1. Welcome to PlowSite. Notice a fresh look and new features? It’s now easier to share photos and videos, find popular topics fast, and enjoy expanded user profiles. If you have any questions, click HELP at the top or bottom of any page, or send an email to help@plowsite.com. We welcome your feedback.

    Dismiss Notice

Anybody have a Bobcat 963, 953, 943?

Discussion in 'Heavy Equipment' started by AmesLandscaping, Mar 5, 2010.

  1. They are big... really big... wonder how they would do with a " big " pushbox... they are rare somewhat.....
     
  2. NICHOLS LANDSCA

    NICHOLS LANDSCA PlowSite Veteran
    Messages: 4,308

    They are big, a buddy had 2 963's. They really suck fuel, I think they are 100 or 105hp. He has S300's now and says the 963's pushed more but the S300's are much better on fuel and stack higher. He has 10' plows on them. You could put a 12' pusher on it but would probably be better off with a 10'er. The biggest problem with a skid is the short wheelbase can cause traction issues.
     
  3. rob_cook2001

    rob_cook2001 2000 Club Member
    Messages: 2,181

    They are also all single speed correct? My friend at the bobcat dealer said they were fuel guzzler's to.
     
  4. WIPensFan

    WIPensFan PlowSite Veteran
    Messages: 3,489

    They weren't built to be fuel efficient! They were built to push & lift heavy sh!t.
     
  5. JD PLOWER

    JD PLOWER PlowSite.com Veteran
    Messages: 751

    our 953 pushes just fine but we haven't pushed much with it in the last several years other than salt. It could probably do a 10' box but you'll have to watch the run length and depends on the type of snow, wet or dry. And yes they are not intended to be fuel efficient.
     
  6. NICHOLS LANDSCA

    NICHOLS LANDSCA PlowSite Veteran
    Messages: 4,308

    Both of my buddys were 2 speeds
     
  7. snocrete

    snocrete Banned
    Messages: 2,862

    The 963 had a 2 speed option....953 & 943 did not. What about a 980? I think they were supposed to be around a 14 or 15000lb SS!!! 4000lb r.o.c. I dont think they had a 2sp option either though...and i bet they really sucked fuel.

    Have you considered a S330??? I ran one in the dirt one time. Very impressive machine..... definitely no T320 in the dirt, but for pushing snow it would be awsome.
     
  8. This winter I had rented a s250 and s300....never ran a s330 ....look like on paperwork s330 to s300 is tire size.... and 2 inches more lift... has to be from tires.....now----- s250 to s300.... the only thing I noticed after 12 hrs of loading trucks... full buckets of snow... lifting and turning and raising all at the same time... the s300 did not bog down or slow down compared to the s250.......... I will see if I can scan this in for everybody to look at :) has specs from s220, s250,s300,s330
     
  9. snocrete

    snocrete Banned
    Messages: 2,862

    FYI, the "paperwork" you just listed also shows it has more weight & hp.
     
  10. Yes..... you are right... but I am talking actual size of the machine... spec wise on size the the only difference between a s250, s300, s330 is the tire size.. s330 have the bigger 14.5... the other 2 have 12.5 tires.... from the factory.... frame, boom wheelbase ,etc is the same size...motor wise I am not sure if they are the same cubic inch, just tweaked for more power???? If you took the tires and wheels off a s330 and the others... took the stickers off, on the outside these 3 machines look the same..... But size wise a 963 is a bigger machine when parked next to a s330 ...... A 953 and 963 size wise were the same... a 943 was a shorter wheelbase than the 953 & 963.......... I wonder how come bobcat never made a vertical path machine in the 963 size??????????????
     
  11. snocrete

    snocrete Banned
    Messages: 2,862

    cubic inches are the same from S220 - S330.

    This may not be the answer about why they dont make the 963 size machines anymore.....But my guess would be that they were to big and bulky (and heavy) to do the type of work skid steers shine at. With that size machine I would assume one would just go to a small wheel loader? I am sure there are niche markets that benefit from a rig like the 963.....just maybe not enough to sustain a production line of them?? Either way, I would much rather have any large frame S series bobcat over a 963 or the likes (even an S220). More comfortable, more reliable, faster cycle times, better fuel consum., etc etc. JMO.

    Note: I will have to check, but I even think the newer S series Bobcats have a faster 2 speed travel than the old 9 series?
     
  12. justinzich

    justinzich Member
    Messages: 54

    A local house mover I believe has a 963. Thing is huge, looks like truck tires on it. They use it every year during the county fair demolition derby. They run forks on it and it picks up those old cars without any trouble. But I agree my guess is a new S series would out run and out work one.
     
  13. NICHOLS LANDSCA

    NICHOLS LANDSCA PlowSite Veteran
    Messages: 4,308

    As far as wheelbase the 943-963 all had different wheelbases. 963 had the longest. If you want a big vertical lift machine look at a Mustang/Gehl. Some other ones to look at would be a 280/332 Deere, 252-272 Cat, or 180&190 New Holland.