Other than staying under the 75 HP threshold, why do skid loader mfrs. hold back on Horse Power? Why not 100 HP? I can see the small diesels being OK in 6,000 to 6,500 lb. machines......that 74.3 HP (or whatever) might be fine. Seems to me that the 7,000, 8,000 and 9,000 LB. and up machines could use some serious up powering. I see that even Case which has not been shy about adding DEF to their bigger machines, and therefore have no need to observe the 75 HP threshold................still don't get much above 80 HP. Why not 100 or even 110 HP? I'd love to get beyond skid loaders that stall out
Get a Cat, John Deere, Mustang ect all 100 hp and up
Cat's 272D2 XHP is 110hp. I think this is the highest ho for a skid steer as far as I know.
Skid loaders stall out because (A) You're using it wrong. Or (B) If computer controlled, it's programmed wrong. Not because they're underpowered. Slower than you'd like, yes, but a hydrostat that's properly engineered and controlled should never stall the engine. On the other hand you can't go wrong usually with more power, lol
HP is not the only spec to look at, CASE and Deere both have more torque than CAT even with less hp.
gehl's 7810e made 110 hp in what 2005? Bobcats 963, 973, and maybe the 6 wheelers made that hp in the 2000's... I would consider the reason skidloaders are not bigger due to the fact that they are hard on themselves and their tires due to their design. Larger than that, and we go to wheel loaders, tool handlers etc... Also no one wants a skidloader larger than 10k pounds due to the transportation complications, same reason why excavators almost skip from 10k to 20k pounds
The bobcat 974 etc. size machines were unwieldy as I recall, good for specific purposes but not usually in a contractor's fleet. Big enough to hurt themselves or get stuck, lol. Still rated under a hundred horse I think.
It seems that the HP went back down to under a 100, I thought to avoid tougher emissions standards about 5 years ago, not sure.
I drove the big Bobcat, 980?? Had the cummins 4cyl in it. As lantraxco said, they are unwiedly, there's a lot of weight to control. The response time is nothing like an 1800lb class machine. Ed
Seems to me they work great in tight places with hard surfaces where good yardage is needed along with a good lift height. I've seen one with a rollout bucket that really had a tall dump height.
I heard the 980 was kind of a dud with the planetaries in the hubs. The 970, 974,975 and 1075 were brutes and I bet would do circles around a track loader(JD 350) the same weight.