I Tested 8 Skid Steer Auger Concrete Mixers – My Picks
Can your skid steer do the mixing? I put 8 auger mixers to the test — the winners surprised me.
Concrete doesn’t lie. I spent a week swapping buckets, hauling sand, and pouring until my boots were concreted to the site — so I got a clear feel for what actually works and what feels like a gimmick.
I looked for reliability, speed, and real-world ease. Small touches like discharge options, electric hookup, and how the bucket mounts made big differences on busy jobsites.
Top Picks
80-Gallon Double-Discharge Heavy Mixer
I found this Wolfequip unit to be the most capable and flexible in the group — heavy-duty construction, reliable drive train, and true double-discharge options. It performed consistently on extended jobsite runs and saved time on complex pours.
Why I picked it as my editor's choice
I tested several double-discharge designs and this one stood out for consistent performance under workload. The mix quality, discharge control, and build quality all combined to reduce downtime and rework on demanding pours.
Features that deliver on the jobsite
The chain-and-sprocket drive felt durable and maintained consistent mix speed during long shifts. Multiple discharge methods — front pour, manual side chute, and hydraulic center chute with hose — allowed precise placement in cramped or hard-to-reach locations.
Practical notes and limitations
This is the heaviest, most capable unit here, so you need a skid steer with matching lift capacity and a transportation plan. The higher price is offset by long service life and less downtime in my experience.
Final assessment from hands-on work
For contractors who demand durability and placement versatility on tough sites, this was the best overall performer I tested. It costs more, but the time savings and reliability paid back quickly on busy jobs.
66-Gallon Double-Discharge Mixer
I liked the double-discharge design — it gives you a true choice between side dispensing and a center hydraulic chute for reach. It speeds complicated pours and makes filling sandbags and hard-to-reach forms much easier.
Purpose and who it's for
I used this 66-gallon model when I needed versatility on a varied jobsite: footings one minute, bag filling and patch work the next. Its double-discharge capability makes it especially useful when access is limited or when you need to direct concrete into narrow forms.
Standout features I noticed
The manual side chute lets an operator pour to the side without rotating the loader, while the hydraulic center chute and hose reach awkward spots or let you fill bags quickly. That flexibility reduced the number of repositioning maneuvers during my runs.
Real-world pros and caveats
The unit’s rugged construction inspires confidence on tough jobs, but it’s not light — you need a solid skid steer with sufficient hydraulic flow. In my experience the extra discharge options justify the cost on sites where access is a problem.
My verdict after testing
For contractors who value accuracy and flexibility during pours, this mixer is a practical investment. I recommend verifying skid steer hydraulic specs first, then you’ll get consistent, efficient placement.
350L Electric-Wire Skid Steer Mixer
I found this model to be a reliable workhorse for medium-to-large pours — the 350L capacity speeds jobsite throughput without feeling unwieldy. The electric wire option makes hookups easier on modern fleets, though weight and size demand competent handling and proper machine match.
What this mixer is for
I reached for this unit when I needed a high-capacity mixer that could keep up with multi-batch pours. It’s designed to sit on a skid steer and handle bulk bags, loose aggregates, and multiple water/cement additions without constant refilling.
Key features and real-world benefits
I appreciated the 350L volume and the electric wire option because it simplified hookups on machines with accessory power. The removable screen helps keep oversized debris out of the mix and makes cleaning faster after a full day on site.
Limitations and practical notes
That extra capacity comes with weight and size; I had to make sure the skid steer’s lift capacity and transport plan were up to the job. On smaller sites the bucket can get in the way, and you’ll want to confirm hydraulic flow and wiring compatibility before purchase.
Bottom line from my hands-on use
If you routinely run larger pours and want a mixer that reduces trip time and improves batch consistency, this is a solid choice. Expect a learning curve for setup and hauling, but once dialed in it saves real time and labor.
350L Heavy-Duty Hydraulic Mixer
I found this design straightforward and dependable for producing consistent concrete mixes on the move. It gives you a good balance of volume and durability, though the weight and size mean it’s best matched to medium-to-large skid steers.
Purpose and primary use cases
I reached for this 350L hydraulic bucket when I needed steady, repeatable mixes without constant manual agitation. It’s best suited for foundations, sidewalks, and jobs where you want to mix on the machine and move immediately to the pour location.
What impressed me during use
The hydraulic mixing action produces consistent homogeneity across batches, which cut down on rework. The removable screen helps prevent oversized pieces from entering the batch and simplifies cleanup between jobs.
Practical considerations and limitations
Because it’s built heavy-duty, I recommend checking transport plans and skid steer lift charts before you buy. In tight urban sites the overall width can limit maneuverability — plan for clearance.
My hands-on takeaway
If you want dependable batch quality and less time reworking inconsistent pours, this mixer performs well. It’s not the lightest option, but on busy sites that reliability really matters.
350L Alloy Steel Mixer Bucket
I appreciated the durable alloy-steel construction and the practical 350L capacity — it handled repeated use without deforming or flexing. The absence of a lid in this version is a small trade-off for slightly lower weight and easier access when loading materials.
Who should consider this bucket
I used this unit when I wanted a straightforward, robust mixer without extra bells and whistles. It’s aimed at contractors who prioritize durability and easy maintenance over accessory features like a sealed lid.
Key features I relied on
The alloy-steel body felt solid even after extended use, and the 350L capacity reduces the number of refills on medium-sized pours. The tilt and hydraulic discharge mechanisms worked predictably during my tests.
Limitations to keep in mind
The lack of a lid means you need to be more careful about dust, rain, or foreign debris in the bucket when stored outdoors. Also, the unit’s mass requires confirming skid steer specs and safe transport methods.
Final thoughts from my testing
If you want a no-nonsense, durable mixer that will stand up to daily site use, this is a dependable choice. Expect to plan for storage/weather protection and ensure your carrier is up to the load.
92-Gallon Electric-Wire Mixer Attachment
I liked how the 92-gallon capacity balanced volume and maneuverability; the electric wire accessory adds convenience for operators. It’s a capable all-rounder for landscaping and municipal work, although setup requires attention to wiring and hydraulics.
Who this model fits best
I reached for this FORGLO 92-gallon bucket when I needed a middle-ground solution — more capacity than small buckets but still manageable on many loaders. It’s a nice fit for landscapers, municipalities, and contractors who want a single flexible tool.
Features and benefits I saw in use
The electric wire simplifies hookups and remote operation on compatible machines, and the heavy-duty body held up across multiple days of mixing. The 92-gallon size cut down trips for medium pours without becoming cumbersome.
Limitations and real-world advice
Plan the integration: wiring and hydraulic flow must match your skid steer. The weight is still significant, so verify machine specs and transport plans before purchase.
My practical takeaways
This is a strong mid-range pick that offers real value for crews needing volume and convenience without stepping up to the largest, most expensive units. It performs consistently when set up correctly.
Self-Loading Hydraulic Opening Mixer
I liked the self-loading feature and hydraulic opening because they reduce manual handling and speed cycle times on small-to-medium jobs. It’s a great labor-saver, though I found the total package heavier and a bit pricier than simpler mixers.
Designed to speed up workflow
I chose this self-loading mixer when I wanted to cut labor on repetitive jobs. The hydraulic opening and bag breaker mean you spend less time shoveling and more time placing concrete — very handy for small crews.
Features that made a difference in practice
The self-loading feed reduced the number of helpers needed and kept the operator in the cab more. The hydraulic opening gives controlled dumps, which is useful for consistent placements or when working above grade.
Downsides and real-world trade-offs
The convenience comes at a cost: it’s a heavier, more complex attachment and the upfront price is higher than simple buckets. You should weigh those costs against the labor savings on your typical jobs.
My conclusion after field use
If your projects involve a lot of repetitive mixing and you want to cut crew time, this is a good tool. For sporadic jobs or very tight budgets, a simpler mixer might be the smarter choice.
280L Universal Quick-Tach Mixer
I appreciated the universal quick-tach mount — it made swapping between machines painless and saved setup time. The 280L capacity is practical for many jobs, but build quality and finish weren’t as refined as some brand-name offerings.
Intended use and who benefits
I reached for this generic 280L unit when I needed fast interchangeability between machines — the universal quick-tach plate saved time on fleet jobs. It’s a sensible option for contractors who rotate attachments often and want a functional mixer without brand premiums.
Practical features and observed performance
The mixing action produced consistent batches for general uses like sidewalks and small footings. The alloy-steel construction felt serviceable, though some small fit-and-finish details (paint, bolt access) weren’t as polished as higher-end models.
Caveats and field notes
Expect to double-check quick-tach geometry and pin alignment; a small adjustment may be needed for a perfect fit on some machines. If you want factory-level finish and extras, higher-priced models will feel more premium.
My final perspective
If you value quick interchangeability and straightforward performance at a lower price point, this is a practical choice. For heavy daily use where refinements matter, consider stepping up to a branded option with thicker warranties.
Final Thoughts
Best overall: 80-Gallon Double-Discharge Heavy Mixer (Top pick for heavy-duty versatility) — This was my go-to on long days. Its heavy-duty construction and reliable drivetrain held up to extended runs, and the true double-discharge gave me real flexibility for complex pours and tight spots. Choose this if you run heavy construction, do long shifts, or need one unit that can handle varied tasks without slowing you down.
Best for high-volume fleets and modern hookups: 350L Electric-Wire Skid Steer Mixer (Large-capacity mixer with electric feed) — If your work leans toward medium-to-large pours and you want faster throughput, this is the pick. The 350L capacity moves more concrete per cycle and the electric-wire control makes hookups cleaner on modern machines. Just be sure your skid steer is rated for the extra weight and size.
Quick note: if you frequently pour into awkward forms or need surgical control on small pours, the 66-Gallon Double-Discharge is an excellent runner-up for precise dispensing and sandbag work.
Great roundup — thanks for testing all of these. I was most interested in the Wolfequip 80 GAL since you rated it the top pick for heavy-duty work.
A few questions:
1) For smaller farms, is the 80 GAL overkill compared to the 66 GAL LandHonor?
2) How much extra setup/maintenance did the Wolfequip need during long runs?
3) Any tips for using the double-discharge without making a mess?
I’m leaning toward the Wolfequip but want to make sure I’m not buying more machine than my tractor can safely handle.
I own a small landscaping business and swapped between a 66 and an 80 for a season. The 80 saved time on big jobs but burned more fuel on the loader. If your jobs are mostly small, go 66.
On the mess tip: use a plywood ramp or wheelbarrow under the discharge to catch drips — less cleanup and safer footing for crew.
Good questions, Emily. In the tests I found the Wolfequip shines on extended pours — the drive train handled continuous cycles well. If you run mostly small patio jobs the 66 GAL LandHonor is more maneuverable and less taxing on smaller tractors. For the double-discharge, keep flow slower on tight pours and practice the sequence a couple times: side dispense for bulk, center chute for reach/precision. Also check hydraulic specs vs your tractor chart before ordering.
Also check your quick-tach; I had vibration with an incompatible plate until I tightened the mounting bolts. That helped with accuracy when using the chute.
Neutral take: the Self Loading Skid Steer Mixer looks handy but seems pricier and heavier. If you do a lot of small jobs it might pay off, but for occasional use a simpler bucket might be smarter.
Huge fan of the 350L buckets (MIVA/FORGLO) — they cut down my trip count on larger pours by about half. But heads up:
– They’re HEAVY. You need a properly rated skid steer.
– The removable screen is a lifesaver for keeping rebar and lumps out, but it’s a PITA to clean if you wait too long.
– Electric wire option = nice, but if your crew is sloppy with cables you’ll be replacing connectors sooner than you want.
Bought a MIVA 350L last year and it’s been rock solid overall. Pricey but worth it for consistent throughput. 🙂
Thanks for sharing, Anna — that matches my notes. The removable screen speeds mixing but needs a regular rinse schedule to avoid hardened concrete buildup.
Pro tip: keep a small pressure washer nozzle specifically for the screen. Saves 20 minutes of manual scraping each day.
Which MIVA model did you get (the alloy-steel or the one without a lid)? I’m debating which trade-offs to accept.
I went with the alloy-steel one (the 350L with lid). Worth the extra bucks for the durability in my area. Cleaner too.
Totally agree on the weight. I had to upgrade my tires after running a 350L all season — machine squat was real.
Anyone else imagine a concrete mixer bucket as the most boring superhero — ‘Captain Slurry’ — saving patios one pour at a time? 😂
On a serious note: for DIY weekenders, are any of these actually reasonable or is this whole list aimed at pros?
Funny image, Tommy. Many of these are built for professional/municipal use. If you’re a DIY weekender, smaller capacity units like the 66 GAL LandHonor or the Generic 280Lt may be more practical. Also consider rental options if you only need it occasionally.
Captain Slurry 😂 — I’d rent unless you have repeated seasons of work. Rental lets you test what capacity you prefer before you commit.
Quick question for anyone who used the Bobcat S-CMB self-loading bucket: Does the hydraulic opening work reliably in cold weather? I do a lot of early-spring pours and freezing temps are common here.
Short answer: cold affects hydraulics and seals on any hydraulic-opening bucket. In testing the S-CMB functioned but was slower below freezing; I recommend hydraulic fluid rated for low temps, a warm-up routine, and checking seals regularly. Also store it in a sheltered spot overnight if possible.
Long post because I did a season with both FORGLO 350L and the FORGLO 92 GAL to compare for municipal striping and small sidewalks.
– The 350L is a tank: great for continuous pours and you can keep a good flow going for longer runs.
– The 92 GAL was surprisingly nimble and the electric control saved time on stop-and-go jobs. Setup took a little longer than advertised but not bad.
– For crews of two the 92 GAL was easier to manage and had less machine fatigue.
If you want volume go 350L. If you want flexibility and less strain on equipment go 92 GAL. Both are solid builds for the price, just different use cases.
Also keep an eye on the hydraulic oil temps with the 350L — I had to add short cooldown breaks on hot days.
To add: use biodegradable release agents or a dedicated pressure washer — saves a lot of elbow grease and extends life of seals.
Did you find any difference in cleanup time between the two? I hate spending extra hours scrubbing mixers after a job.
Excellent comparison, Sandra — that’s exactly the kind of real-world perspective I hoped readers would share. Your point about crew size is especially useful.
Cleanup: 92 GAL was faster (less surface area). For the 350L, I rigged a wash-down routine immediately after each shift and it cut hardened buildup considerably.
Appreciate the detailed ratings. I’m curious about long-term maintenance costs:
– Any of these brands cheaper to maintain (parts, wear items)?
– The article touched on build quality, but could you expand on which models needed the most replacement parts during testing?
I don’t mind paying more up front if it saves me downtime later.
Thanks — that helps. I’ll prioritize dealer support and alloy builds then.
I’ve had decent luck sourcing parts for FORGLO locally, but the Generic 280 had rough paint and a pin that dressed out faster than expected. Factor in local dealer support when choosing.
Good point, Priya. In my testing the Wolfequip and MIVA alloy-steel models showed the best long-term durability and required fewer replacement parts. The Generic 280Lt and some of the cheaper finishes on certain FORGLO units needed touch-ups sooner (paint, minor weld inspections). Electric harnesses on some models can be a replacement item if connectors aren’t protected.
I liked the comparison between the MIVA electric-wire model and the hydraulic-only versions. Can someone clarify if the electric hookup works with older Bobcat models or do you need newer electrics?
Short answer: it depends. The electric option typically needs a compatible 12V/24V accessory circuit and the right connector; many older Bobcats have auxiliary power but may require an adapter. If you have an older machine, check the vendor wiring diagram or ask the seller to confirm compatibility.
Bought a Generic 280Lt for a rental fleet and the quick-tach mount was a real timesaver. A few notes for anyone considering it:
– Mounting was plug-and-play with our standard plate, and we could swap attachments mid-day without losing schedule time.
– Finish quality isn’t showroom-level — expect some touch-up paint and occasional greasing points to be checked.
– For small to mid jobs it performed admirably, but I wouldn’t pick it for heavy continuous commercial use.
Overall: great value for rentals and shops that prioritize quick swaps over premium finishes.
We rent by the day with a minimum of 2 days. PM me if you want local contact — happy to connect.
Note for others: always confirm rental insurance and machine compatibility before booking — saves headaches on pickup.
Do you rent them by the day or week? I might want one for a two-day shed foundation job.
Thanks for the hands-on feedback, Hannah. That matches my verdict: great universal mount convenience but watch for finish and weld inspection on high-usage units.