic hookups but instead connect it to my machines auxiliary which has a lever in the cab. I don't plan to have any attachments that utilize it. Do you think that would work? What do you think is the most common attachment type of the three? I feel that there are more IT and jrb attachments out there, but I'm not sure.
Ever think of trading the G off for an IT?
Not at this point, im comfortable with the history of the machine and how it has performed. At my price range of 35-40k for a machine, they arnt all reliable. I'd rather upgrade a mostly known thing.
We found a balderson coupler for a 938 a few years ago on a auction site. Iron Planet I think. Paid around $2000. Our loader already had the third valve on it, so we used that to run the coupler. You can get the receiver to weld on your existing buckets fairly easy. Cat has them. Some aftermarket attachment companies also sell them. North American Attachments may be able to make you some. If your not in a hurry just keep checking some auction sites. one will turn up.
When I was looking for a loader recently, a coupler wasn't high on my list of priorities. The 950 I ended up with is fitted with a fusion coupler and came with forks as well as a jib, which was even lower on my list. Now, I believe a coupler to be almost essential for a loader, particularly in an ag. application and I find myself using the jib nearly every week. IMO, $6000 would be money well spent.
If you asked me to choose I would go for a loader with a fusion couple over an IT any day. The non-Zbar linkage on the IT's sucks big style IMO.
Are you saying that you don't like the IT style of lift cyclinders vs the zbar? Or you don't like the IT style coupler. How come? Right now Cat is offering me an IT style coupler for my 928G. I don't think they have a fusion style coupler that would fit my machine because my pin configuration seems to be outdated. So in that case would you take a JRB coupler over the IT coupler?
Sorry I was not clear. I was comparing the tilt linkage of an IT versus the Z-Bar tilt linkage on a loader rather than commenting on the coupler.
What is your qualm with the IT style?
If you're using the machine as a loader the hydraulics are too slow, basically due to the fact that the IT has to have enough fine control for using forks, jib, etc, etc. As a loading tool an IT sucks. We have a couple here that were bought because they "seemed to be the right thing" or because of a perceived need for "flexibility" but in fact they are far from being the right thing when they spend 60+% of the time with a bucket attached to the front, hence my preference for a loader with a fusion coupler. To me the only way an IT would work well is if bucket time was probably 10% of the total time it was being used, and it had the other attachments on it for the other 90%.
I completely agree! We had an IT62h and although it was a nice machine our 966k with coupler is a way better machine for what we needed it for. The IT with a bucket just never felt right. On an older IT62g I ran the quick coupler attachment points were extremely worn and sloppy. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk