• Thank you for visiting HeavyEquipmentForums.com! Our objective is to provide industry professionals a place to gather to exchange questions, answers and ideas. We welcome you to register using the "Register" icon at the top of the page. We'd appreciate any help you can offer in spreading the word of our new site. The more members that join, the bigger resource for all to enjoy. Thank you!

Why Not 100 HP Approx In A Skid Steer?

G

GapPowerWilly

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
21
Location
Gap, PA
Occupation
Equipment Rental
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 :)
 
L

lantraxco

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2009
Messages
7,704
Location
Elsewhen
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
 
stumpjumper83

stumpjumper83

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2007
Messages
1,979
Location
Port Allegany, pa
Occupation
Movin dirt
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
 
Last edited:
L

lantraxco

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2009
Messages
7,704
Location
Elsewhen
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.
 
ironjunkie

ironjunkie

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2011
Messages
133
Location
Maine
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.
 
Bumpsteer

Bumpsteer

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2009
Messages
1,345
Location
Front seat on the Struggle Bus
Occupation
Mechanical designer
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
 
L

lantraxco

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2009
Messages
7,704
Location
Elsewhen
Bumpsteer said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
W

Welder Dave

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2014
Messages
12,546
Location
Canada
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top