Colt Case Ingersoll Garden Tractors

I posted this at the (other) site and got a single private response. I was hoping for more points of view. "Safety in many counselors" and all that. Maybe people are more knowledgeable here on this site.

I'm adding a loader to my 4020 PS. My original plan, which I have substantially piped in, is to install a 2 spool valve with power beyond between the factory PS splitter valve and the TCV. Like so:

That will definitely work, but it has the drawback that if I haul on the loader valve while I'm driving, there's going to be a substantial impact on travel speed. I'm not sure if I'll slam to a halt, or just have a lurching reduction in speed.

I'm considering changing direction and giving the loader valve its own circuit by means of a priority splitter valve immediately after the factory splitter valve. Like this:
I'd adjust it to ensure that the TCV always receives a minimum of about 6.5 GPM flow, and the loader would get the balance.

The downside is that instead of either the loader getting as much flow as it wants OR the TCV getting as much flow as it wants, each one would be permanently throttled down. So it's a good solution to prevent them from conflicting if they both demand flow at the same time, but the trade-off is that it makes them both a little anemic all the time.

I think that to do it truly correct is to go with the splitter valve option, and replace the factory pump with more like 13 or 14 gpm. the 20HP engine can handle it, and that would give enough flow to do everything I want.

But short of a new pump, what's my best option between these two choices?

I keep rolling this around in my head. You have put good thought into it but it leaves alot of unknown of how it will actually behave during operation. Trial and error could be alot of work and get expensive.

Option 1 keeps your tractor normal without the loader, but how bad will it stall when loader used. You're normally not going to be moving fast when using the loader. How fast do you want/need the loader to react? How much flow do the small cylinders need? This seems to be similar to the 600 loaders

Option 2 without a larger pump seems to sacrifice tractor performance all the time and may slow the loader too.

There's not much room to work with, but could you plumb a bypass line around the flow diverter to regain full tractor function when not using the loader?

Do you run any other hydraulic motor driven attachments? If so how will the larger pump affect them?

Option 1&2 Will it loose to much power to the wheels when lifting and curling the bucket while taking a scoop of dirt?

I don't have any experience with the 600s, can they lift and curl at the same time?

If you were going to swap out the pump, what about using a 2 section pump like a 6000?

Maybe more questions than answers, this is complicated. I'll roll it around some more.

Wish I could help BUT you have already proven to me, that you know a hell of a lot more about hydraulics than I do


Gordy

I'm very surprised one of the few knowledgeable hydraulic guys over there didn't contribute. Maybe give them some time.

However. If you have a look at the 6018 manual

https://manuals.ccigt.com/ServiceManual ... marked.pdf

You see how it splits the flow into 8.8 GPM and 4.8 GPM coming out of the two stage pump. I'm sure you've seen this and probably are not looking to buy a new two stage pump because of the high price. So



as you can see, the power steering and the loader bucket get the 4.8 GPM while the travel, PTO, and lift, get the 8.8 GPM flow. If it was good for a 6018, I'd think it's tried and true and you should aim for it. So gather courage and either find a two stage pump from one of the Case loaders that had PS or get a 13.6-15 GPM single stage pump and the splitter valve. The advantage of going this route is that you know it'll work well. The other solution is honestly lacking certainty.

https://manuals.ccigt.com/ServiceManual ... -99786.pdf

This manual gives the pump and flow rates for all Case Garden Tractors. It is a good place to start comparisons.

Spike.

Ideal would be 6018 pump and plumbing assuming you have the room for the extra length of the pump ect. Most likely the option #2 with a 12 gallon pump would be the most practical . That is assuming that the return side can handle the extra flow , filter, cooler, hoses ect.. If not you will have failures . And yes 20 hp if the torque is enough . I have an old P220 Onan Performer ex generator/welder engine that powers Frankie 12 gpm pump out put at max rpm into 12 gpm splitter valve .

Dave

Thanks everyone for your input. Each post helped to tune and clarify my understanding of how to proceed. I like the idea to just duplicate how Case/Ingersoll did it, since that's tried and true. Several good points along those lines.

And a totally new idea from TimJ: Installing a bypass around the splitter valve. I hadn't thought of that, but it got me to thinking:

What if I just installed a selector just upstream of the new splitter valve. That selector could direct the flow EITHER to the splitter valve scenario OR straight to the original TCV. That way, with the loader removed and the selector set to "normal", the tractor would be just as if it never had a loader valve on it. But with the loader installed and the selector set to "loader" then the flow gets split, some to TCV, some to the loader.

But then that got me to thinking: how easy is it to adjust the priority of the flow valve? It turns out to be very easy:


You just dial that knob to whatever flow you want the priority circuit to have.

So I'm going to proceed on these lines:
1. Abandon the power beyond approach. The more I've read and learned, the more I've come to understand that full use of any loader circuit means zero flow to the TCV. You cannot raise/lower the loader and drive at the same time. That's not workable to me.

2. Pipe in the priority flow divider immediately upstream of the TCV, putting it someplace where the flow adjusting knob can be reached from the driver's seat.
a. Hook up the TCV as the priority flow, hook up the loader valve as the overflow.
b. By trial-and-error, use the flow knob to find a good balance between the TCV and the loader, a happy medium where the tractor drives "fast enough" and the loader operates "fast enough".
c. Whenever you're using the loader, just set the knob to that number. If you forget, it'll remind you. Because the loader won't work.
d. As part of the loader detachment process, dial the flow knob to "10", which will give all the flow back to the TCV, none to the loader valve, just like the factory configuration.

If this all works as I expect, I'll give it its own full write-up as a "how to" for others to follow.

If not, I'll update this thread with what I've learned.

@thebuildist I think you have a solid plan. You must've lost a little sleep over it. As I've thought a little more about it, I definitely believe you can't argue with the 600s design.
Good luck, keep us posted.
Tim

thebuildist wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 7:44 am d. As part of the loader detachment process, dial the flow knob to "10", which will give all the flow back to the TCV, none to the loader valve, just like the factory configuration.

Ahm, why complicate yourself. This only applies if you keep the existing pump, which, when you split it's flow, you won't have enough for travel. Given the seriousness of this project it would feel like such a cut corner to stay with a pump which is not adequate.

With a pump that can supply adequate pressure and flow to both loader and the other side of the hydraulic system you would not need to change the dial ever. When you disconnect the loader the fluid flows through the loader valve and returns to the tank just fine.


But I think I haven't paid enough attention to your design. How do you plan on disconnecting the hydraulics of the loader, when you want to take it off? All those hoses...

Ok, I just had a CRAZY idea.

As I mentioned, I already have the new spool valve piped into my tractor, in a "power beyond" configuration. It's not hooked to the loader cylinders yet, but it is piped upstream of the TCV. So I had a wild thought: What if I...

TESTED IT!?

Crazy, right? Since I have the loader work ports looped from output right back to input (pull the lever and oil just flows harmlessly through the loopback hose), what if I started up the tractor and hauled on one of the loader valve levers and THEN TRIED THE TRAVEL LEVER to see what happens?

Why haven't I thought of this before now? Dunno. I guess I'm a little slow on the uptake.

So I walked out back, started the tractor, held one of the loader valves back and then gently pulled on the travel lever.

And what DID happen? Nothing. With either of the loader valves open, ZERO fluid passes on down to the TCV. It's completely isolated. Which makes sense if you really think about it. When I open one of the loader valves, it directs all the oil to the cylinder. If it left a passage open for oil to pass on downstream to the TCV, then the open center of the TCV would just let the oil flow right into the return line, leaving you with too little pressure to operate the loader cylinder. The loader valve HAS to isolate the power beyond port WHEN one of the valves is open.

But this "isolating the power beyond port" also means that if you're driving along and you reach down and pull one of the loader valves that the rear wheels lock up. INSTANTLY. Which is less than desirable. It causes excessive wear on your tires as well as your steering wheel, (at least at the spot on the steering wheel where your belt buckle hangs up on it as you go flying out over the hood. )

So it's official: Putting a power beyond loader valve BEFORE the TCV is a really bad idea.

What if you had a TCV with a power beyond port? That still wouldn't work, because any time you had the travel lever is outside of "neutral" the power beyond port is "dead". You have to return the travel lever to neutral before you can use the loader valve. It's not as bad of a problem as locking up your rear wheels any time you pull a loader valve lever, but it's still going to be frustrating, probably to the point of "uselessness".

So it's official, at least in my head: Either the priority splitter valve works (I really think it should) or I go with a two-section pump, one for the factory TCV and one for the loader.

Eugen wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 9:55 am

thebuildist wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 7:44 am d. As part of the loader detachment process, dial the flow knob to "10", which will give all the flow back to the TCV, none to the loader valve, just like the factory configuration.

Ahm, why complicate yourself. This only applies if you keep the existing pump, which, when you split it's flow, you won't have enough for travel. Given the seriousness of this project it would feel like such a cut corner to stay with a pump which is not adequate.

With a pump that can supply adequate pressure and flow to both loader and the other side of the hydraulic system you would not need to change the dial ever. When you disconnect the loader the fluid flows through the loader valve and returns to the tank just fine.


But I think I haven't paid enough attention to your design. How do you plan on disconnecting the hydraulics of the loader, when you want to take it off? All those hoses...

Excellent points, excellent questions. I'm REALLY trying to keep the cost of this project in hand. So far I've spent less than $1000, and I thought I was done spending. So having to go buy a new two-section pump will hurt. But if I have to, I have to.

As far as the disconnect goes, I'm more-or-less copying commercial designs. I'll have a bank of 4 disconnects somewhere near the righthand footrest. Each of the four hoses will be split somewhere on down the line to feed the same funtion of both the left and right side cylinders. One hose for boom up, one for boom down, one for bucket curl up, one for bucket curl down.

I'm HOPING I don't have to use proportional metering valves to keep the cylinders in sync. I'm HOPING they'll just stay in sync of their own accord. But they may not, and if they don't then that's even more money I'll have to spend. We'll see about that too, when the time comes.

Understandably the two stage pump is either very expensive (new) or hard to find. I would listen really carefully to what @DavidBarkey says because of us all here he is the only one who actually built a loader on a 400 series tractor and it withstood the test of time. After I wrote my reply I realized that I forgot to mention that obviously the two stage pump is longer and the space behind the pump is small. Like he said, a 12-14 GPM single stage pump should not be more than $200 in , you guys have so many more options than us. Think about this project, you're building it for many years of use. Spread the $200 over that many years, and think of the aggravation you'll have for all that time with a tractor that almost works well.

Regarding the proportional metering valves. Again, I would ask myself if the 600 series tractors have this. They have been working well for over 40 years, so if they work without, why shouldn't yours too? @DavidBarkey do you have something like that?

Eugen wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 11:30 am Understandably the two stage pump is either very expensive (new) or hard to find. I would listen really carefully to what @DavidBarkey says because of us all here he is the only one who actually built a loader on a 400 series tractor and it withstood the test of time. After I wrote my reply I realized that I forgot to mention that obviously the two stage pump is longer and the space behind the pump is small. Like he said, a 12-14 GPM single stage pump should not be more than $200 in , you guys have so many more options than us. Think about this project, you're building it for many years of use. Spread the $200 over that many years, and think of the aggravation you'll have for all that time with a tractor that almost works well.

Regarding the proportional metering valves. Again, I would ask myself if the 600 series tractors have this. They have been working well for over 40 years, so if they work without, why shouldn't yours too? @DavidBarkey do you have something like that?

Frankie has a pressure compensated fixed valve . A adjustable one would be handy when running the tiller on the thing as I could then put a little more flow to the tiller (pto valve ) , don't need much ground speed then . And when moving around the yard being able to put a little more to the drive motor would increase speed a little . Do to it's weight I very seldom am able to use high gear . So for his an adding an adjustable flow control valve would be good idea . BUt it would need to be easily adjusted .

Dave

Thinking out loud here,. The 600s ran the same hydraulic pump as the 400s. They ran through the tcv with power beyond to the loader. Obviously it works based on the popularity of them. So maybe the right tcv is the answer?

@Timj but he has power steering too. I'm asking myself, why didn't they use the same pump on the 6018?

@DavidBarkey do I want to know what a "pleasure compensated fixed valve" is?!?

Eugen wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 1:25 pm @DavidBarkey do I want to know what a "pleasure compensated fixed valve" is?!?

Pressure , you know that thing you suffer when you haven't had pleasure for a while . I did have to look and see if I spelled it wrong .

Dave

Eugen wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 1:01 pm @Timj but he has power steering too. I'm asking myself, why didn't they use the same pump on the 6018?

His tractor has a larger 11.25gpm pump with the diverter valve breaking off a couple of gpm for the steering.

I would have to be thinking they did it for the steering and increased performance.

I have never ran one of the Case Ingersoll loaders, so I don't know how they compare to larger ones.

DavidBarkey wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 1:36 pm
Pressure , you know that thing you suffer when you haven't had pleasure for a while . I did have to look and see if I spelled it wrong .

Dave

haha, that was just me attempting a little light fun! a little smile in the middle of the day that's all!

Timj wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 1:40 pm
His tractor has a larger 11.25gpm pump with the diverter valve breaking off a couple of gpm for the steering.

I would have to be thinking they did it for the steering and increased performance.

I have never ran one of the Case Ingersoll loaders, so I don't know how they compare to larger ones.

ooooh! well then, @thebuildist you should be just fine with what you have!!! I think @Timj just solved it for you! If I were you I'd just connect it all with that you have already, most likely it'll work just fine.

Timj wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 12:43 pm Thinking out loud here,. The 600s ran the same hydraulic pump as the 400s. They ran through the tcv with power beyond to the loader. Obviously it works based on the popularity of them. So maybe the right tcv is the answer?

You make a good point. I suspect the factory 64X TCV must not be a traditional Power Beyond valve. It must direct its work oil return out the PB port, not back to its Tank port. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to lift the bucket any time the machine is in motion.

So kind of a custom product in that sense.

Anybody know precisely how to convert a standard Case TCV into is 64X ("power beyond") equivalent? The machining isn't my problem, it's the "knowing what to machine." That's my problem.

I guess I could buy one. Are they still available new? I once saw a used one on Ebay. It went for more than $500 if I recall, and it had no integrated holding valve.

It makes me think that duplicating the 64X scenario isn't really doable.

But if the overall GPM of the 64X is anything to go by, then my 9 gpm coming out of my Power Steering splitter may be adequate to make the machine perfectly usable, even if it isn't zippy.

Bob

DavidBarkey wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 12:04 pm

Eugen wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 11:30 am Understandably the two stage pump is either very expensive (new) or hard to find. I would listen really carefully to what @DavidBarkey says because of us all here he is the only one who actually built a loader on a 400 series tractor and it withstood the test of time. After I wrote my reply I realized that I forgot to mention that obviously the two stage pump is longer and the space behind the pump is small. Like he said, a 12-14 GPM single stage pump should not be more than $200 in , you guys have so many more options than us. Think about this project, you're building it for many years of use. Spread the $200 over that many years, and think of the aggravation you'll have for all that time with a tractor that almost works well.

Regarding the proportional metering valves. Again, I would ask myself if the 600 series tractors have this. They have been working well for over 40 years, so if they work without, why shouldn't yours too? @DavidBarkey do you have something like that?

Frankie has a pressure compensated fixed valve . A adjustable one would be handy when running the tiller on the thing as I could then put a little more flow to the tiller (pto valve ) , don't need much ground speed then . And when moving around the yard being able to put a little more to the drive motor would increase speed a little . Do to it's weight I very seldom am able to use high gear . So for his an adding an adjustable flow control valve would be good idea . BUt it would need to be easily adjusted .

Dave

@DavidBarkey Frankie has a pressure compensated fixed splitter. The "adjustable priority flow divider valve" I've bought uses pressure to move its internal spool, which regulates the flow. But I don't think it qualifies as "pressure (or pleasure ) compensated".

https://www.buyersproducts.com/product/ ... valve-1056

What's your opinion? Do you think it's going to work the way I envision?

If the valve at least behaves in the way that I expect, but I'm still not happy with overall performance, I can buy one of these pumps from Surplus Center:
https://www.surpluscenter.com/Hydraulic ... 98-D-S.axd

I'll have to bush its 5/8 keyed input shaft to mate to the Ingersoll's 3/4 keyed driver, but other than that it should bolt in. And it will boost my output from 11.2 up to 13.4 GPM.

Bob

Maintains GPM to your standards for your priority application.
Allows you to redirect oil to a secondary application.
The Priority Flow Divider Valve from Buyers Products splits the oil from a single inlet into two separate flows, ensuring that your oil flow is maintained at the proper GMA regardless of load variations.

This is another way of say pressure constipated . Yes that will do what you want.
I don't think you will need a bigger pump . Remember you most likely will not be working the loader cylinders during full speed so there will be plenty of GPM to go around . You will be surprised just how little GPM cylinders require compared to motors . GPM make motors work / PSI make cylinders work .

Dave

I'll have to bush its 5/8 keyed input shaft to mate to the Ingersoll's 3/4 keyed driver, but other than that it should bolt in. And it will boost my output from 11.2 up to 13.4 GPM.

No need to bush just replace with the right size Lovejoy connector and new spider . You biggest concern would be the pilot (centering ring on the front of the pump is the same as the old pump , there is a few different standardized sizes . But again if your pump is in good shape I think you have enough for your needs . In this case , bigger is not alway better .

Dave

thebuildist wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 2:25 pm

Timj wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 12:43 pm Thinking out loud here,. The 600s ran the same hydraulic pump as the 400s. They ran through the tcv with power beyond to the loader. Obviously it works based on the popularity of them. So maybe the right tcv is the answer?

You make a good point. I suspect the factory 64X TCV must not be a traditional Power Beyond valve. It must direct its work oil return out the PB port, not back to its Tank port. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to lift the bucket any time the machine is in motion.

So kind of a custom product in that sense.

Anybody know precisely how to convert a standard Case TCV into is 64X ("power beyond") equivalent? The machining isn't my problem, it's the "knowing what to machine." That's my problem.

I guess I could buy one. Are they still available new? I once saw a used one on Ebay. It went for more than $500 if I recall, and it had no integrated holding valve.

It makes me think that duplicating the 64X scenario isn't really doable.

But if the overall GPM of the 64X is anything to go by, then my 9 gpm coming out of my Power Steering splitter may be adequate to make the machine perfectly usable, even if it isn't zippy.

Bob

Spot on Bob, that's what they did, the return oil from the drive motor goes to the power beyond.

Custom made for Case Ingersoll, possibly proprietary, no longer available, hard to find a work around, and expensive, are common with some of these things. The hydraulic motors fall in the same category.

I don't know if the drawings of how the valve works show enough to see how they did it?

Eugen wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 2:16 pm

DavidBarkey wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 1:36 pm
Pressure , you know that thing you suffer when you haven't had pleasure for a while . I did have to look and see if I spelled it wrong .

Dave

haha, that was just me attempting a little light fun! a little smile in the middle of the day that's all!

Ya but made me look twice LOL. I have been know to misspell thing of late . Computer usually corrects me though.

Dave

Tim,
Is this what you were talking about?
Cheers,
Gordy

Gordy wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 11:19 pm Tim,
Is this what you were talking about?

TCV with PB Colored Diagram.png

Cheers,
Gordy

Yes, that was the one I was looking at, didn't know if showed enough for Bob to machine his to work. Definitely not enough for me, there was another one without the color too.

Gordy wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 11:19 pm Tim,
Is this what you were talking about?

TCV with PB Colored Diagram.png

Cheers,
Gordy

Ok, that's awesome! I presume it's from one of the Hydro manuals. Which one? I need to compare it to an "non PB" valve to be sure that there are no differences other than the machined PB port and the inserted adapter.

I've just done some analysis, and my hunch was correct: The valve dumps all open centered flow out the PB port. In addition, any "Travel Spool" flow, any flow running through the travel motor, is also dumped out the PB port. Any flow through the mid-lift cylinder ports just dumps back to tank. So kinda specially made to pair with that other spool valve downstream. But the valve downstream doesn't need to be special. It's just a normal spool valve.

So now I'm a little torn. I have an extra TCV sitting on the shelf from my old 442. I'm tempted to set it up and machine that port in it. (pending confirmation that the other valve internals are the same) But do I really want to go to the work of installing a non-holding valve TCV on my tractor?

In the later years Ingersoll abandoned this approach. Is that because the integrated holding valve makes this approach unworkable? Can anyone confirm the existence of a TCV with both integrated holding valve and a PB sleeve/port? My current late model TCV has a port labelled "PB" and has a fitting screwed into it. But it's just a little bitty fitting where the PS valve returns to tank. The port isn't machined large enough to receive a PB sleeve, and it's certainly not functioning in a PB fashion.

But this is intriguing.

[/quote]
Spot on Bob, that's what they did, the return oil from the drive motor goes to the power beyond.

Custom made for Case Ingersoll, possibly proprietary, no longer available, hard to find a work around, and expensive, are common with some of these things. The hydraulic motors fall in the same category.

I don't know if the drawings of how the valve works show enough to see how they did it?
[/quote]
Sorry. I replied with my big "analysis" statement before I read this. The drawing does show enough to tell. I just opened it in GIMP (like Phostoshop but free) and cut and pasted the spool area, and then slid it to the side as though it had been pushed in. Then you can just visualize where the flow has a free path to travel.

Bob

DavidBarkey wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 4:48 pm Maintains GPM to your standards for your priority application.
Allows you to redirect oil to a secondary application.
The Priority Flow Divider Valve from Buyers Products splits the oil from a single inlet into two separate flows, ensuring that your oil flow is maintained at the proper GMA regardless of load variations.

This is another way of say pressure constipated . Yes that will do what you want.
I don't think you will need a bigger pump . Remember you most likely will not be working the loader cylinders during full speed so there will be plenty of GPM to go around . You will be surprised just how little GPM cylinders require compared to motors . GPM make motors work / PSI make cylinders work .

Dave

Thanks, Dave, that's very encouraging!

I can't wait to get it piped in and see how it is. The whole PB port thing is tantalizing. But I'm going to go with the sure thing for now.

Bob

thebuildist wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 8:28 am

Gordy wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 11:19 pm Tim,
Is this what you were talking about?

TCV with PB Colored Diagram.png

Cheers,
Gordy

Ok, that's awesome! I presume it's from one of the Hydro manuals. Which one? I need to compare it to an "non PB" valve to be sure that there are no differences other than the machined PB port and the inserted adapter.

I've just done some analysis, and my hunch was correct: The valve dumps all open centered flow out the PB port. In addition, any "Travel Spool" flow, any flow running through the travel motor, is also dumped out the PB port. Any flow through the mid-lift cylinder ports just dumps back to tank. So kinda specially made to pair with that other spool valve downstream. But the valve downstream doesn't need to be special. It's just a normal spool valve.

So now I'm a little torn. I have an extra TCV sitting on the shelf from my old 442. I'm tempted to set it up and machine that port in it. (pending confirmation that the other valve internals are the same) But do I really want to go to the work of installing a non-holding valve TCV on my tractor?

In the later years Ingersoll abandoned this approach. Is that because the integrated holding valve makes this approach unworkable? Can anyone confirm the existence of a TCV with both integrated holding valve and a PB sleeve/port? My current late model TCV has a port labelled "PB" and has a fitting screwed into it. But it's just a little bitty fitting where the PS valve returns to tank. The port isn't machined large enough to receive a PB sleeve, and it's certainly not functioning in a PB fashion.

But this is intriguing.

It's from one of the 2 "Hydraulic System and how it works) manuals. I can't get it to upload right now. The larger file has the color images, the smaller one seems more detailed, no color. I think it's in the same manual your hydraulic layout image is from.

Ok, that's awesome! I presume it's from one of the Hydro manuals. Which one? I need to compare it to an "non PB" valve to be sure that there are no differences other than the machined PB port and the inserted adapter.

It was posted in a thread on the other group several years ago, I saved the picture but not the link I have not been able to find that post yet. I did find this pdf of a 600 TCV.

file:///media/fuse/drivefs-86594500e0b2323e7e1034b515ce83ae/root/travel%20control%20valve0001.pdf


Gordy

Having seriously considered to build a loader for my 446 I have gone down this path of thinking too, but did not delve so deep. Interesting discussion.


I don't know how much the regular TCV differed over the years, but here's one from the Ingersoll Hydraulic System - How It Works manual, page 37

https://manuals.ccigt.com/ServiceManual ... marked.pdf


vs


Tried to overlap the images in gimp but obviously my skillz suckz


so drill a hole, turn a sleeve on the lathe, and Bob's your uncle



but the real question is... x,y coordinates of the center of the hole, and z axle orientation

@thebuildist Post by thebuildist » Tue Nov 16, 2021 7:56 pm

Bob said, "I posted this at the (other) site and got a single private response. I was hoping for more points of view. "Safety in many counselors" and all that. Maybe people are more knowledgeable here on this site. "

Bob, it looks like you came to the right place.

Spike

Eugen wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 12:22 pm Having seriously considered to build a loader for my 446 I have gone down this path of thinking too, but did not delve so deep. Interesting discussion.


I don't know how much the regular TCV differed over the years, but here's one from the Ingersoll Hydraulic System - How It Works manual, page 37

https://manuals.ccigt.com/ServiceManual ... marked.pdf



Screen Shot 2021-11-18 at 12.17.36 PM.png

vs


tcvpb.png


Tried to overlap the images in gimp but obviously my skillz suckz


tcv-tcvpb.png


so drill a hole, turn a sleeve on the lathe, and Bob's your uncle



but the real question is... x,y coordinates of the center of the hole, and z axle orientation

That overlay is actually pretty nice. And shows that the valves are substantially identical. The x coordinates of the whole shouldn't be too hard to work out. Just use the same x reference as the existing spools sticking out the end. And the existing holes on the other side. They should all share the same x value I would expect.

For a y value it's tempting to drill a 3/8" hole at your best dead reckoning of center. And then try to probe the interior of that hole to make a judgment of how close you are to center of the already existent hole down inside of there. The only trick then is getting your final hole on the center you want despite the fact that the whole you've already drilled is trying to pull you one way or the other. 'Probably use something like a half inch end mill to get around that.

Then measure to choose a the axis depth. Since you'll be making your own sleeve, you just have to choose a depth that's deep enough but not too deep. Probably of a full 1/4" range that's workable.

Bob, I have a 600 series tcv with P.B. sitting in a box. In the next day or 2 I can get some pics up and some measurements of the p.b. hole and what not if you'd like.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Jancoe wrote: ↑Fri Nov 19, 2021 10:35 pm Bob, I have a 600 series tcv with P.B. sitting in a box. In the next day or 2 I can get some pics up and some measurements of the p.b. hole and what not if you'd like.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

I'd really appreciate that!

If you're inclined to unscrew the PB sleeve and measure the od and distance from the face to the o ring, that would help a lot too.

Bob

This is from an ad posted on Kijiji. It is a novel way of controling flow to an aftermarket loader.

Spike

There is more than one way to skin a cat.

@Spike188 what is different about this one?

See the flow control valve on the loaders frame? I ASSume it is to regulate the flow to the loader


Gordy

@Eugen As @Gordy pointed out, the twist on this is the flow control vavle to the loader controls. If this tractor has a high gpm pump added, the loader would move to fast. This flow control may be a way to control the loader cylinder speeds. The flow control valve is usualy inline to the TVC for retarding speed for tilling. The ones from Case and Ingersoll were 8GMP flow controls. Princess sometimes had 10GMP valves meaning that the top 20% of the valve sweep would not split the flow enought to make a difference in travel speed. The flow control returns the unwanted flow back to the tank.

Spike

Don't know if I understand this well, but all that's needed then is a T connection in between the pump and the TCV? What does not make sense to me is that it would return any fluid to the tank. That fluid is not flow controlled. In that case it robs a lot of volume from TCV?

Unless it regulates the flow of both output and return to the tank fluid, then it would work just fine, right? Just trying to understand.

Eugen wrote: ↑Mon Nov 22, 2021 10:25 am Don't know if I understand this well, but all that's needed then is a T connection in between the pump and the TCV? What does not make sense to me is that it would return any fluid to the tank. That fluid is not flow controlled. In that case it robs a lot of volume from TCV?

Unless it regulates the flow of both output and return to the tank fluid, then it would work just fine, right? Just trying to understand.

The flow in hydraulics is similar to electrical in the fact that it will take the path of least resistance unless other wise controlled . It must have a pressure complicating flow control valve to split in to 2 channels. These can be fixed equal , offset or variable . They use the pressure created in each channel to push the spool valve opening up side with the most pressure to equalize the flow to preset or adjustable values .
Power beyond valves allow another valve to work as an extension of the first valve . This allows you to have 2-2 channel valves work as if they were 1-4 channel valve .
Best I can put into words . Hope it helps .

Dave

https://manuals.ccigt.com/OperatorManua ... marked.pdf

Page 6 covers the flow control kit and installation on 2XX and 4XX series tractors.

Spike

Finally got a chance to crack open that power beyond from the tcv that I have from a loader. Here is the measurements I took. I need a picture of the guts of the tcv so I can draw up and give you those measurements too.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Here is tcv hole

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

That's perfect! Thank you!

I think what I'll do is make a PB sleeve like you've so generously measured and then machine a PB port into my extra TCV from a '73 442.

Assuming that works the way I expect, I'll document the process in detail and should be capable at that point to convert standard TCV's into power beyond.

Maybe do it as a favor to friends, or whatever.

And if this current plan for the flow-divider doesn't work the way I expect, I'll just rip out my current TCV, machine it into a PB version, and put that sucker back in there!


Thanks again!

Bob

I've seen discussions about doing it from time past but as far as I know nobody did it, so I think you'd be the first do actually do it if you do it, @thebuildist

Thank you for sharing that @Jancoe !

I need to check with Mike from Etobecoke to confirm but remember him saying that the fittings for adding power beyond after drilling the port was available at Princes. I sure that he has converted at least one valve to power beyond.

Spike.

Maybe he can say something about it here, he's a member too @SylvesterCalzone

It makes sense that they'd use a standard PB sleeve. But the trick is knowing which one. I guess I could buy one and machine the hole to fit.

Let me see what's out there that's within the range of these measurements.

Bob

Thinking about how I'd do this, there are three items that I see a little more difficult for the home machinist.

1. The location of the hole in the valve housing, so that it fits precisely aligned with the inner hole where the sleeve tip + o-ring goes in.
2. What kind of thread goes on both the inner surface of the hole, and the outside of the sleeve, and what tool to use to put the thread on. So, NPT thread? Hard to find or expensive for an NPT tap and die fo that size. Regular thread and some sort of either o-ring, or loctite on the thread, to hold to the pressure?
3. I guess same issue with the inner thread of the sleeve like 2.

Thoughts?

https://www.princessauto.com/en/power-b ... Id=1259001

FYI
Does anyone know who's valves Case used ?? I know they did not make there own pumps or motors , I assume they didn't make the valves either .


Dave

Eugen wrote: ↑Thu Nov 25, 2021 10:45 am Thinking about how I'd do this, there are three items that I see a little more difficult for the home machinist.

1. The location of the hole in the valve housing, so that it fits precisely aligned with the inner hole where the sleeve tip + o-ring goes in.
2. What kind of thread goes on both the inner surface of the hole, and the outside of the sleeve, and what tool to use to put the thread on. So, NPT thread? Hard to find or expensive for an NPT tap and die fo that size. Regular thread and some sort of either o-ring, or loctite on the thread, to hold to the pressure?
3. I guess same issue with the inner thread of the sleeve like 2.

Thoughts?

You make some well-thought out points.

For item one, speaking in terms of the orientation when the valve is installed on the tractor: for the fore/aft location, you ought to be able to center up to the precise centerpoint betweent the work ports. For the height orientation, you ought to be able to center up on the centerline of the spool. I think both of those should be doable.

For items two and three, I suppose the exact thread chosen isn't as important as the fact that the thread must match between the sleeve and the valve body. I'm guessing that the Case factory thread is an SAE Oring Boss #10, based on the dimensions from Jancoe. For this application, I think SAE Oring boss is better than NPT, as it puts less stress on the valve body female thread. NPT is probably OK? But screwing in that tapered fitting could conceivably crack the valve body, which would be catastrophic. The Oring boss route has basically zero chance of doing any damage to the valve body..

For the output side of the PB sleeve, instead of cutting internal threads, I figure you could save yourself some work and save buying an extra adapter by just making the PB sleeve's output fitting a male JIC #10. At least I THINK it's a JIC #10.

For cutting the internal threads on the valve body, SAE #10 is 7/8-14. I probably don't have that tap size on hand, as my larger size taps are hit-and-miss. But it looks like it's only about $14 on Amazon, so that's not too bad.

Any external threads I'd single-point cut on the lathe.

I'm looking forward to giving this a try!

Bob

Bob I would say you are right on the money. ?? do you have or access to a mill, an angle plate , edge finder , ect.

Dave

Yes, all of the above.

It ought to be pretty straightforward once I get around to it.

I think I'll just machine my own sleeve to Jancoe's measurements and then machine the valve hole to match that.

Bob

thebuildist wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021 10:45 pm Yes, all of the above.

It ought to be pretty straightforward once I get around to it.

I think I'll just machine my own sleeve to Jancoe's measurements and then machine the valve hole to match that.

Bob

Are you a hobbiest , general or tool and die ??

Dave

Strictly hobbyist. I got my first lathe 6 or 7 years ago. But my machinist work is informed by years of experience working with my hands. I welded my first tandem bike together when I was in 5th grade. Since then I've worked in industrial maintenance, auto maintenance, aircraft maintenance, and I have a degree in industrial engineering.

So I'm not a complete babe in the woods. But I'd be lying to imply that I'm a master machinist.

If you want to see my brain and hands (and mouth) in action, check out my loader build series on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZLoPwkHM_0 There are several machining sequences along the way.

I have the first 4 videos complete, the 5th video will be about --you guessed it-- the hydraulics.

So some time AFTER I get the hydraulics installed, I'll release video 5 about "how I installed the hydraulics." Hopefully.

I imagine the final video in the series will be attaching the bucket and forks to their respective quickattach plates, then designing/building the counterweight, and some final testing/demonstration/closing comments.

I'd like to think I can have the hydro work complete by early January, and everything else complete by about April or May, in time to do some meaningful spring driveway/landscaping/dirt work that is long overdue.

Sorry. I know that's way more than you asked for!

Bob

Bob . That explains a lot . It is easier when know the others skill set . It is hard to know how much to or not to dumb down comments .

Dave

Well Bob once you get yours drilled out I'd be interested in another one. I have a 4016ps that I'd like to put pb on with integrated hold tcv. The pb is the best route to add hydraulic valves.. Let me know if you need any other measurements off it. I also think that making a a male jic end on the sleeve help with the frame space that we lack on them. It's tight there.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Absolutely. In all reality it'll probably be a month or more, but I'll be glad to. I'll keep everyone posted as to how it goes.

Bob

Hi Bob, I just came across this thread recently while searching about adding power beyond to my 446 for auxiliary hydraulics. Machining the TCV for power beyond like the 600 series loaders are setup is an awesome idea. Have you made any progress lately? I'm sure there are a number of us who would gladly pay you for this service!

Sorry I can't help you in your hydraulic dilemma. I'm not a hydraulic engineer and at my age not ready to start. I do know that on the 600 series tractors you can lift and curl the bucket at the same time.

Keep the Peace
Harry

Continuing here, this is really where it belongs:

thebuildist wrote: ↑Wed May 04, 2022 10:32 pm Whelp, I took the plunge. The first step is to test the priority flow divider valve to see if I can find a happy adjustment.

In a nutshell, there are two paths I can take from here: either remove the TCV and modify it such that it has a power beyond port, and then feed the new loader valve from that power beyond port.
Or install the "priority flow divider" valve that I've already bought.

The TCV/power beyond option is fairly foolproof, in that it follows what Case did with the 646. All the oil leaving the TCV next heads to the loader valve for use in loader functions. But it's the most work, since I have to remove the TCV, completely disassemble it, do all the machining, clean out all the grit, and put everything all back together. And it's the most risk, as I could conceivably destroy my TCV by way of design error or machining mistake. (Not that I personally have ever goofed anything up, but I hear that it can happen to other people... ) The other downside is that the loader valve only gets pressure equal to the TCV's relief setting, in my case about 2100 psi. I think that 2100 is enough for what my loader needs, but just barely. As best I can calculate, my bucket tilt cylinders will need all of 2100 psi to tilt the bucket back with 1000lbs on the cutting lip. So I THINK it would be ok? But I'd rather have a bit of margin.

Meanwhile the priority flow divider valve would be a little easier to install. I just need to re-configure my new hard lines, both of them shorter than they are now. Working with hard lines is a pain, and I'm not happy to do it, but it's not as bad as reworking the TCV itself. And since it creates a completely separate circuit from the TCV, it can have a higher pressure relief than the TCV. Something like 3000psi seems reasonable. But the priority divider valve does have a potentially big downside: I don't know if its variable control is going to be granular enough to actually work in this application. It's rated for 20gpm, and I'm given to understand that these priority valves work best when operated near their rated flow. My flow at the divider valve is only about 9 gm. So my fear is that I may struggle to find a consistent workable sweet spot on the adjuster knob where the TCV is getting enough flow for normal operation, but there's still enough diverted for adequate loader operation. The adjustment knob reads from 1 to 10, and I'm afraid it may be a situation where a setting of "5" gives ALL the flow to the TCV, but then dialling it up a tiny bit to "5.1" suddenly cuts "all the flow" over to the loader valve and starves the TCV.

But there's only one way to find out for sure. So this morning, true to my decision, I pulled out the existing loader valve and piped in the new priority flow divider valve upstream of it. I ran out of time for today, so I didn't get to test it, but that'll be tomorrow's task: I have a loopback hose in place that routes all the oil from loader valve's "out" work port directly back into its "in" work port, and I'll drive the tractor around and see if I can find a setting on the priority valve's adjustment knob where I have "enough" flow to the TCV for workable driving, while simultaneously diverting "enough" flow through the loader valve.

Of course I'll have to judge the flow of the oil through the loader valve by sound, since I don't have an actual cylinder hooked up to it. But I at least ought to get a good sense of how "touchy" the divider valve adjustment is, and satisfy myself that there is a "wide enough" range of transition between "the TCV has all the flow" and "the TCV has zero flow."

I'll post back tomorrow with results.

Bob

It works!

I just took a quick drive, and the priority divider valve is sensitive enough to work. It's not perfect, but it's ok. It has a scale of 0 to 10, which I quickly figured out is "percent to priority" (the TCV is hooked up as "priority"). So a setting of "9" would divert 10% away and leave 90% of the flow for the TCV, while a setting of "2" would divert away 80%, leaving only 20% for the TCV. So you start at 10, (no diversion at all) and dial downward.

So my research was correct that it is a little touchy in this application. Driving at full speed (low range, I'm not a maniac ) I could dial it all the way down to about 7.5 before I could perceive any difference in how fast the tractor was moving. On down to about 6.5, the tractor was noticeably slower, but still fast enough that I'd consider it normal/usable. But move it down further to about 5, and the tractor stops moving at all. So the entire range of control is between about 8 and about 5 on the dial. Which doesn't surprise me, that's the lack of granularity/sensitivity I was given to expect.

But the good news is that I think it's still sensitive enough. I'll be able to leave the setting on "10" (no diversion) day in and day out, whenever the loader is detached. And when I hook up the loader, I just dial it down to about 6.5, and I can easily fine tune it as I'm using it.

I may yet find that there's no happy balance. It could still be that if I divert enough for the TCV, then the loader is too slow or vice versa. If that's the case, then it'll force me to go the TCV power beyond route. But for now, I'm going to proceed on this track. I think it's the best compromise available at this point.

Bob

@thebuildist in my opinion your last worry is about going faster, even in LO setting. Given the type of loads you think you will carry with this tractor, if anything you'll want to be sure you don't go fast at all. I think another thing to worry about is the frame of the 400 series. I'd even worry about the 600 series frame if I routinely had to handle 1000 lbs. Therefore I'd think you'll be just fine with your current solution as far as the hydraulics go. Just my 2c

so PART of the reason I've procrastinated so long is that I JUST CAN'T DECIDE which route I should go. I now have the oil drained and the newer hard lines removed.

And laying there looking up at it, it's awfully tempting to go ahead and convert the TCV to power beyond. The biggest challenge is that there is only about 1.9 inches of clearance coming out of the face of the power beyond port area. So my power beyond sleeve itself will have to be a swivel. There's not nearly enough room to come out with a straight fitting and then attach an elbow to that. I have an SAE10 to JIC10 swivel, and it sticks out 1.7 inches from the face of its sealing washer. So that swivel will fit between the TCV and the frame rail with a little less than 1/4" to spare. But I don't think you can get a wrench in there to tighten a fitting at that point, so I'll have to make an adapter to extend the PB output fitting by about 5 inches and angle back toward the center of the tractor. That'll put the next fitting joint in the fairly clear area to the right of and behind the TCV.
So I think I'm going to go for it. I think this is really the right way to do it, and I'd might as well do it right the first time, right?

I"ll be documenting the process as I go so I'll keep everyone posted with my progress.

Bob

@thebuildist Hey Bob , What about using a banjo fitting there ? They take up a lot less space . They work great for low flow high psi lines . They can be made to swivelled on o rings or fixed between sealing washers .

Dave

I like your out-of the box thinking. But I don't think there is quite enough end-wise clearance to insert and remove the banjo bolt with the TCV bolted in place. Researching banjo fittings I find that the one I'd want to use is either 43 or 40mm length, not including the head. So you could probably install and tighen it before you but the TCV in place, but once the TCV is in place, you can't unscrew the banjo bolt. Which puts it in the same bucket as I'm currently looking at.

I do agree it would look more conventional and workman-like, though. Of course, I could install the standard #10 swivel and just attach a hose to it before I bolt the TCV in place. And that would look cleaner and more conventional. But then to replace that hose, you'll have to remove the TCV. And since hoses have a relatively short service life, I'm wanting to go with something that's a: all steel and b: accessible with the TCV in place. That's going to look a little wonky, but only to those who are willing to remove the deck and lay down underneath the tractor.

Bob

I've got the valve out of the tractor. Now it's time to go ahead and machine the bore and threads into it. Advice question: I've got both spools out of it currently, as well as the pressure relief valve. I haven't disassembled the holding valve portion, as I don't really know what to expect when it comes apart, and I'm not sure if there is some kind of adjustments that I'll struggle to reset when I'm done.

So I'm tempted to at least consider packing the spool valve chamber with damp gauze before I start machining, in order to try to keep the swarf and shavings from travelling deep into the valve. The idea would be that I could potentially avoing removing the holding valve internals at all.

Part of me thinks that's delusional. That I simply must strip the valve down to its bare iron housing, machine it, clean it all out. Then clean it out again. Then clean it out AGAIN. Then reassemble it.

Meanwhile, I've got a shiny new 7/8-14 tap created, next step is to make the reamer I'll need to cut the flat face and bevel where the SAE 10 o-ring will seal. I need to have all my tooling ready to go, because I won't have the mill available for toolmaking once I have the valve body all installed and aligned in position.

So what are everyone's thoughts: Should I tear out the guts of the holding valve or leave it in place for machining? Is the gauze packing idea crazy? What cleaning out methods would people recommend for after the machining is complete?

Bob

@thebuildist Bob , take it apart . They are simple , Cap at each end with o rings, springs , washers and a spool . Besides the chance of getting a piece of metal damaging the hydraulics it is a good chance to make sure the ends are clean . I have read stories of people having problems with the spool sticking because of sediment collecting in the end caps .

Dave

Just what I needed to hear! Thanks for your input.

If it were you, how would you clean it out to be sure that it's grit free? I'm thinking I should wash the whole thing in solvent before I begin machining, to try to minimize the stickiness of the interior surfaces to begin with. And then blast it with compressed air after machining. And then swish it in the same solvent I used before machining. And then swish it in clean solvent to finish up.

Obviously a parts washer would be great. But I don't have one of those.

Bob,
Here is a link from a how it work manual. It has a cut away with the TCV/holding valve, it is not a parts manual but may give you enough detail to see what is in there. Scroll down to the page 28 on the pdf counter.

https://manuals.ccigt.com/ServiceManual ... marked.pdf


Gordy

thebuildist wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 9:08 am Just what I needed to hear! Thanks for your input.

If it were you, how would you clean it out to be sure that it's grit free? I'm thinking I should wash the whole thing in solvent before I begin machining, to try to minimize the stickiness of the interior surfaces to begin with. And then blast it with compressed air after machining. And then swish it in the same solvent I used before machining. And then swish it in clean solvent to finish up.

Obviously a parts washer would be great. But I don't have one of those.

Yes , simple varsol will do just fine .
Dave

@thebuildist, if you need anymore measurements of the pb hole, let me know. And jot me down for some pb machine work on my spare tcv too.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Lots to learn here for me, keeping an eye on this interesting thread. Before I got the 644 I was entertaining the thought of doing this too, and build a loader on a 400 series.

Well, there's no turning back now! I now have the PB port machined into the valve body. I used the dimensions from Jancoe, with a small exception: The Parker O-ring handbook says that for a #16 O-ring, which is what's called for here, the bore should be .738 ID and the gland should be .736 OD.

So that's what I did the inner bore to. It ended up being more like .741, which is frustrating. I marched evenly and consistently up to .728, then added .010, which left me with .741. Sheesh. I think it's because on the final pass I was feeding extra slow, to get a smooth finish. (My machine doesn't have power Z feed) But no big deal. I'll just make the gland .739 OD, and the O-ring will stretch a couple thousandths without a problem.

Next it's time to make the PB sleeve itself. I'll be machining a gland and boring out the SAE endi of this SAE10 X JIC 10 swivel, and then I'll silver solder the gland into that bore, which will effectively make it a single piece.

I'd thought about having the PB sleeve be free-floating between the swivel and the inner bore on the valve body, and just have an o-ring seal at both ends. But with the sleeve ID needing to be .445, having an o-ring seal at the SAE end either leaves the wall of the swivel too thin or leaves the wall of the sleeve too thin.

I also considered press-fitting the two parts together, but I don't think that's a good idea under 2100 psi.

The only hesitation I still have is that I may struggle to keep that gland sleeve perfectly concentric when I solder it in. If it cocks even a few thousandths off center in any direction, then the gland end is going to hit the inner bore when I go to screw it in. I'm thinking I may solder the sleeve gland in place before I machine it. The only challenge then is accurately chucking up the swivel fitting in the lathe such that it's SAE10 threads are on center and true to the lathe's rotational axis. I think that's my best chance of success.

Bob

Photos are of the shop made reamer to create the SAE10 o-ring bevel, the shop-made 7/8-14 tap, and the finished hole in the valve body.

Building tooling and experience. Might be a nice little side business, let us know when you are ready to go into production


Gordy

Like watching Star Trek techno babble, I didn't understand much but it sounded fascinating! I like it1

I'm at the stage of re-assembling the TCV, and I'm doing it from memory and a few little hints that I scribbled with a sharpie as I was disassembling it.

I think I have everything back in place, and the two pressure relief screws set very close to where they started. But I wanted to print out a parts diagram and confirm that I have put the check balls and springs and washers all back in in the same way and order that they came out.

Is there such a diagram anywhere? I see the cutaway diagram in the "how the hydraulic system works" manual. and I see a couple parts diagram for the older accessory lift (single spool) valves. But I'm not finding an exploded view parts breakdown for a TCV itself.

Am I just missing it, or do we not have one?

Bob

You probably looked at this manual already. Doesn't look like it has all the details you need though.

https://www.rottmansales.com/wp-content ... 8-3200.pdf

https://manuals.ccigt.com/More/Case-Ing ... -Valve.pdf

Try this manual. This should get you what your after. Its not for the newer valves with holding feature but I'm not sure there's another that's closer.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Thank you, gentlemen!

Turns out either of those manuals had what I needed, and it looks like I do have things correctly installed.

Tomorrow I work on my little dogleg extension from the PB port back and to the left to get it out from inside of the frame channel. And from there carry on the pressure line to where the new loader valve will be.

And then I work on reconfiguring the return to tank lines, as the return hose from the PS valve used to dump into where the PB sleeve is now, and I also need to configure a return line from the new loader valve to the tank. So I'll basically just clean-sheet re-think the entire return to tank system.

Bob

I'm making some progress on the hydraulic reconfig.

Because the main pressure feed line will be redirected, it's essentially a complete redesign of the system.

In the old design there are three lines connected to the TCV: the high pressure feed line from the pump, the big low pressure return-to-tank line heading up to the oil cooler, and lastly a small low pressure line from the power steering valve connected to the TCV at the point marked, "PB" where it dumps the ps valve's return-to-tank oil into the low pressure side of the TCV, sort of using the TCV as a tee. From there that oil joins the other low pressure oil heading off on its way, first through the oil cooler, then through the oil filter, and finally into the tank.

I can use the magic of Gimp to illustrate:
In the new design, there will again be 3 lines attached to the TCV: The high pressure feed line from the pump, as before. A new high pressure feed line leaving the TCV's new power beyond port, heading outboard to underneath the right side foot rest. And a new low pressure line leaving from the old return to tank port, heading up to join into the newly created return-to-tank manifold.
At rest position, the high pressure oil entering the TCV will all pass through and exit via the new power beyond port, where it will make its way underneath the right hand footrest and ultimately arriving at a quick disconnect of in front of it.
With the travel spool activated, the high pressure oil will head from the TCV to the travel motor and cause the tractor to move. The return oil from the motor will then make its way out the power beyond port. So whether the tractor is in motion or not, there is always flow out of the power beyond port and therefore always some pressure available at the quick disconnect in front of the right footrest. Using the loader while the tractor is in motion will cause the pressure to be split between the two functions. So the tractor will slow down while the bucket raises or whatever, but neither will be completely starved of flow.


With the lift spool activated, the oil heads out of one of the lift ports, through the lift cylinder, back into the other lift port, and is then dumped into the new return to tank line. So the new return to tank line can be much smaller than before, because it only has to handle oil coming from the lift cylinder, and only when the cylinder is actually moving. Most of the time there will be no flow in that line at all.

So we now have two small lines and one large line that all need to be connected to return-to-tank: The original small return line from the power steering valve, the new small return line from the TCV, and large line that will be coming, via a second quick disconnect, from the loader valve.


Due to space constraints and the way things are arranged in the tower, I have changed the return oil flow a little bit. All return oil will enter a half inch NPT pipe built-up manifold at the forward edge of the right side tower access panel. From there it will pass through the oil filter, and then through the oil cooler before turning to go straight up into the bottom of the tank.
It seems to me that there's a lot more space to work and better access in the tower with this new configuration than there was before. So that's a big plus.

In the original config, the hot return oil went through the cooler before it passed through the filter. Now it will now go through the filter first and then through the cooler. I think that's a better situation, because the oil is less viscous when it's hotter, allowing it to make its way through the filter that much easier. Due to the combined effects of pre-cooled oil passing through an undersized filter head, I strongly suspect that in the factory configuration a lot of the oil is actually bypassing the filter itself and just dumping through the filter head's relief valve straight into the tank. I documented elsewhere that I've increased the size of the filter head and increased the GPM capacity of the filter itself. So I really do think that the majority of the oil will now actually pass through the filter elements, which should be a benefit to the system overall.

The built-up manifold consists of a regular half inch NPT tee that will be connected to the new return side quick disconnect, and a small pipe nipple onto which I've welded two JIC6 male stubs.
(If you want welds that look THIS good, you'll have to hire me! )

The two smaller return lines will screw onto those JIC 6 fittings, and the half inch line with the quick disconnect will just stick out of the right side of the tower. I will modify the tower access cover, cutting out a u-shaped area so that pipe can stick out there.
So now there will be two quick disconnects in the vicinity of the right side footrest: a lower outer one that will be pressure supply, and a upper inner one that will be low pressure return. With the loader attached, you will just hook up two hoses to the new loader valve. One supply and one return. With the loader detached, you will have to hook up a loop back hose from the supply qd directly to the return qd. So it'll be a little bit like a PTO valve: either the loader valve needs to be hooked up or the loop back hose needs to be hooked up to give that high pressure flow a way to make it back to the tank.

If you forget to hook up that loop back hose, then all of the pressure side fluid will have to make its way through the TCVs pressure relief valve back to tank. It seems like it would be pretty hard to get the tractor to start in that condition, and if it happens while the tractor's running, I think it's going to make a loud unpleasant squealing noise! But there should be minimal if any risk of damage or injury in either case.

The high pressure side's pressure relief will now be controlled either by the setting on the TCV or the setting on the loader valve, whichever is lower. I'll have to tweak the TCV's main pressure relief upward a little bit if I find that my bucket tilt-back force is too weak for my satisfaction. I'm confident that every other function should have plenty of strength at 2100 PSI.

Half inch NPT pipe and fittings are plenty strong for the return side, since it will never see more than about 20 PSI under any circumstances.

For the supply side, I'll come out of the TCV with a short hose just for vibration damping purposes, and from there run half inch NPT pipe. Half inch black iron pipe is good for at least 5,000 PSI or thereabout. The weak point is the off-the-shelf iron fittings which are only good for about 300 psi. But I've picked up some heavy carbon steel NPT fittings that are good for 4,000 PSI. So I'll run standard 1/2 pipe and use those heavy fittings.

I'll route the lines under the foot rest but above the loader cross member.
By using the steel pipe, it has enough strength and structure all of its own to support the free-floating quick disconnect without having to manufacture a bracket to attach it to. On the return side l'll manufacture a bracket that will bolt to the tower and hold onto the pipe/disconnect, because otherwise I'd be asking the aluminum filter housing to support that weight and torque and vibration. And that's not going to hold up long term.
It's not all done yet. But I now have a clear vision for where it's going and it's nothing but the process of finishing it up. I'm starting to get excited!

Bob, I'm trying to understand everything you've explained here... Hm.. Yeah, no. You're on your own buddy, but I think you're doing just fine!

@thebuildist Bob, Thanks for taking the time to write the illustrated writeup. Even for an experienced hydraulic mechanic there is a lot to digest in your last post.

One concern that you pointed out is that black pipe fittings can only be used the return/low pressure side of the system. This because black pipe fittings have a rated working pressure of 150psi. Case, Colt, Ingersoll systems have a working pressure in excess of 2500psi and are capable of hitting 4000psi.
[url][www.grainger.ca/en/product/p/GGM1LTV7/url]

The fitting pictured here is a standard box store fitting and has a pressure rating of 150psi. In industrial hydraulic applications, black pipe fittings will not be used on the low pressure side. This is because someone somewhere, sometime, will make a system modification down stream on the low pressure side that will turn it into high pressure.

Keep safe,

Spike

Spike,

I can appreciate where you're coming from. It does seem obvious enough that in a commercial setting I'd be ill advised to set it up this way. But as soon as you make the decision to change the factory configuration at all, you're in uncharted territory and you're going to have to face whatever ramifications your decisions involve.

The reason I researched the black pipe at all, is because I couldn't help but notice that it's meaningfully thicker than the (expensive!) hydraulic hard line stock that I had purchased from the local hydraulics shop. A little googling revealed the strength limits of the black pipe itself and the lack of strength of the off-the-shelf fittings. And that's why I take the time to describe why this material choice is okay on the return side and NOT okay on the supply side.

There's no question hydraulics can be dangerous. I learned that the first time I ever got injected by my airless paint sprayer. It shot a stream of latex house paint into my left thumb so fast I didn't even know it had happened. I look down and it had swelled up like a cartoon! But that's all the more reason I think that a cookie cutter approach can be dangerous as well. Whether a product is labeled "hydraulic" or not, every component of the system needs to be chosen for its sizing/flow, for its functional/operational properties and for its requisite strength.

And that's part of the reason I'm going through and writing it up and documenting it. Both because it helps me think clearly, that in the act of explaining it I have to really think it through with all of its interconnected and sometimes complicated pieces.

And because a lot of people have a similar aspiration as me: a whole lot of people would love to build a loader for their little tractor. I figured by documenting it I can give people a realistic idea of what it'll take to accomplish it, and give them some basic guidance of what it's going to look like from a mechanical/hydraulic standpoint. And I can give them some idea of the various factors that go into the decision making: The physical layout of the parts, the materials used to connect the parts, but above all the reasons why a specific type of material or a specific layout is appropriate.

And I'm not really thinking solely of the immediate audience here. Most of us on this message thread already have a loader or the know-how to do it ourselves. But forums like this are visible on the web and will be found by people who are curious and looking for information. So the documentation is kind of for them.

Thanks again for the important "heads up".

Bob

More progress, coming fast and furious now.

Here's a look at the final PB sleeve what it looks like installed in the valve And what it looks like installed in the tractor: You're laying on your back with your feet sticking straight out the right side of the tractor. You can see the new PB fitting and hose in the background, highlighted by the green circle.
You can just see the letters "PB" on the valve body. See how that PB fitting is right up against the frame rail? It barely fits in there. If I were the manufacturer, I'd weld in some beefy reinforcement and cut a hole in the frame rail so that that PB pressure line could stick right out through the frame rail and out underneath the right hand foot rest. That's where it's heading anyway. But I don't dare risk weaking the frame in that way, so we make the special angled PB sleeve, and go from the sleeve straight to a flexible hose so that we can curl over and down and get our pressure feed line out of the frame cavity and out to where we need it.

Assuming there are no major leaks, this part of the work is all finished.

Moving on, I have the TCV's new return-to-tank line completed.
It's only about a 9.5" run, and I had intended to just use hose clamps and some 3/8" rubber hose, but I got thinking: every time I bottom out one of the bucket cylinders it will trip the pressure relief valve and have to dump all 9 gpm of flow straight to the new return line. Even though there's very little resistance to allowing the oil to get back into the tank, I am necking down a 5/8" line to a 3/8" line, so that will represent some meaningful resistance to entering that line. So just to be on the safe side, I piped in the new line with 3/8 hard line. It was a real pain getting it all curved and twisted into place, but it's done now.
Looking underneath you can see (in the lower right of the picture ) my new DIY JIC-12female X JIC-6 male adapter. I machined up a JIC6 male fitting stub, and then turned its shaft to where it fits snugly inside the old 7/8" hard line return pipe, and then silver (hard) soldered it in. (This is not "silver bearing" plumbing solder, it's what used to be called "hard solder". It has a lot of silver content, but it's closer to brazing than soldering.) It should be good for at least 2000psi, and it'll never see more than about 20 or 30psi, so that should be good to go.

And finally for today, here's the new return manifold with both the new TCV return line and the PS return line attached. It's a little tight getting a wrench in there, but no worse than the other hydro fittings up inside the tower.
Tomorrow I work on re-hooking up the various parts to the TCV and running the new high pressure line.
Then while I'm down here I'll go ahead and upgrade the TCV linkage, since once I have the loader crossmember bolted back in place it's even harder to get up into this area than normal.

And normal is no picnic, right?

Bob

Nice work Bob . Thanks for documenting it . It will help me a lot when I get back to Building Frankie 2.

Dave

Certainly, a lot of work Bob. I know the 600 series do not come up for sale, but all the more reason to purchase them when they are available! I applaud your diligence and ingenuity on your project.

Keep the Peace
Harry

@thebuildist your work on this is impressive. Not much room there at all, it's kinda scary to even think of starting something like this. Amazing progress, and fingers crossed that no leaks find their way in (or rather out). You're doing now what many of us have thought doing but most of us are not equipped with your knowledge and courage! Thank you!

Bob, it's looking like you got that pb sleeve figured out. That looks like a factory piece right there. Jealous of your machines and your skills. Keep up the good work.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Well, so far, so good. I've just finished the initial pressure and driving test, and everything seems normal. It's not the final test, though, because the new extended pressure line is currently just operating as a return-to-tank line, so no real pressure there yet.

But at least I've confirmed that everything still operates normally, power steering, forward and reverse, including the new TCV linkage upgrade.

Here are a couple photos, showing the new pressure line and return line. It looks a little crazy with the pipes sticking up in the air, but the tractor won't ever actually look like this. The pipes need to come up high like they are in order to reach the loader valve which will be positioned something like this mock-up photo:
When the loader is removed, the vertical standards/receivers will be left behind, and these new vertical pipes can be secured to the standards and will be somewhat concealed by them. So it won't look so crazy once it's all put together.
But before I put it together, I need to get the new loader valve piped in and put it under enough load to trip the pressure relief valve, which will be the actual pressure test. Once I can trip the relief valve without any leaks, then I'm clear to reassemble the loader subframe/crossmember, and put the loader on, and pipe up all the cylinders to the new valve.

To that end, I've just ordered a fitting I need to hook up the return line from the loader valve. So I'm stuck for a bit until that fitting comes in.

Nice work Bob, looking forward to the big pressure test!

I have a sinking feeling.

I cobbled together a return line hose so I can do a test. Again, the return line is only 10 or 12 psi, so I built up a temporary adapter using JB Steel Stick. It's ugly but good enough for a temporary return to tank line.

Then I plugged in my new valve and dead-headed one of its spool's ports with plugs. So with the engine running just above idle, when I pull that lever, the pressure line is essentially plugged, and it should trip the pressure relief valve, either in the new valve or the TCV.

And when I do pull the lever, you can just barely perceive the engine change pitch for a second. About like the engine changes pitch when you've raised the deck all the way up and reached the top. A just-noticeable drop in rpm for a second.

Surely if that line were back-feeding 2000+ psi, it would meaningfully bog the engine, right? Especially just above an idle.

Tomorrow I'm going to rig up a gauge so I can see what PSI it's hitting. But my sinking feeling is one of the following:

1. My PB sleeve isn't sealing, so the slightest back-pressure is just venting around the sleeve straight to tank. I don't think that should be the case. I made it carefully and to spec, so I have no reason to think it wouldn't seal. But until it's proven, who can say?

2. The power beyond port is downstream of the lift circuit. I'm thinking this is more likely. Now that I stop to run scenarios through my mind, I think the way the TCV is designed that the PB sleeve is downstream of the lift circuit, not tied directly to the travel circuit. The travel spool feeds the lift circuit, the lift circuit feeds the PB port. If that's the case, then the lift circuit pressure relief is actually what's in effect for the PB port, not the main pressure relief. And that jives with what I think I remember about the 64X series: they use a PB configuration, and their lift cylinders are only around 700 or so PSI. And I now have my valve configured like a 644. So the reason the engine is barely straining is because I'm only developing 600 or so psi in my PB pressure line before the lift circuit pressure relief trips.

If that's the case, I think I'll have to go back to the drawing board, abandon the PB route and go and back to using the proportioning/splitter valve. Because I've chosen relatively small diameter cylinders, so to get the stength I want I can't even consider anything less than about 1500 PSI to the loader valve. And I can't crank the lift circuit's relief valve up that high without risking damage to the deck lift cylinder. Heck, I'm not even sure it CAN go that high.

So I'll sleep on it and try to get a gauge on it tomorrow. No real panic until then. But as of now I have a sinking feeling.

Bob

Oh Bob, I feel for you. These are the kind of things I lay awake thinking about.

"Then I plugged in my new valve and dead-headed one of its spool's ports with plugs. So with the engine running just above idle, when I pull that lever, the pressure line is essentially plugged, and it should trip the pressure relief valve, either in the new valve or the TCV.
Quote"

@thebuildist Bob , I am assumiing you put an Oring on the PB fitting . That being said . Did you count the turns and replicate for the bypass valve in the valve body after machining ? If I remember correctly this tractor has power steering . At an idle , it may not create enough flow past the deverter valve to set off pressure releaf valves . Did you check your releaf valve setting with a guage at the port on the pressure in side of the TCV ? You may just need to up the RPM.

Bob, the loaders had the same lift cylinder as yours 4xxx does. The 6xx loaders lift relief was set to 1200? Psi. Changing the lift relief spring will increase your psi. Again why can't you increase lift relief? What size cylinders are you using for your loader?

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Yes, I did both those things. And I just tested it with the gauge, and I think my suspicion is confirmed.

I put a gauge right on the port coming out of the new spool valve, dead-headed to the gauge. And with the engine at full rpm and the lever pulled it's pushing right around 720 PSI. To me, that rules out any issue with the pb sleeve, I would think if it were bypassing the sleeve it wouldn't develop that much pressure.

And that figure is right around what the lift circuit relief valve would be set at. So unless someone more knowledgeable can convince me otherwise, I think that the PB port is on the same pressure galley as the lift circuit, and the lift circuit's relief valve will be in effect for the PB port.

So I'll never get more than... what? 1,000 psi max out of this line. And that means it isn't going to work for me.

I think it's time to look at what it will look like to pipe in the splitter valve.

Bob

Jancoe wrote: ↑Sat May 28, 2022 8:49 am Bob, the loaders had the same lift cylinder as yours 4xxx does. The 6xx loaders lift relief was set to 1200? Psi. Changing the lift relief spring will increase your psi. Again why can't you increase lift relief? What size cylinders are you using for your loader?

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

I'm using 2" ID cylinders for both boom and bucket. For the boom I think 1200 is plenty. For the bucket, due to the fact that the cylinder is "pulling" to lift the bucket (which reduces its strength due to the lower area of the piston) and the fact that its position when it needs to be strong is one where is has little mechanical leverage means that I really need around 2000 psi to have the strength I'm planning on. (1000# lift at the lip of the bucket) I was assuming 2500 in the design.

I guess I could go up to 1200 with no problem. To go higher than that I think I'd need to rework the deck lift cylinder to increase its max pressure. I have an old tie-rod cylinder I could consider cutting down....

Can that spring be easily sourced? I guess I could pull it and measure it and just try to shop for a spring with the spec's I need.

Bob

Could you perhaps sketch the hydraulic circuit as it is now? I don't really understand why the lift pressure relief valve would be involved with the pb at all. Maybe it's something else going on and you don't have to go with a splitter valve after all.

I have a single line coming off the power beyond port that I'm dead-heading into a gauge, and that gauge is reading 720.

If my PB sleeve were defective, I think it would completely blow out. Maybe I'd get... 50 or 70 PSI max?

So I think that internally to the TCV that the power beyond is actually coming from the lift circuit. As such it's getting the same max pressure as the lift circuit.

And that makes sense as to the way the 64X series work: Case travel circuits always operate at.. at least 1700? Maybe more? But the power beyond pressure on a 64X is only 1200. With so much less pressure, it cannot be coming direct from the travel circuit. It must be tied to the lift circuit, and then they have the lift circuit relief dialled up to 1200.

That's the way it looks to me right now.

Bob

So you want it stronger than the 600 series?

I'm not sure. I know I want to be able to break out 1000lbs

And my cylinder Id is smaller than the 600 series, so I need higher pressure.

Bob

Why not tighten the relief valve?

Replace the lift relief spring to a stronger one. I have that spare 600 valve I can pull the spring to get the measurements from. I sworn I wrote down the specs for both the 400 and 600 lift relief springs. I'll look around for it. Then you can set your lift relief to your desirement. Now install an inline relief valve to your mid lift. I set my lift relief years ago to 750psi and have had no issues. My hh34 3 point needed it when I make a 3 point boom pole. The lift cylinder has been fine. With an inline relief to the mid you can set it to a much lower setting. Now you will have full control of your loader relief. The lift circuit does control the pb relief. I also belive if you have the lift in float the psi will increase on the lift circuit when loader valve changes.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

I'm going to have to do some thinking about what everyone has posted. I have an extra TCV from my old 442, I can disassemble its lift relief and get a good sense of what spring I'll need.

@Jancoe where in the circuit for your mid lift did you locate your extra relief valve? It seems like I'd have to put relief on both the extension and retraction ports... Am I missing a simple way that a single relief valve can protect both sides of that cylinder?

Bob

At this juncture I can go one of two ways:

I can go the proportioning valve route:

1. Undo what I've just finished, pull out the new power beyond sleeve and it'll put the TCV back as though nothing happened.
2. Bolt in the new proportioning valve next to where my selector valve is currently at, and re-pipe pressure supply line up to it. I've already tested the approach, I know it works.
3. Pipe in from the "primary" port of the proportioning valve back down and into the TCV.
4. Pipe in from the "secondary" port down and over to the new pressure line I just installed.
5. Re-mount my existing selector valve, because the proportioning valve is going to "shove it" to the left.

Or I can go the power beyond route, and "finish what I started":

1. I think that I could actually just disable the lift circuit relief altogether, if I just crank the screw in fully tight. In that case the only pressure relief would be the travel circuit relief, so the whole valve/system would just have a single relief setting, currently around 2100 psi. Tomorrow I'm going to try that and do a pressure test to confirm.

It seems to murky of how exactly i could install pressure relief into both of my TCV lift work ports. Therefore I'd have to strengthen all the components on the lift circuit to get them rated for 2100 or higher:

2. Replace the deck lift cylinder with one that has the same stroke and strength and is rated for at least 2100 psi. I'm guessing I'd have to cut down an existing cylinder because 3" stroke is going to be an oddball. (Isn't it a 3 inch stroke?)

3. My current selector valve and its piping (for my 3 point hitch) is only rated for 1000 psi. So I'd have to replace that selector valve the piping to it.


The proportioning valve route is a little more clear and defined, so a little more appealing to me at this point.


Thoughts?

Bob

Edit: I guess I do know how to put in a relief valve. I think I could install a single new pressure relief valve ($70 after shipping) and put a tee in both lift circuits, each with an outward flow-only check valve, with each line leading to the single relief valve. The check valves ensure that the pressure from either of the two lift lines can't cross bleed the other. It'll cost $70 in cash, I have to do some piping, and I'd have to manufacture the two inline check valves. I guess it's easier than redoing both the cylinder and the selector valve?

Bob

All right, while I've been sleeping I've been scheming.

And assuming that blocking off the lift circuit pressure relief behaves as I expect, I have decided to manufacture the custom component that I need in order to provide pressure relief to both ports of the lift circuit.

I'm going to build a "dual isolated-port relief valve with an integrated tee at the relief outlet."

More details to follow.

So since I'm disabling my lift circuit's built-in pressure relief valve, I need to install a pressure relief valve after the work lines have left the TCV body.

It has to be settable to around 600 psi, Case lift circuit factory specs.

It should have dual ports, so that I can hook it into both work ports of the lift valve, so that either port can have its extra pressure vented/relieved

But those dual ports must be isolated from each other: They must each have a check valve so that oil can ONLY flow out of the work lines, through the pressure relief valve, and ultimately into the tank. Without the isolating one-way check valves on those ports, oil could just flow out of work line "A", into our new device, and then flow right back into work line "B". That would allow pressure to equalize between our two work lines, so our lift cylinder or whatever would no longer work.

The vented oil has to be routed to the tank, so it has to have an output fitting that is connected to "return-to-tank".

The last part is optional, but allows for easier installation: If I give this device two "return-to-tank" ports that are internally connected to each other, then I can use this device as a tee, and save the hassle of having to cut in a new tee somewhere in the return-to-tank manifold. In my case, my power steering return-to-tank line is connected directly to a fitting on my return-to-tank manifold. I'll disconnect that hose from that fitting and connect it one of the fittings on this new device. Then I'll run a new hose from the other return fitting on this device up to the now open fitting on the return-to-tank manifold. So now my ps valve will send its return-to-tank oil into this new device, which will just pass straight through into the new hose, which leads right back where it needs to go, into the "return-to-tank" manifold. So we use our new device as a tee, enabling us to connect two devices to a single return-to-tank manifold fitting.
Here's the basic layout of how it will be hooked up. It'll have 4 JIC 6 fittings, two "protected"/inlet ports and two "return-to-tank" ports. It'll have a standard style pressure relief adjustment screw.

To install it, I'll put in a new tee in each of my lift circuit work lines. Then run lines from those tees to the two inlet ports on this device.
As I mentioned, I'll reroute my power steering valve's return line from where it's attached now to one of the return-to-tank ports on this new device. Then I'll run a new 1/4" hose from this device's other return-to-tank port up to the now open fitting on the return manifold.

So any pressure in my lift circuit lines greater than about 600 psi will trip this device's relief valve and safely bleed off into the tank.

I could buy and pipe in multiple relief valves, at a cost of around... $250? Plus a real rat's nest of extra lines and fittings, for which there is NO ROOM. It's bad enough that I won't even attempt it.

But I already have the block of steel to machine this out of. I can purchase or make the 1/4" NPT x JIC 6 fittings. I already have some random extra ball bearings and springs that I can find something to make two workable check valves. And I have an extra non-holding TCV valve from which I can cannibalize the relief spring, ball, and adjusting screw.

I do need to buy or make a 1/4" NPT plug.

Then I just drill a series of holes, and tap 6 different holes,
Then put it all together, and Voila! I have a shiny new

Dual Isolated-port Pressure Relief Valve with Integrated Tee at the Relief Outlet.


I'll take pictures, and report on how well it works.

@thebuildist I didn't want to say anything so you can make your decision undisturbed. But I would have chosen the same direction.

One thing I don't understand is why have two returns to the tank. Why?

Because I'm using this new multipurpose device as a tee. Both ports are part of the "return to tank system", but only one of them will actually run to the tank. The other one will actually RECEIVE tank oil from my power steering valve. That way I don't have to cut in another tee in the "return to tank" manifold.

Bob

I know it's crazy to try to make my own hydraulic component. But it's by far the least effort required to get from here to a working setup. I've taken the time to work up the schematic of what I'm talking about doing. It's easier to see it on paper than to follow my long description.

Here's the schematic of my system now: And here it is after the new dual port pressure relief valve.

Bob

Bob, the hydraulic path drawings are awesome. I am sure you have answered this question before. What cad system are you using. The detail of the pump and tank would be time consuming to draw. AutoCad was my goto 25 years ago followed by 3d versions. I had a detailed awing of a 40,000 sqft plant with machinery and office furniture down to an inch, taking months of spare time. Lately and I have messed around with lunix based free cad.

Drawings like yours take a lot of upfront time but once developed make modifications quick and simple. The thought process that one goes through while drawing brings ah ha moments that make system design issues well thought out.

Keep up the great work.

@thebuildist I wanted to ask for a diagram, but I realized it would be very difficult to do it. Seems like you have it already, very nice drawing and that is much easier to understand.

@Spike188

First of all, thanks for the compliment. But I have disappointing news: I'm not able to produce these using CAD. I do use CAD mostly a shareware program that I started using in the '90s and I've just never graduated from. It's strictly 2D and not terribly easy to use. But it's what I'm used to so unless I want to spend a lot of time to learn something else, it's good enough for my 2D needs.

But for these, I started with a black and white image pulled from the hydraulics manuals from this site. Then I use an open source image editing program called GIMP. First I painstakingly removed the watermark. Just for clarity purposes to show that this is an individual person's creation not something put out by case / Ingersoll.

Then I realized that color coding the various lines makes it a lot clearer so I did that.

Then as my design has evolved I have evolved the picture with it. And it does produce a clear, easy to follow image. But it's very labor intensive to work on. If it could be done with CAD it would be so much faster!

But if anybody's interested I would be glad to share the GIMP-native file that I used to produce them. Since Gimp is open source, anyone can freely download and use it.

Bob

Having used gimp, freecad, and almost any other free program out there, I appreciate how labour intensive it is and also that you're sharing it with us. I wish I could help.

Ok, I'm ready to machine my Dual Isolated Port Hydraulic Relief Valve with Integrated Outflow Tee.

My actual block of steel I'm starting from is 3.93X3x1 inches.
I took the time to wind a couple of 1/2" OD springs using .038 music wire. These are what will drive the check ball. Being hand-wound, they're ugly, but they're strong enough to overcome the viscosity of oil, while being weak enough to easily allow fluid inflow at around 30psi or so. So they should work fine.
I took apart the pressure relief section of an old TCV from a 442. I measured the hole diameter(s) and depth(s) carefully.

So I've updated my drawing to reflect those real-life dimension, and I'm ready to begin work on the valve body.
I'll post some pics once I have it machined.

Bob

So I've got the body machined for the new relief valve. I started with the actual relief valve chamber/hole, and within about 30 seconds I hit a major roadblock when I snapped off my 3/16" drillbit deep in the hole. An hour of tedious frustration, and I was able to continue.

I measured the relief valve chamber of a spare TCV and drilled this as closely to those measurements as I could. About the only tricky part is the beveled lip down deep where the steel ball will have to seal against. I used a drillbit to create the hole, then ran the drillbit backwards in an attemp to kind of burnish it to a clean finish.
Next I drilled one of the outlet holes, and tapped and beveled it for SAE #6 Female. Then I drilled its deep passage that reaches all the way into the relief valve chamber. I wanted to pressure test the relief valve, and I needed this hole to be in place, so that my pressure test air had a place to escape.
Then I drilled out the first of the two inlet check valve chambers, so that I could fit the rubber tip of my blowgun in there for a tight seal, and assembled the pressure relief ball, spring and screw stud.
Then I went ahead and shot 120 PSI air in there. I was hoping to hear and feel no air esacaping at the lower right outlet hole. That didn't happen. It was putting up meaningful resistance, but there was clearly a good amount of air hissing out of the lower right outlet hole. Which meant that my relief ball wasn't making a good seal against its seat.

I thought of a couple possible solutions: 1. Try to grind the seat with a beveled stone in a dremel. 2. Tap/pound the ball bearing down into the hole to deform the steel into a shape that makes close contact. I decided the first option is more predictable and less risky. And the second option could damage the ball bearing and I don't have a spare of that size. So I decided on option 1. However, I don't have a beveled dremel grinding stone of that shape and size. So I chucked up a similar one in my dremel and used a grinding wheel dresser to dial in its diameter and give it a 45 degree bevel. Worked like a charm. But when I stuck it in the hole I found another problem, that the shaft is too short. It wasn't even reaching the top of the hole, let alone leave enough sticking out to grip in the dremel chuck.

So I chucked up some 3/16" rod in the lathe and drilled a 1/8 ID hole in the end of it. I put some green loctite in the hole and rammed in the shaft of the dremel stone. So now I had extendED the shaft of the dremel stone by an inch, but it wouldn't fit in the dremel anymore. No big deal. The slower speed of a cordless drill is probably safer/better anyway. So that's what I used.

After I ground that inner seat for 20 or 30 seconds I cleaned/blew everything out again and reassembled the relief valve components.

This time it held 120psi of air without any perceivable leakage. If it can seal air this well, it'll be fine for 15w-40 oil.

Finally I went through and drilled/tapped/reamed the final holes and passages, as per the drawing.
I have 4 ea. SAE 6M X JIC 6M adapters on the way. I'll ream a seat for the check ball seat into the SAE 6Male end of the two inlet fittings. The check ball seal will be a lot easier to seal, because the harder the fluid pushes, the harder it seals. The relief valve is just the opposite, you have only the spring pressure to keep the fluid contained, so the ball to seat mating surface has to be super clean/smooth.

So now I wait for my fittings to come in the mail. But it's basically finished. Hooray!

Very cool!

Nice work Bob @thebuildist . Here is a trick I use to recondition the seat of a releaf valve . The same would have worked here . Take drill bit the size in question . With carbide cutter turn required angle on the tail end of bit . Put bit in drill backwards and with some lapping compound , lapp the seat true again . Works like charm every time . The cheap extra long bits are even better as you can cut off the cutting end, or the stem of an old valve . Anything that is harder than what you are working on .

Nice tip! That's what I'll do next time. What angle do you generally use? Google tells me different things, 45 degrees seems to be most common.

Here's another question for you: I need to cap off my current lift circuit relief in my TCV. I thought about replacing the relief spring with a solid stud, as I'm afraid if I leave the relief spring clamped too tightly it'll just snap.

But I'm thinking that the solid stud will have problems as well, since with heat-related expansion/contraction, I think it'll eventually work the sealing ball loose in its seat.

So now I'm thinking I should build a 3/16 plug with an o-ring groove, and let the o-ring do the sealing and eliminate the check ball altogether.
How would you approach it?


Bob

thebuildist wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 9:55 am Nice tip! That's what I'll do next time. What angle do you generally use? Google tells me different things, 45 degrees seems to be most common.

Here's another question for you: I need to cap off my current lift circuit relief in my TCV. I thought about replacing the relief spring with a solid stud, as I'm afraid if I leave the relief spring clamped too tightly it'll just snap.

But I'm thinking that the solid stud will have problems as well, since with heat-related expansion/contraction, I think it'll eventually work the sealing ball loose in its seat.

So now I'm thinking I should build a 3/16 plug with an o-ring groove, and let the o-ring do the sealing and eliminate the check ball altogether.

2022-06-11 17_18_01-DeltaCad - [COMBINATION CHECK AND PRESSURE RELIEF VALVE.DC].png

How would you approach it?


Bob

I start with about 45deg. and paint the tip with a marker to adjust contact patch . 45- 60 degree , but 45 ish seems to be the most commend.
Plug with o ring would be my choise .

The SAE by JIC adapters came in, so I've got it all assembled and painted. I went ahead and stamped the various ports for the next guy down the road. But I labeled them incorrectly! Well duh. So I went back and fixed them, but the picture is before it was fixed.

I've just finished installing my new multi function relief valve.

I made a mounting plate for it and bolted that plate up to the right hand frame rail, right behind the place where the loader cross-member will bolt in, and detached the power steering valve's return-to-tank hose from where it used to attach to the return-to-tank manifold right near the hydro oil filter, and routed that hose down and attached it to the new multi-function relief valve. Then I created a new 3/8 hard line that runs from the new multi-function valve up to the now open port on the return-to-tank manifold.

Next I made the plug that's needed to seal off the accessory lift relief valve inside the TCV. The inner hole where the relief spring fits is 3/8". So I made the plug a few thousandths less than that, and gave it an o-ring groove, and put a 3/8" o-ring in the groove.
I decided I wanted the plug to be somewhat "captive" to the 7/16-20 threaded outer plug. So I made a new outer plug on the lathe and drilled a 3/6" hole about halfway into its depth. Then I turned a 3/16 journal on the end of the 3/8" inner plug that slides up into that hole. That way everything stays in straight alignment as you push/screw it in. I used a bandsaw to cut flat-tipped screwdriver slot in the end of the threaded outer plug.
Everything screwed in without any drama, though it was fairly tight. I'm not certain, but the o-ring may have hung up on internal obstacles and gotten cut. Time will tell when I pressure test it. The steel of the plug itself is also screwed tight into the beveled seat, so the o-ring may not really matter that much anyway. As long as I can get full 2000 psi+ at the point of my new spool valve, I'm happy.

Meanwhile, I needed to install two new tees to connect from the work ports on the accessory lift over to the new relief valve. I put the first tee into the line that currently has a single output line, a line that leads up to the selector valve. That tee went in without too much drama, though I had to do some creative bending to get the 3/8" hard lines bent/squeezed/looped in the tight space. 5/16" tubing is a lot easier to work with, but JIC 5 fittings are expensive and hard to find, so I just went with JIC6 and 3/8" tube.


The second tee goes into the the other work port line, and that already has one tee installed, since it's connected to both the mid lift cylinder and the 3 pt. cylinder.

But when I put a tee on there that situation goes from unwieldy to ridiculous. Converting from JIC 5 to 6, converting from JIC to NPT, it's just not the way I want to leave it.


So I chucked up some 1" round bar and turned into a 4-way tee/mini manifold. It's just simple drilling and tapping.
After it's installed, it's not amazing looking, but it's better than it would have been otherwise. I had to make a full-on s-tube to get it joined. I'm sure it could be routed better and cleaner, but it's not obvious how, at least to me.
You may notice I use teflon tape on these NPT fitting, and I know that's somewhat controversial. I am very careful to never wrap the teflon on the very tip of the fitting, so that no teflon can ever squeeze down into the flow chamber itself. All the tape remains within the space between the threads.

Next I fill it all back up and do pressure testing and adjusting. But that'll probably be tomorrow.

Bob

Ok, a Poll: Be honest with yourself and answer before you keep reading:

Question: Did the new Dual Isolated-port Pressure Relief Valve with Integrated Outflow Tee work as intended?
(The three point and deck lift still work normally, and there is now high pressure (2000+ PSI) at the point of the new spool valve, and there are no leaks anywhere)

1. Yes. Everything worked perfectly, first time through. Manufacturing and installing your own hydraulic components is apparently so simple even a complete dummy can do it.

2. Kinda. It worked, but there were a few issues/leaks that had to be addressed before everything came together properly.

3. No. It doesn't work the way I thought.

Well...






































The answer is, 1. "Yes. It worked the first time through!"

I don't have an easy way to test the pressure on the new relief valve, but you can hear it crack when the deck lift or 3 pt. reaches end of travel. It doesn't bog the engine down hardly at all, and it's plenty strong enough to lift my weight on the 3 pt arms. I'm guessing it's relieving at about 500 psi.

As for the new line coming out of the new power beyond port, it's now cracking at about 2400 psi. I can't tell if it's the relief in the TCV that's cracking or the relief in the new spool valve. Either way, so long as 2400 is sufficient, then I'm not concerned. It's not too high, so I'll only adjust it upward if I have to.
There were no leaks to be found anywhere in the system. No one is more shocked at that than I am.

Bob

Knowing you are very particular and what a pain hydraulic leaks can be, I would have guessed "2". Nice job, lots of planning pays off.

Amazing! Great job Bob!!! Nice to see it coming together like this!


Do be careful for a while though, please, until it proves to be safely used for a while and it holds.

Awesome. I'm glad you pursued the power beyond and didn't abandon it with the obstacles you came into. You now have a perfect setup where everything will have its own relief and full control of each valve. Now that you have it done what would you have done differently, anything you didn't like? Like a selector valve for the 3 point and mid lift? Or did I miss that and you already have that?
Wish I had the time to build a hydraulic setup like yours. I don't need a loader on my 4020 because of my 2 6018's but would like a power beyond so I can add accessory ports and make more hydraulic attachments.
Fun stuff. Glad you shared your build here.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Jancoe wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 12:46 pm Awesome. I'm glad you pursued the power beyond and didn't abandon it with the obstacles you came into. You now have a perfect setup where everything will have its own relief and full control of each valve. Now that you have it done what would you have done differently, anything you didn't like? Like a selector valve for the 3 point and mid lift? Or did I miss that and you already have that?
Wish I had the time to build a hydraulic setup like yours. I don't need a loader on my 4020 because of my 2 6018's but would like a power beyond so I can add accessory ports and make more hydraulic attachments.
Fun stuff. Glad you shared your build here.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Yes, I already have a selector valve, and that's partly why it was a relative pain to add in the extra tee's to split off to the new relief valve ports: One of my accessory lift lines already had a Tee in it. So now packed into the space between the frame rails, just on the 2 accessory lift lines I have one tee with an extra hardline coming from one lift line and 2 tee with extra lines coming from the other lift line. As I referred to in an earlier post, rather than install two consecutive tee's with a bunch of adapters and converter fittings, I chose to machine a single 4-way manifold, with a single "in" port and 3 "out" ports. That goes a long way to keeping things neat and compact.

But there's a lot of fttings and lines running through that little space, no two ways about it. Here's a look up at the TCV with the camera under the deck/mid lift pointing back toward the transaxle.


Bob

Eugen wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 11:52 am Amazing! Great job Bob!!! Nice to see it coming together like this!


Do be careful for a while though, please, until it proves to be safely used for a while and it holds.

That sounds like sound advice, I'll do just that.

Holy moly there's a lot going on under there. It must have been fun getting it all hooked up in the right order.

Timj wrote: ↑Wed Jun 22, 2022 3:51 pm Holy moly there's a lot going on under there. It must have been fun getting it all hooked up in the right order.

agrredddddddd