My Tractor Forum banner

1 - 20 of 41 Posts

·
My True Colors-Red+Silver
Joined
·
728 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Well, i guess i should start at the beginning-I am building a tractor with hydraulic drive to run a FEL. I have the engine and pump, so I asked for advice on what motor I should use. It would be driving a 4 spd truck tranny coupled to a narrowed axle with a 4.10 ratio. This is the current result-
"If the target speed is now 10 mph and there's 5280 feet in a mile, then (5280 x 10) the tractor must be capable of travelling 52,280 feet in one hour or (52,280 divided by 60) 871.333 feet each minute.

Since the tire rotates 98.38 inches per revolution, it will take (871.333 x 12 = 10,456 inches divided by 98.38) 106.28 revolutions of the tire each minute to cover that distance of 704 feet. We now know what the target wheel speed is. 106.28 RPM

The rear end has a ratio of 4:10 to 1 so in order to get 106.28 RPM at the wheel, the input shaft of the rear end must spin at (106.28 x 4.1) 436 RPM. If you put a standard automobile 3 speed transmission or the 4 speed truck tranny you now have in front of the rear end, top gear is still going to be 1 to 1 so that means the hydraulic motor must still spin at 436 RPM.

The link you provided yielded some interesting information to me. The model number of your pump indicates that you have two model 116YC pumps mounted in tandem with separate inlet and outlets. According to the charts, these pumps are NOT designed to spin faster than 3000 rpm. This is important. If you bought this as an "engine with pumps" setup and it came out of a piece of manufactured equipment, then the manufacturer should have spec'd the engine to be GOVERNED at 3000 RPM MAX. You need to verify that. Go to the website of the manufacturer after you locate the engine model and spec numbers. Make sure that this engine does not rev higher than 3 grand.

Governed engine speed affects pump output. The chart says that each of these pumps will THEORETICALLY produce 14.7 gallons of oil per minute at 3000 RPM and at 2000 PSI. We now have a lower flow rate than in our previous calculations.

We want 436 RPM at the motor shaft but if the pump/motor/system gives us a 10 percent loss, then realistically, we only have 13 GPM to play with. To arrive at 436 RPM, we need a motor of a certain internal displacement. 13 GPM is also 3003 cubic inches of oil (231 x 13) and we need to pass that through the motor every minute. In order to do that, we need a motor displacement of (3003 divided by 436) 6.89 cubic inches. But can we find a gerotor motor that will come close to our needs?

Grainger offers one that is smaller (5.9 cu in) and a couple that are larger (7.3 cu in). If you were to go with the smaller motor, it is capable of spinning UP TO 585 RPM but your theoretical 13 GPM will only spin it to 509 RPM which is well under the max and that's a good margin. So, let's say you choose this motor. What will the performance be?

Motor, Hydraulic, 5.9 cu in/rev, 4 Bolt - General Purpose Hydraulic Motors - Hydraulic Motors - Pneumatics & Hydraulics : Grainger Industrial Supply

If the motor does spin at 509 RPM, then the wheels will now spin at (509 divided by 4:10) 124. 15 RPM and if they cover 98.38 inches per revolution, then the axle will travel (98.38 X 124.15) 12,213.877 inches per minute or if you divide that by 12 it becomes 1017.823 feet per minute and if you multiply that by the 60 minutes in one hour, then you arrive at 61,069.38 feet per hour divided by 5280 to end up at 11.566 miles per hour. While this is higher than your target travel speed, it isn't stupid-fast.

Personally, I don't agree with your choice of transmission but there's no harm in trying it. The reason I don't agree is simple. You essentially end up with a trans-axle that has 4 ranges instead of the customary two. If this 4-gear is out of a typical 1 ton truck and it has a "bull-low", I think that you will find that range completely useless. You will be able to put it in that gear, step off the tractor and take a ten minute nap, wake up and find that the tractor has moved only a few feet away.

If you had all the spec's for the transmission ratios, the wide-open throttle travel speed in first gear could be easily calculated. My choice would have been the most compact 3 speed tranny I could find that was preferably all-synchro to make shifting on the fly easy.

There are other on line hydraulic sites such as Burden's Surplus Center that might have a better deal on a motor for this application. The above was nothing more than me trying to teach you how to choose a motor by showing you the math used. It is important that you use hydraulic hoses no smaller than 1/2" ID with a working pressure rating of at least 3000 PSI or a bit above. There's no justification to choose higher rated hoses unless you like tossing money away. Under-sized hoses cause internal friction which causes heat and heat is not desirable as it ruins hoses and degrades oil quality.

You will need a "motor control" type of valve to allow you to slowly meter the oil out to the motor in both directions. A low cost valve could be bought off of e-Bay from a parted out Case tractor. I've seen those sell for as little as ten bucks and if you get the travel/lift valve, then that would give you a spool to look after your 3 point hitch. Each spool in those valves has it's own relief which is exactly what you will need. The lift spool uses 1/4" hoses and the travel spool uses 1/2". The IN and OUT ports are 1/2" and the valve is more than capable of handling 13 gpm. You will need a pressure gauge to set the reliefs. They cost less than $20.00 at Northern Tool. I suggest a 5000 psi glycerin-filled model. The relief for the travel valve should be dialed back from the normal 2100 PSI setting used in a Case tractor to the 1800 PSI spec'd by Char Lynn. The implement lift relief could be dialed up from the normal 575 PSI Case setting to 1000 PSI as long as the cylinder you select will handle that much pressure safely.

When you think about how one normally operates a tractor, having the three point on the same circuit as the travel motor is no big deal. It won't interfere with your ground speed because you won't be using it while trying to move at ten mph. I think that I'd use the other pump to run the loader and power steering. You have way more pump volume than you need but that's ok. I'd use an adjustable priority valve to constantly steal 4 GPM from the 15 gpm pump flow and send it to the power steering unit. That would leave 11 gpm for the loader, which is still very high but it should be managable.

We may have to install flow controls on the loader lift and bucket cylinder circuits if they prove to be twitchy. But that's something that can be worked out later. You have the engine and you have the pumps. It's all about working around that combo and tailoring everything to it. Once again, I caution you.. I am not a hydraulics engineer. I don't know everything there is to know about hydraulics. What I have given you is my theory as to a choice of motor. Most of the hydraulics houses have people who are more educated on this issue than I am. I urge you to send them an e-mail and tell them what you are trying accomplish.....leaving out no details. Tell them what you have come up with and how you came up with it and ask them to review this information to see if something has been overlooked. The time to ask questions is when someone is hoping to sell you something, not afterward when those questions come in the form of a complaint about poor performance of their product."

Does all of this sound resonable and will it work? Thanks for the input. I'm not 100% certain i have all the related info here, so if there is any other info you need please ask so i can provide it.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
22,771 Posts
Uhmmm, not quite close enough to the beginning. You may have transmission issues, which I mentioned to you previously. What engine are you using? Is it a manufactured unit with the pumps, or something else? How many horses? What size tires? What is the estimated weight when completed? How much of that weight will be on the rear axle? What are your work plans for this unit? (Plowing, FEL, tilling, snowblowing?) All of these questions will have a bearing of some sort on the hydraulic system. The FEL will demand the most horsepower from the transmission and snowblowing from the engine.

Very few GT's can put 15 horsepower to the ground. Even my 2400 lb. MF1655 with FEL and 5' back blade will spin its wheels with chains at full throttle with the bucket down and the front wheels off the ground, and the Sundstrand Series 15 is only good for 14 hp. input at 81% efficiency. The rear axle is almost loaded to the max of 1250 lb. and the front axle is way over loaded with a full bucket. Your rear end selection should carry any weight and deal with any torque levels that you put to it with no problem, but weight, and therefore traction, determines how much horsepower the hydraulic drive will have to put out.

Here are some basic facts and figures to help you understand a little better.

1. 1 gallon = 231 cubic inches.

2. 1 horsepower (hydraulic) = 1 gallon per minute @ 1500 psi.
............................................ = 0.5 gallons/minute @ 3000 psi.
............................................. = 2 gallons/ minute @ 750 psi.

3. A piston pump is 90% efficient.
... A vane pump is 85% efficient.
... A gear pump is 75-80% efficient.
... Approximately. Close enough anyway.
... Motors are the same.

4. 60 mph. = 88 feet per second.

5. When calculating distance travelled per tire revolution, use the rolling radius, not diameter, to calculate the circumference. Rolling radius is from the ground to the centre of the loaded axle. A concrete floor or paved driveway will give the best accuracy. Translate the circumference into feet at the earliest opportunuty to get a smaller number to work with. Big numbers make it too easy to make big mistakes.

Once you know your power requirements, figuring components is a lot easier. A motor control valve is a neccessity, likewise the pressure guage mentioned. If the pump numbers are correct, that Grainger motor will end up being perfect.

A hydraulic drive is not quite as user friendly as a hydrostatic drive, or as efficient. If you have the horses available to compensate for the lower efficiency, then all you need is time to get used to the drive.

For the loader pump, if you can't underdrive it to get the gallonage down, and don't want to spend for, or can't install, a smaller pump, use larger diameter cylinders and lower the relief pressure. Unfortunately, larger cylinders cost even more than a pump, but they may be easier to work with to get the flow right. I'd try really really hard to mount a smaller pump. A regular power steering pump will eliminate the expense of a priority valve and carries the bonus of much smaller hoses. I don't like adding expensive components and their accompanying hoses and fittings if a change of basic components will do the job right.

Bob :rauch10:
 

·
My True Colors-Red+Silver
Joined
·
728 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Ok, the engine and pump are a manufactured unit, and the motor is 22 hp. The pumps are built as one unit, and they are both gear pumps. It should weight in around 4500-5000 lbs or so, with 2500-3000 on the rear axle without any load. It will have a FEL for snow pushing and dirt work, and 3 pt for a blade or hitch. If i put a snowblower on, it would have its own engine.

The unloaded tires are 98.375 inches around. Underdriving the pump isnt possible with the direct drive, but i'm going to buy a FEL from a farm tractor to modify, so i'll find one with larger cylinders.

This link should bring you to the thread in another forum where the info in my first post came from. http://www.gttalk.com/f29-off-topic/sizing-hydrualic-motor-1633/
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
22,771 Posts
Aaaahhh. Much becomes clearer.

The engine/double pump combination suggests to me that two individual circuits were in use and that you could do the same.

The not so good news is that your relief valves will have to be set no higher than 1000 psi. or you run the risk of stalling the engine.

The bad news is that you will need both pumps feeding a larger motor in order to get the most use of the traction available. You will have to manifold the two pump outputs together and you will need big hoses to flow 29 gpm. I don't think the Case motor valve will work for you at that volume.

The worse news is that by using 1 or 2 gear pumps to power 1 gear motor, you will compound the efficiency losses. Over 1/3 of engine horsepower will be lost, and possibly as much as 44%. At best you will be able to deliver all of 14 horsepower to the ground. That's very respectable, but it leaves nothing for the loader or power steering.

On the positive side, with a 3 speed gear box and the weight you are talking about, 1st gear will pull like no tomorrow. You will rarely require max power while using the loader, and almost never will you need your power steering when putting that much power to the ground. A 6-8 gpm. pump for the loader and a GM power steering pump will be coasting most of the time and are unlikely to be drawing more than enough power from the engine to spin them when you need to put the most into you transmission.

Will you be able to add 2 more pumps to the engine? If you can only add 1, you will need a priority valve on an 8 gpm. loader pump in order to supply the steering.

In all honesty, it's a nice exercise, but not viable. Gear pump/motor efficiencies are unacceptable. You're burning 22 hp. worth of fuel to get 14 hp. of work. Low pressure and high volume increases component costs (relief valve, motor, hoses and fittings get expensive faster as they get larger). Adding at least one more pump for the loader/power steering circuit is a must no matter what.

Replacing the existing double pump with a single pump with the same flow as one of the pumps will double the pressure capabilty, and halve the flow which brings that Case motor control back into the equation, and allow a smaller motor, relief valve and lines at less expense. The low efficiency will still be there, and you still need a pump for the loader/steering. Blocking off one pump is not a plan.

A vane or piston pump of comparable size would have a marked increase in efficiency, but at a severe price unless you really luck into a deal.

Using the 25 hp. engine will only hide the defficiencies of the existing system, not correct them.

Sorry to rain on your parade. You may be farther ahead to make a 6:1 reduction unit on the engine and go straight from there to the transmission, and forget the hydraulic drive this time. Hydraulics are expensive.

Maybe someone else can put a more positive spin on this build.

If you decide to go ahead with this build, I'll help, where I can, in a positive way. I figured that I better get the negatives out front so that you can see and understand them.

Bob :rauch10:
 

·
My True Colors-Red+Silver
Joined
·
728 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Ok, all this makes sense. yes, another pump is possible with this project, and I think i'll look into a single pump thats the same size as one of the two on the double pump.

Now, just for clearity, why could i not use one of the double pumps for the drive, and the other for the loader and power steering?

Thanks for all the help!
 

·
My True Colors-Red+Silver
Joined
·
728 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Ok, so i went looking at pumps, and wonder if I need a high pressure pump, or not?
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
22,771 Posts
Now, just for clearity, why could i not use one of the double pumps for the drive, and the other for the loader and power steering?
If you use both pumps, the relief pressures could not exceed an average of 1000 psi. on both circuits. At the relatively low horsepower available to the drive circuit, about 10 hp., and the normal efficiency of gear pumps/motors, a best case of 64% (6.4 hp.), you would not be happy. The 3 or 4 speed transmission is a real good idea to compensate, and very possibly will actually be sufficient most of the time. You will end up with a bullet-proof drive system with about the same output capability of a Tuff Tork LT hydro. It will live forever at that output, unlike the Tuff Tork, but will that be enough power for what you want?

The loader/power steering side will need a priority valve, as was previously mentioned. The flow rate for most GT's comes from the charge pump at about 2 gpm. I don't know the max flow rate that they can deal with. That leaves 12 gpm. for the loader. This is well on the high side for a set of GT sized loader cylinders, but it will work (very quickly at full throttle). The problem here is that it is easy to hit relief pressure using the loader to dig into pile of dirt, while at the same time reaching the low available hp. limits and relief pressure while pushing the bucket into the pile. Engine stalling is a given if you don't back something off quickly.

Playing with the relief pressures can net a 25% increase in drive capability at the expense of loader capability. The loader can be brought back up to capability by using larger diameter cylinders, which has the advantage of lowering the speed somewhat.

You need to figure out how much horsepower you want for the drive and how much lift you want for the loader before you decide to keep or change out your double pump.

It's all a numbers game and you have to crunch a lot of them before you can buy the correct, expensive, components.

Keeping the double pump limits your options, but it will keep expenses down. My caution is that you may not like those options.

Your project, your decision. We'll work with what you decide. Once that decision is made, then we start crunching numbers for the hydraulics.

Bob :rauch10:
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
22,771 Posts
Max pump pressure required in either scenario is 2000 psi. Above that is bonus for durability, but it's not required.

Bob :rauch10:

Gotta go! Jam night and I'm Jam Master.
 

·
My True Colors-Red+Silver
Joined
·
728 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
Ok, that makes sense as well. As far as lifting and driving, i think around 700-750lbs is plenty for my needs. As far as hp to the ground, i'm not sure. What would you recomend for that?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
367 Posts
I am also concerned about the ability to control that much flow with out excess waste in which will turn in to a lot of heat.
I am guessing it is a matter of you can and have what you want to build, so you are. From a stand point of that, I will not try to talk you out of it. I think out come may be a good example what could work and what will not if you are going to share your venture. :thThumbsU
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
22,771 Posts
What's this? Are you going to make me do all your work? :D

Ain't happening!!!

However, to give you some ideas and for comparison, I'll give you some of the specs for my main ride for the past 28 years.

MF1655, repowered to 20 hp. in 1996, weighs about 975 lb. without 3PH or any other attachment. The 3PH and rear PTO bump the weight over the half ton mark. I load the tires of my winter toys as a matter of course. Liquid ballast (calcium :Disgus:) in each 26x12-12 added 160 lb. per tire, plus 2-link chains at 15 lb. each, total another 350 lb. A 54" bucket for the FEL weighs 210 lb. plus a massive loader subframe, post and brace, loader arms and complete hydraulic package brings the total weight to 2000 lb. exactly, according to the scales at a local tractor pull. Add about 250 lb. for a 5' backblade and my 220 lb. and you have a working weight of 2470 lb. If necessary, I can throw on 80 lb. of MF wheel weights.

The transmission is a Sundstrand Series 15 piston pump to piston motor with an overall efficiency of 80%, 14 horsepower in, 11 horsepower out to a 2 speed rear end with a top speed of 8 MPH. Maximum static load capability on the rear end is 1500 lb. and maximum torque load capability with 26" tires is 1250 lb. ft. I have never stalled the engine at full throttle, even before I repowered. It will break traction first. On bare concrete or asphalt without chains it will probably pop the relief valve before spinning, but I wouldn't bet on it either way. I keep the chains on because I would rather break traction than the rear end. (Make note.)

Your target weight is double this tractor's, and traction goes hand in hand with weight on the rear tires. Your rear end is stronger by a substantial margin, as is your choice of gear reduction. The only shortfall is the hydraulic horsepower that you can deliver to that gear reduction (transmission). Six and a half doesn't cut it with 2 1/2 tons of tractor and 8 isn't what I would call strong. First gear will give loads of pulling power and a very low speed. You need the gear ratios in that tranny to calculate the top speed for each gear.

My FEL was made by Wright Way and is, to all intents and purposes, identical to the Sears and Kwik Way loaders from the '70's, both hydraulically and in size. I have discovered that these loaders are limited in their lift capability mainly by the counterbalance weight of the unit they are mounted to. Lots of guys with Suburbans can lift 500-600 lb. Mounted on mine with how it's weighted you can easily double that capability with the same equipment. You just won't be able to move it with no weight on the rear tires. They'll be in the air and all of that weight will be on the front axle, about 4000 lb. in the case of my 1655. ( Make note - strong axle and spindles with tires to match.)

Do you begin to see a trend here? I bought a 1655 last fall for $600, one with a 3PH just sold on eBay 3 days ago for $1050, a 1450 with a hydro problem sold 5 days ago for $202.50, I missed that by $2.50, and a Snapper 1650 with a 3PH sold 10 days ago for$600. The 1450/1650 have single Kohlers, are about 4" shorter and have the same capability as the 1655, except for the front end. They won't have the weight you are planning, but they all can deliver more power to the ground, given equal gearing and rear axle load. There are several heavy GT's out there by various manufacturers with the same powertrain as the 1655.

It is very difficult to put a price on "the pride of accomplishment" of building your own tractor from the ground up. The knowledge you will gain on such a venture is also priceless. I am showing you options, not telling you what to do or how to do it. As I said before, "Your project, your decision. We'll work with what you decide."

I hope that I've given you enough info to help with this project. Study what has been given you by everyone, and MAKE NOTES for future reference during construction.

I'm going to have to charge you for the time I spend typing up these little essays. At $0.10 an hour , the bill is now a can of Diet 7up. :trink39: At a vending machine, if you please. :fing32: :ROF

Bob :rauch10:
 

·
Collector of many tractors
Joined
·
15,274 Posts
Tudor... What I would give to know what you know about Hydrolics....

Thanks for your knowledge...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
367 Posts
You also could add a dump valve piloted off of manifold for the two pumps, and a check valve up stream of dump valve to relieve pressure of one pump say at 1000 psi and still have higher psi coming out from other pump.

But now we are getting in to adding more components, and more components, more complications,more problems, more costs.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
22,771 Posts
Tudor... What I would give to know what you know about Hydrolics....

Thanks for your knowledge...
WOW!! Words such as these from a Master Tinkerer are indeed high praise! :not_worth:not_worth:not_worth

I would happily give up half of my limited hydraulic knowledge for 1/10 of your creativity and skill. Your steam tractor build is incredible!!!!!

Thank you.

Bob :rauch10:
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
22,771 Posts
You also could add a dump valve piloted off of manifold for the two pumps, and a check valve up stream of dump valve to relieve pressure of one pump say at 1000 psi and still have higher psi coming out from other pump.

But now we are getting in to adding more components, and more components, more complications,more problems, more costs.
I subscribe to the K.I.S.S. method of fabrication (Keep It Simple, Stupid). Unfortunately, I have too often failed at the 'Simple' part, and been an over achiever at the 'Stupid' part. I've learned to do some things in a simple step by step process, and this project screams at me to simplify these steps even further.

The first step is to find out exactly what the parameters are; horsepower available (22), drive type (hydraulic), size of unit being built (GT?), weight range (4500 to 5000 lb. - too much, I think, but the final built will determine that), performance specifications (8-10 mph. and 750 lb. of FEL lift capability), hydraulic components available in-house and their suitability.

From this very basic information, the basics of the hydraulic systems can be developed. Filters, reservoir, heat exchanger and additional components can be designed in as these parameters are better understood, and some can only be determined precisely as the build progresses and space availability becomes known.

I'm 63 and still try to design as if I were 16, with a good mechanical aptitude, limited mechanical knowledge and a limited budget (retirement does that to you). Experience and education then refine my original design to something more effective. I'm sitting in my comfy chair with nice clean hands and nothing to do but try to forsee issues that will develope with this build and lay them out for fordmustang1984 when the time is appropriate, and, like everyone else, attempt to give him do-able options to complete the build.

The pump(s) are first, the motor second and the components to make them work right are third. Cooling and filters are further down the list but must be kept in mind in order to have space to place them properly.

I like your dump valve idea. I didn't think of it. The disadvantage is hose size in a limited space and cost of the necessarily larger downstream components may make it a non-runner. My number one concern is space available for components and hoses, and, as a former millwright, the room to work in to replace parts after years of service without disassembling half of the da**ed machine.

I know that I'm leaving a lot out. I'm trying to limit information overload and wear on my finger from typing.:ROF With questions come the best guesses for answers. The correct answer for the build is in the hands of the builder.

Time to go. Millwright language creeping in.:sorry1::hide:

Bob :rauch10:
 

·
My True Colors-Red+Silver
Joined
·
728 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
Ok, looking back at the tractor frame i have for this, its more of a CUT now. And i know you wont do all the work for me Bob, im just seeking opinions being that my knowledge is limited.:sorry1: I supose 14 hp to the ground would be enough. I won't be on till next Tuesday, so i'll get the transmission ratios and post them when i return. Thanks for all the help, and I would give anything to have some of the knowledge you possess.:thanku:
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
22,771 Posts
I'm just pulling your leg, Alex. I'll help all that I can.

Bob :rauch10:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
367 Posts
Tudor, what do you think about a pressure compensated flow control valve for his loader? I know, still add on complications, and more costs. Just trying to throw ideas out. Every hydraulic situation I have been around has already pretty much had the engineering already acomplished!!!
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
22,771 Posts
Murphy, maybe. I've thought of that particular component for an application in a hydraulic automobile. Unlikely that I will ever try it, but it's good exercise for the brain figuring these things out. I came to the conclusion that a pressure compensated, variable displacement piston pump would make more sense, but cost waaayyy more dollars.

One of the surest things that additional components will add is heat at some level. In mobile hydraulics systems on LT's, GT's and even the big tractors, heat is a system killer. Few mobile hydraulic systems, even on large tractors, have the reservoir capacity to deal with heat like a stationary system does.

The reservoir on a mobile system is sized to hold from 1/4 to 1 times the maximum flow rate of the pump(s) using that reservoir. In this situation, that's a minimum reservoir capacity of 7 1/2 gal., and possibly 10 gal. A place for a tank of that size plus a cooler becomes an issue on a small tractor, which is one of the reasons that I have for suggesting losing that double pump and going with 2 pumps of less total capacity but a higher pressure capability.

Stationary hydraulic systems typically have reservoirs that hold 2 to 10 times pumping capacity and are quite capable of dealing with the extra heat from additional control components, quite often without any extra cooling.

My biggest concern is the large diameter hoses needed for large flows. There is precious little space for plumbing on a tractor and every extra component adds a hose or two and large bore hoses and fittings are pricey, not to mention very hard to handle in tight quarters. Try bending a 3/4" hose into a tight radius and screw it onto a fitting using only 2 hands. It's possible, but you will have a complete description of the designers ancestry on the tip of your tonque by the time you are done!

On small tractors I try real hard to only use basic systems and components. It might cost a few dollars more in the short term, but it saves hours of diagnostic time and R&R time later. In this case, the cost of changing pumps will be offset partially, and possibly completely, by the price of smaller hoses, fittings, fewer components to make it work in an acceptable fashion and fewer bandaids for busted knuckles.

One more point. This is a first major hydraulic project by a young man. I consider him very well versed in the issues that come up with small GT's, and at some point I will undoubtably be picking his brain for info and experience on problems with my MF12H. He has very limited knowledge and experience with hydraulics and this will be a learning experience for him. I really want it to be successful, even if it isn't optimal. Optimal is very expensive.

Keep throwing them out there. These ideas make a good opportunity for teaching small lessons, and probably making this project work even better.

Bob :rauch10:
 

·
My True Colors-Red+Silver
Joined
·
728 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
Yes, keep throwing ideas! With each one, my note book fills, and knowledge grows! I know i said i wouldnt be on till tuesday, but i found a chance.(dont tell my mom):hide: I'm definately getting a pump for the loader, and a single one for the drive. But before i get the loader pump, ill get the loader. Also, the steering will be hydraulic, not power assisted, so theres no confusion. Sorry about my mixup of terms.
 
1 - 20 of 41 Posts
Top