Anyone ever split the hydraulics?

This is just like the old coffee shop, which was like the old coffee shop down the street. Pull up a chair, sit down and enjoy some good discussions. Please, no political, religious or racial posts.
Post Reply
User avatar
SWilliams
Posts: 805
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 7:14 pm
First and Last Name: Steve Williams
Location: Fort Plain NY (Upstate NY near Cooperstown)

Anyone ever split the hydraulics?

Post by SWilliams »

So I'm in the process of making steel lines for the super, I have three valves on the dash already. I am keeping the mid lift as built. I'm working on stuffing another cylinder in the tail to run the rear three point as an independent part, the third valve at the moment goes the the front ports. I was looking at that and thought that in the entire time I've had that kit installed on the other tractor I've used it a few times but never turned it off or had it leak. So is there a reason I couldn't T off of those lines and run a set to the back? I know I wouldn't be able to use both at the same time for implements but it might be handy if I could have ports at the rear for something like a box blade ripper or whatever else.
Owner of an 1863, 2263 (1863 W 22hp engine!) 2084 and a 2 - 2284s.


"In God we trust, All others pay CASH..."

User avatar
Dave C
Web Developer
Posts: 1012
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 7:12 am
First and Last Name: David Chester
Location: Wallingford, CT

Re: Anyone ever split the hydraulics?

Post by Dave C »

I have done that before.... i did it on my 149D ports front and back... both controlled from a single valve. no biggie so long u only have one plugged in at a time.

Alternatly if you couldnt fit another valve there is a piston selector valve u can get that would switch control from one to the other. of course that adds a great deal of hydraulic lines to an already complex setup!
Trying to save cubs... one at a time.......

User avatar
SWilliams
Posts: 805
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 7:14 pm
First and Last Name: Steve Williams
Location: Fort Plain NY (Upstate NY near Cooperstown)

Re: Anyone ever split the hydraulics?

Post by SWilliams »

Thanks Dave, I figured I could add a selector but it's already looking like a web in there, three valves, two cylinders, power steering and probably a rear set of ports. Of course all that didn't stop me from mocking up a spare pump that could run off the stub shaft that would run the pto, just to see if it would be something that could run a loader or small hoe By the time I'm done I'll need to figure out a way to stretch the rear cover to hold more hytran LOL :lol:
Owner of an 1863, 2263 (1863 W 22hp engine!) 2084 and a 2 - 2284s.


"In God we trust, All others pay CASH..."

DaveKamp
Posts: 555
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 10:19 am
First and Last Name: Dave Kamp
Location: LeClaire, Ia

Re: Anyone ever split the hydraulics?

Post by DaveKamp »

Biggest concern I would have, Steve... is displacement... making certain you don't run the reservoir (transaxle case) too low. One way to resove that would be to add more volume to the transaxle case with a secondary reservoir, another would be to convert everything to double-acting, and use the BACK side of the cylinder (the rod side) as partial volume.... partial, because the displacement of the ROD side is less than the PISTON side (by virtue of presence of the rod)...
Yes, I'm a Mad Scientist... but I'm usually happy, even when things ain't goin right.

User avatar
SWilliams
Posts: 805
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 7:14 pm
First and Last Name: Steve Williams
Location: Fort Plain NY (Upstate NY near Cooperstown)

Re: Anyone ever split the hydraulics?

Post by SWilliams »

That is one worry I have, was actually looking at the difference between the super three point and the standard, the supers were set farther back to allow for the PTO parts, If I used one like that but removed all the bits related to the PTO I could make a spacer from aluminum that adds almost 3 inches to the transaxle case.
Owner of an 1863, 2263 (1863 W 22hp engine!) 2084 and a 2 - 2284s.


"In God we trust, All others pay CASH..."

User avatar
Tom Scott
Chief Moderator
Posts: 1762
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 9:11 pm
First and Last Name: Tom Scott
Location: Bentley Springs, Maryland

Re: Anyone ever split the hydraulics?

Post by Tom Scott »

It's a good thing to contemplate, but I don't see capacity as a likely problem. The "full mark" in these rears is nearly to the top of the housing. The ring and pinion does not need complete submersion, but I believe Cub did this to provide more oil reserve and cooling. Case in point, I once topped off my 1872 with Haban blade and had the hydraulic angle set to full extension. When I angled the blade the other way going up hill, fluid was squirting out of the vent hole in the dipstick! I had to back off and keep the blade in the neutral position to check fluid level...

Unless the single acting cylinder is quite large in volume, I suspect you'll get away with it, but I think a double acting cylinder would for sure be ok. I think a double acting cylinder might be less work than extending the rear and have some use anyway. The double acting Haban blade cylinder is huge, and that presents no problem with running low on fluid. Similar to my Haban blade, you could consider "full" to be at the halfway point of the cylinder travel. That being said, more volume won't hurt anything other than making the project more involved!

Good stuff. I'm due for a project, just no time right now. For now I shall have to live vicariously through your guy's projects! :lol:
1872, 46", 50C decks, Haban dozer blade, 450 snow blower
2182-1, Kwik-Way Loader, 3-pt & rear pto, 442 tiller
2182-2, 54" deck, 551 snow blower
Past tractors:  1541, 2135
<><

Post Reply