Jump to content

Nominations for Tractor of the Month
Garden Tractors and Parts on eBay



Photo
- - - - -

How Do You Run Your Hydro?


  • Please log in to reply
85 replies to this topic

#76 BowlBuilder OFFLINE  

BowlBuilder

    New Member

  • Senior Member
  • Member No: 8169
  • 446 Thanks
  • 427 posts
  • Location: Martinsville, IN

Posted January 05, 2014 - 11:39 AM

This is why I own Case/Ingersoll GT's.  Hydraulics at it's simplest, something I can fully understand and work on (with lots more GPM available for accessories).  I like things that are simple and robust, except my women. 


  • HowardsMF155 said thank you

#77 TUDOR OFFLINE  

TUDOR

    Tractorholic

  • Senior Member
  • Member No: 915
  • 543 Thanks
  • 497 posts
  • Location: Sault Ste Marie, Ontario

Posted January 07, 2014 - 01:40 PM

The hydraulics for a Case/Ingersol are just as complicated as a hydro. Yes, you have the capability to utilize the systen for attachments, but I'm not willing to sacrifice the available control or the efficiency of a hydro to gain that benefit. We have other ways of powering attachments that are also plug and play and that also allow use of all of the engine power available. We can stall the engine with an attachment. You can only pop the relief valve with the engine still running.


  • olcowhand, HowardsMF155 and BowlBuilder have said thanks

#78 BowlBuilder OFFLINE  

BowlBuilder

    New Member

  • Senior Member
  • Member No: 8169
  • 446 Thanks
  • 427 posts
  • Location: Martinsville, IN

Posted January 24, 2014 - 05:05 PM

  I must respectfully disagree with you on the systems complications.  I believe the Case system to be much simpler to diagnose and repair.  I've had a few hydrostatic transmissions apart and this is not something for the inexperienced mechanic.  The hydraulics are designed to protect the Case drive system from damage and be virtually unbreakable, which I like.  I have a traditional front PTO for many accessories, these can break way more things than belts.  I have almost 9 gpm to work with and have seen some very nice home made hydraulic driven attachments and accessories which are quite simple to attach and detach.   And with 480 lbs of weight on the rear wheels alone (love them big back wheels), it is a real beast.  Traction is my biggest problem, I still usually spin the tires before popping the relief valve.      

  P.S.  Chain drive is the absolute best method of getting all the power of an engine to the back wheels.  I seriously doubt any tractor is getting all of its engine power to the ground or an attachment.  You're most likely doing better to the back wheels than me though. 

   I hope no hard feelings are taken from this.  I just love my 448, period.  Have a wonderful day.


  • HowardsMF155 said thank you

#79 olcowhand ONLINE  

olcowhand

    Red Tractor Nut & Diesel Addict

  • Staff Admin
  • Staff
  • -GTt Supporter-
  • Sponsor
  • Contributor
  • Member No: 20
  • 35,653 Thanks
  • 29,841 posts
  • Location: South Central Kentucky

Posted January 24, 2014 - 07:18 PM

It really just matters what you like, all systems are great IF YOU like them.  Me, I'm hydrostatic all the way.  Mostly for the extremely smooth control.  Now if the Case system utilized foot control, then it would be easier used with a front end loader.  I use my FEL a lot, so nothing but hydro for me.  I do have some gear tractors, but they are part of my Bush Hog collection.


  • HowardsMF155, BowlBuilder and hatedge have said thanks

#80 BowlBuilder OFFLINE  

BowlBuilder

    New Member

  • Senior Member
  • Member No: 8169
  • 446 Thanks
  • 427 posts
  • Location: Martinsville, IN

Posted January 26, 2014 - 05:32 AM

You are absolutely correct that all systems are great.  However, the loader tractors were all built with a foot control as well as the 4200 series.  I must admit the hand operated drive system is my least favorite aspect of these tractors.  Takes some getting used to.  Many have converted their tractors to foot pedal operation which I may do some day.  Grummy has an excellent guide on converting  a Case/Ingersoll to foot pedal control.  Not real hard to do.


  • olcowhand and HowardsMF155 have said thanks

#81 TUDOR OFFLINE  

TUDOR

    Tractorholic

  • Senior Member
  • Member No: 915
  • 543 Thanks
  • 497 posts
  • Location: Sault Ste Marie, Ontario

Posted January 26, 2014 - 06:12 AM

In all honesty, I agree that the Case system is easier to repair for minor problems. The complications for problem diagnosis are relatively equal between the 2 systems. For a hydro, everything is internal,to the housing which is more conveniently removed as a unit to a bench to repair or replace parts, For the Hydrive system, there are multiple components at some remove from each other connected via lines, and only the offending component must be removed. Neither is serviceable by the average home mechanic, should gross damage be involved, short of ordering new parts or sending out for proper machining. Seals and o-rings are time consuming, but not overly difficult, on both systems

 

Like the Case, the better hydros also have reliefs built in and are virtually indestructable hydraulically. The Sundstrand in my GT has over 2500 hours on it, mostly loader work. It flows up to 14.2 gpm and is relieved at 1500 psi, but it can comfortably withstand shock loading to 4000 psi. It all goes to the drive wheels and there is no provision to use it elsewhere, but it also includes a charge pump to maintain fluid in the hydro proper and support any number of small cylinder implement lifts. As you have pointed out, neither can deliver all of its power to the ground without breaking traction, even at partial throttle settings. The rear wheels on my GT weighed 350 lb total, liquid ballast and tire chains only, no wheel weights, and it wouldn't pop the relief if the throttle was more than half. Gross weight, no operator, was 2250 lb plus.

 

With equal weight, both drive systems will deliver the same amount of power to the ground. I doubt very much that mine has ever delivered more than 7 out the the 11 hydraulic hp available to the ground. The big difference in the 2 drive systems is the amount of control available with a variable flow and reversible pump. The torque available at the rear axle is 792 ft lb in low range, and most of it can be applied at a sustained speed measured in inches per minute (less than a foot per minute) without generating any significant heat because the flow is so low, and yet go almost instantly to 4.5 mph. By rocking the pedal back and forth rapidly, it will dig a pair of 12" wide holes, not trenches, straight down in the dirt until the rear end is sitting on the ground.

 

I had thought of building a hydraulic drive for a GT many years ago, then I got this hydro and never looked back. In some ways, the hydrive makes more sense, but not when it comes down to controlling the power at the drive wheels. It's simply too convenient to add an auxilliary pump to power attachments if desired, and a variable displacement and reversible flow hydro pump would make more sense than a fixed displacement gear pump for powering motors. No valve required to control either speed or direction of the implement, just a detented lever with a push/pull cable and a crossover relief valve.

 

Both are good systems and do their tasks well. Everyone has their own preference as to which they desire and which will do the best job for them. Some people even claim that gears are better than either hydraulic system for tractor drives. :D  Poor misguided souls that they may be.  :poke:


  • olcowhand, DH1, HowardsMF155 and 1 other said thanks

#82 HowardsMF155 OFFLINE  

HowardsMF155

    Tractorholic

  • Senior Member
  • Member No: 4243
  • 2,699 Thanks
  • 2,916 posts
  • Location: Central NC

Posted January 26, 2014 - 10:18 AM

 

Some people even claim that gears are better than either hydraulic system for tractor drives. :D  Poor misguided souls that they may be.  :poke:

 

Hey, I resemble that remark!!

 

 

I love my hydro 12, but when it comes time to drop a plow in the ground and go, I much prefer my geared Massey.  I'm sure the variable drive plays a part in that, as you can pick a single gear then dial in the ground speed you want with the variator.  I strongly suspect that a two speed hydro would be a better match for plowing.


  • olcowhand and BowlBuilder have said thanks

#83 BowlBuilder OFFLINE  

BowlBuilder

    New Member

  • Senior Member
  • Member No: 8169
  • 446 Thanks
  • 427 posts
  • Location: Martinsville, IN

Posted January 26, 2014 - 12:03 PM

Tudor, thank you for that very educational response.  I can no longer hold up my end of this disagreement.  :thumbs:   Your knowledge of hydraulics obviously far surpasses mine.  Thank you for entertaining me.


  • olcowhand, TUDOR and HowardsMF155 have said thanks

#84 skyrydr2 ONLINE  

skyrydr2

    Tractorholic

  • Senior Member
  • -GTt Supporter-
  • Contributor
  • Member No: 5032
  • 3,418 Thanks
  • 3,165 posts
  • Location: Gardner, Massachusetts!

Posted January 26, 2014 - 04:58 PM

Well my Eaton hydro's will stall the engine at any throttle setting if it has enough traction! And they don't get hot like some. They actually pull extremely well in a stock class tractor pull too. But the best of all is the simplicity of them. They are a real dream to operate.
  • TUDOR and HowardsMF155 have said thanks

#85 TUDOR OFFLINE  

TUDOR

    Tractorholic

  • Senior Member
  • Member No: 915
  • 543 Thanks
  • 497 posts
  • Location: Sault Ste Marie, Ontario

Posted January 27, 2014 - 07:05 AM

Hey, I resemble that remark!!

 

 

I love my hydro 12, but when it comes time to drop a plow in the ground and go, I much prefer my geared Massey.  I'm sure the variable drive plays a part in that, as you can pick a single gear then dial in the ground speed you want with the variator.  I strongly suspect that a two speed hydro would be a better match for plowing.

I broke my MF12H in half 3 times while using a loader due to the torque windup in the rear axle when the bucket stopped advancing, but you're right, for pure, steady state bull work, neither a hydro nor a hydraulic drive will beat a gear box. But, as stated earlier in this thread, either of them will get a load moving that will either stall the engine or eventually burn up the clutching system of a gear drive. The hydro just does it with less heat buildup than the hydraulic drive and heat is the enemy of all hydraulic systems. Steady state, high capacity loads, like ploughing, generate heat in abundance with hydros. Just ask ducky with his MF 1655 with triple 12" bottom ploughs..

 

http://www.youtube.c...h-xYh0LDzksPlgc-

 

BowlBuilder, thank you for presenting the opportunity to add a bit more education to this thread. It has been a pleasure and an education for me as well. We can both thank skyrdr2 for setting me on the road to thinking through the nuances of hydraulics several years ago on another forum.

 

Skyrydr2, it has been my observation that lots and lots of weight is required to get the most out of the high capacity hydros like the Eaton 11 and Sundstrand Series 15 from days gone. The unfortunate downside is the fact that those hydros can transmit sufficient power to damage the final drives that they are coupled to when too much weight for traction is utilized. While the manufacturers of the final drives rate them with numbers that will exceed the realistic normal ballasting efforts that most owners will apply, those of us boneheaded enough to approach the weight limitations that they set will find that the traction afforded is more than some final drives will tolerate for extended periods, especially when the engine has enough power to utilize the hydro's max capability. That's 16-20 hp for a Sundstrand with stock acceleration valves.


  • HowardsMF155, skyrydr2 and BowlBuilder have said thanks

#86 skyrydr2 ONLINE  

skyrydr2

    Tractorholic

  • Senior Member
  • -GTt Supporter-
  • Contributor
  • Member No: 5032
  • 3,418 Thanks
  • 3,165 posts
  • Location: Gardner, Massachusetts!

Posted January 27, 2014 - 11:56 AM

When we pull we do it at 1000# with driver . so they can get proper traction and at a realistic weight. But you are correct about very long hard pulls, but I have not found one yet to get any of mine damagingly hot, but that's just me. I don't have large fields to plow that could provide ample enough traction here.;-)
  • TUDOR and HowardsMF155 have said thanks




Top