# New Holland Stacker



## jdhayboy (Aug 20, 2010)

We are thinking of upgrading to a newer stacker. We currently have a 1069. It just seems the better i get at running the slower the machine gets. I always want to go a lil faster. Got a buddy that has a 1089 and he says he likes his old 1069 better. I have also heard the BW series tables work really fast(which is what i want). Just wanted to hear some different opinions. Thanks


----------



## hay hauler (Feb 6, 2010)

Alose wondering about the same thing... but more than speed i am wondering about durability and just strenght of the machine.... Leaf springs, motor, and hydro pump. I don't have a problem with manual controls or things like that... I ran one BW series wagon, It was defentily stronger but the computer would sometimes make the first table go so fast that the tie bales would fall off, so i guess not perfict even with a computer. Woulden't say it was faster untill the run to the barn... Then the motor and trans was really nice!!!!


----------



## Rodney R (Jun 11, 2008)

I can not compare to anything older than the 1089, we had one ran it for about 5 seasons and then got a BW38 ran that for 3 and now have a H9870 for the last 2 years.

The 1089 was pretty good. It's the basic machine that the BW38 is built upon. The 1089 had a 4 speed tranny (no lockup converter) and the 7.5L genesis motor. Used 2 pumps for hydraulic fluid, and drum brakes on the rear. Manual control of the load rack, everything else was an electric solenoid on the valve. Many of the little switches (for the hydraulics) I could find locally.

The BW38 used an Iveco engine and a 5 speed allison, and 2nd gear had the lockup. I thought the engine was hard to start. Used 3 hydraulic pumps, and all hydraulic functions had an electric valve. Used disc brakes fron and rear (the stopping power was better than the 1089) and the parking brake was a disc brake on the driveshaft. Cab had a rounded front window, extra lights, and the multi function handle to control everything - if one switch goes bad, you have to buy the whole thing. Load rack switch has 2 positions/speeds for dumping. I think the computer is nicer than the 1089. Gear shift was right along the window, just in front of the MFH. 1089 was aside of the dash, had to reach front to get it. BW38 also had a swivel seat. Fuel tank and straps are a big improvement over the 1089 - You used to have to lift the load rack to put fuel in it, and the way the supports were shaped, it would hold any dirt/mud/water it found. Also has much heavier steel in the uprights and supports for the load rack. And the rolling rack tines are adjustable.

H9870 is nearly the same as the BW38, cept the 1st table is square tubing, vs a round pipe. 2nd table is made to replace the steel on it, and the cylinder to raise the 2nd table is different (I only know that cause the service guy said that when they replaced it) Same engine, but it uses a common rail injection system, and will start at any given moment, and seems more responsive than the BW38. Hydraulic filter is inside the frame rails, and not near as easy to get to.

So far as any difference in the hydraulics..... I didn't really notcie any. I do know there is some adjustment on the H9870 on the 1st table..... not sure if that's just for 16x18's or not. The computer is much better on the BW38. Once you program the stack, and tell it what to do, it will do it till it's full, all you have to do is drive, unless you have hills. 1089 will also do that, but the 2nd table controls were built into the computer (if you were in manual mode, it would go so SLOOOOW on the way down)

On the 1089 1st gear (low range) was faster than the BW38 low range. 2nd gear is too fast on either machine, and the BW38/H9870 both have the lockup converter, and 2nd gear is when it locks..... As with any auto tranny machine, you should look at the fluid when you buy one, as I'm sure it's not cheap to rebuild one. I can't really comment on the frame/springs as we never had any trouble.

Rodney


----------



## JamesWinans (Sep 2, 2011)

I am thinking of upgrading my stacker too. It is very importaint for me, so you can imagine how I feel!


----------



## Teslan (Aug 20, 2011)

We used to have a 1981 gas 1069, which my cousin still has and uses. It was good for it's time, but now he is always dealing with break downs. We have a 2002 1089 with one of the first Allison transmissions in it and it also has the computer to control everything. Do I like it better then the 1069? 120% yes. No clutch, stack programming, diesel engine, I don't know how your friend could like the 1069 better. Plus we bale 16 inch wide bales and the 1089 can hold more of these bales then the 1069 could. I don't think my knee could take the clutch on the 1069 anymore. The one thing that I will comment on. Our 1089 below the 1st table has all the small hydrolic lines and control lines. When we stack grass hay pieces of grass fall out and start piling up on these and sooner the first table can't go down all the way and it's putting pressure on these control lines. The new stacker models (I haven't kept track of the numbers) I see they have moved these so it's no longer a problem. On our 1089 I think 2nd gear is just the right speed. 1st is just about useless. It did take me awhile to get used to the 1089 from the 1069 to run it really efficiently. Mostly due to getting used to the computer system from the manual system. What Rodney says about the 2nd table in manual mode is true. Soo Sloowww going down. But I just put it back in it's program and it goes down very fast. These are the little things I had to get used to. I do like the square tubing on the 1st table that the 1069 has better then the round that the 1089 has. It appears from Rodney's post that maybe they are back to square. The only reason why I like square is that it's easier to walk on if you have to get out there. Which no matter what stacker you have you will have to do at some point. We've never really had problems with the 1089 except from a couple issues that were quality control issues from the factory. When we first bought it one of the edges where the rolling rack runs was very very sharp and kept cutting strings so that had to be ground down. And someone at the factory forgot to put 3 bolts on the alternator and just put 2 so it vibrated and broke the bracket. But that's about it. The one thing about NH hay stackers. They usually don't decrease much in value thanks to New Holland's high prices on the new ones. In fact I'm pretty sure my cousins 1069 is still worth more then my dad and uncle paid for it in 1981. Heck our 1089 might be worth more then we paid for it. I hope this helps.


----------



## haystax (Jul 24, 2010)

Coming from the 3-string side of things and having some of the first 1075 wagons with earliest computer and solenoid systems, all I can add is that I think New Holland is finally building a quality product with the new series wagons. The frame and axles are much more robust and the computer and hydraulic controls are a little more advanced. I have had very little trouble with my 1095, hard to justify the cost of new compared to a decent 1095 IMO.

Regarding the slow operation of the second table - it is due to the computer not fully opening a spool and limiting flow because it thinks that if you are bringing a table down manually there must be hay on it and therefore heavy. Squeeze tie tiers in 3 string wagons move up halfway and then back down in order to slide the rail ties to the back to make room for the next rail bales to swing. The spool limits the flow to keep the table from slamming down. In "auto" the table comes down fast because the computer assumes the table is empty.


----------



## dbergh (Jun 3, 2010)

All interesting reading as I am still running a tried and true 1068. Would love to move up to something newer but $$ and volume just aren't there yet. I have to say that for my 160 acres the 1068 is a great value and I couldn't live without it (or at least I wouldn't want to!). Looking at expanding and may add a second newer machine in the future so appreciate the comments regarding the "newer" stuff.
Minor mechanical issues with my 1068 but so far nothing too major or expensive. It does keep you busy with routine maintenance and watching all of the lines and hoses so they are not rubbing and interfering with one another. 
Likes:
Easy to run and simple to maintain- its all mechanical.
Fast and efficient way to load and stack lots of bales. I can average 10 - 15 ton per hour on 1 to 2 mile hauls.
These are great machines and virtually eliminate any hand labor when it comes to stacking.

Dislikes:
Hydraulic flow is a bit anemic at times unless the RPM's are held up there steady but you get used to it. AC would be nice on those long hot summer afternoons after we've been up baling all night long!
Spring loaded rolling rack is a pain in the [email protected]@ at times if you are not careful.
4 speed manual tranny's are not the best but if you are easy on it you can get good life out of it.
Operator ergonomics are not too good for taller (6"2" +) operators. Seat doesn't go back far enough and really gives the left leg a work out on the clutch.

One thing we started doing this year when it looked like the rain was coming was to use the retriever to meet the stacker in the field and transfer the load to the retriever for transporting to the stack yard even on the short hauls. This is as good as having two stackers running especially if the haul is very long at all. Double the productivity.


----------



## haystax (Jul 24, 2010)

@dbergh -

How do you guys load trucks? Do you deliver everything with your retriever trucks? I am always amazed at the amount of hay in Idaho that is not in squeeze blocks or big bales.


----------



## Teslan (Aug 20, 2011)

Most of my hay buyers load their trucks by hand, But I do have a hay fork on my loader that can put the small bales on a truck or a trailer, but someone has to be on the truck or trailer to arrange them for a good load.


----------



## dbergh (Jun 3, 2010)

95% of what we sell is delivered within a 20 mile radius with the retriever. I try to never touch small bales by hand if we can help it. I build the cost of delivery in to the price of my hay and folks appreciate the service. it allows us to work on our own schedule and not deal with people coming into the stack yard at all hours on a minutes ( or no ) notice. I also don't like the liability of having people loading their own or messing with my stacks.
We do have a 10 bale grapple that we use occasionally but most folks are more than happy to just have us deliver in 4 ton loads.
80% of the hay we put up is in 4X4 bales so we are not handling all that many small bales relative to the total hay acreage.


----------

