NH 785 Skidloader

Formerly PaMike · Nov 20, 2008

What can all you guys tell me about a NH 785 skidloader? I did a google search and didnt find too many out there. Guy has one for sale. Says it has a perkins, but my info says it should be a ford diesel. Any one know what years they were made? Do they have the new quick attach? Were they good loaders?
Thanks

Anonymous-0 · Nov 20, 2008

Neighbors have a 785 that I've used numerous times. One heck of a machine and lots of capacity/power. I'm 99% certain it's a Ford diesel. The only bummer is it uses New Holland's bucket attachment system so you would have to buy an adapter for quick attach attachments.

r aiken · Nov 20, 2008

look here
new holland

Derek MN · Nov 20, 2008

We been feeding the cows with our 785 since '91 when we bought it new. The engine and hydraulic system have not required any repairs. Ours has a Ford 3 Cyl engine. I like it because it develops a lot of power at low idle so there's no need to have it wide open all the time like the Bobcats. Ours has the universal quick attach.

Formerly PaMike · Nov 20, 2008

Interesting. It shows both a ford diesel and a perkins...

RodinNS · Nov 20, 2008

I'm not too familiar with the machines of that vintage but I know that they used Perkins engines in some of them (of the series). They also used a smattering of others including Ford.
I don't think it would concern me much which one it had of the two. Both should be quite servicable.

Rod

mazemeister · Nov 20, 2008

we had one for many years, had a 4 cyl perkins diesel. the L785 was also available with a Ford diesel or a Ford gas. The perkins was a real bear to start cold, always needed ether for the first start of the day. had the nh style quick attach, not the bobcat style that now is pretty universal. We used it hard and often, wore out the first bucket. it tended to always leak hyd oil from somewhere. hoses to loosen or wear through from all the vibration. we replaced it with an LS180 just cause it was worn out and needed a lot of work. comparing the two, i'd say the 180 has stronger hydraulics, but it doesn't have the weight in the back so it tips forward with a heavy load where the old one just wouldn't lift it. also in muck the 180 seems to bottom out easier.

Anonymous-0 · Nov 20, 2008

It is much easier on the hydrostat to run skid steers at full throttle or very close to it. There wouldn't be that much difference between a NH and a Bobcat hydrostat. Dave

Formerly PaMike · Nov 20, 2008

Do you know what year yours was that had the perkins in it?

Spook · Nov 20, 2008

(quoted from post at 17:55:42 11/20/08) It is much easier on the hydrostat to run skid steers at full throttle or very close to it. There wouldn't be that much difference between a NH and a Bobcat hydrostat. Dave

Not really being too familar with hydrostats, why would full throttle be better?

RodinNS · Nov 20, 2008

The only reason I could think of is that a machine with a jap engine won't have much torque at half throttle, so running it faster gets it above it's torque peak, thus giving it some reserve. Most of the british engines like the Ford or Perkins have decent torque down to quite low speeds, so it's not as much of a factor to them.
AS far as the hydro is concerned, I'd say if you have the travel speed control you need at a lower engine speed, I can't see what difference it would make to run it faster. Since it's really all about the volume of oil being pumped, the hydro can do that with long slow strokes on a low speed engine or short fast strokes at a higher speed... Really, lower speeds should produce less wear on the pump bearings and rotating parts since they're turning slower.
That's how I see it anyway.

Rod

NH 785 Skidloader

Formerly PaMike

Member

Anonymous-0

Well-known Member

r aiken

Member

Derek MN

New User

Formerly PaMike

Member

RodinNS

Well-known Member

mazemeister

Member

Anonymous-0

Well-known Member

Formerly PaMike

Member

Spook

Well-known Member

RodinNS

Well-known Member

Similar threads