Mounting a 380 front blade on the x55 series

[Mechanos]

Can someone enlighten me on the mounting of the 380 on the x55 series? My No. 7 backhoe uses it's own hydraulics to lift itself up to engage a pivot point with some brackets on the tractor. Then raising the boom it transfers the weight such that the subframe swings up under the frame. Once in position, it is pinned in place. I'm assuming there is a similar procedure for mounting the 380.

And yes, I'm aware of that the 70A loader brackets and the 380 brackets occupy the same space, so it's one or the other. I'm considering buying a 380 and hauling my tractor over there and mounting it up may be the only way for me to "pick it up" off the ground and get it home. If that's the case, I will drop the 70A and remove the brackets to fetch it. I figure someone here either has a 380 or has had one that could outline the procedure for me.

Thanks in advance.

 

[beenthere]

The 380 blade for the x55 series is shown in jdparts. Might that help you figure it out?

 

[techwrtr2]

I've nothing to offer in terms of advice. I'm curious about the blade and how it works. The loader mount on my 855 seems pretty well seized into place so I doubt I'd even be able to use a 380.

 

[kennyd]

The #380 was not "quick attach" like the newer #74 and #84's where. I believe you used a jack to raise the rear subframe into the mounts and pin, the you can use the blade hydras to raise the front by applying down pressure till the front holes lined up, a jack may be needed there to to get more height. This is how I mount mine but I had to modify a few things to fit my 4110.

For transport, it's easy the separate the blade section from the subframe section just by removing three pins (the main pivot and the two angle cylinder pins) and get it into two heavy but manageable pieces.

Also note the cylinders on these blade are poorly designed and quite often are rusted and pitted in the bores, the vent holes can actually suck in water causing issues.

Because it is/was so much a PITA to amount these blades there are often on the used market for cheap, but they have usually been sitting for quite some time so inspect carefully.

 

[Mechanos]

The #380 was not "quick attach" like the newer #74 and #84's where. I believe you used a jack to raise the rear subframe into the mounts and pin, the you can use the blade hydras to raise the front by applying down pressure till the front holes lined up, a jack may be needed there to to get more height. This is how I mount mine but I had to modify a few things to fit my 4110.

For transport, it's easy the separate the blade section from the subframe section just by removing three pins (the main pivot and the two angle cylinder pins) and get it into two heavy but manageable pieces.

Also note the cylinders on these blade are poorly designed and quite often are rusted and pitted in the bores, the vent holes can actually suck in water causing issues.

Because it is/was so much a PITA to amount these blades there are often on the used market for cheap, but they have usually been sitting for quite some time so inspect carefully.

That's what they say about the 7 backhoe, but once you've done it a couple of times it can be mounted and removed in about 5 minutes on a good day. Usually about 10 minutes. I was just wondering what procedure was laid out in the owner's manual (OM-M75890) for the x55 series.

The design of the angling cylinders is not a poor design... virtually all setups using two single acting cylinders to perform a double acting task function the same way. There is an incredibly simple fix for this if your bores are not already rusted or pitted. Since the two cylinders are arranged symmetrically, the amount of air expelled from one cylinder is the exact same amount ingested by the other cylinder. So you just connect the two vents together with a flexible hose to close the system off from the elements. All it takes is a couple of threaded hose barbs, a tap and a length of hose. There is no pressure developed in the hose so hose clamps aren't even necessary. The swing cylinders on the 7BH are a pair of SA cylinders and there is actually a serial number break where Deere started connecting the vents together from the factory.

 

[kennyd]

Sorry I tried to help...

 

[Mechanos]

Sorry I tried to help...

Ah, but you did and you didn't even know it.

Searching around I found this picture on the web:


Notice there is another pin hole for the lifting cylinder between the rear mounting pins of the angling cylinders.

Then I found several pictures of the 380 off the tractor, including one from your picasaweb folder that shows the lift cylinder pinned to that lug:


Since the upper lift cylinder bracket on the x55 series is not integral to the subframe (it simply bolts to the bumper), the lift cylinder could be mounted to this rearward lug and used to lift the front of the subframe up to meet the frame. Then installing the front mounting pins would create a pivot point so if the cylinder were then extended it would cause the rear of the subframe to swing up into position so it could be pinned in place. Then the 2nd set of front pins could be installed and the lifting cylinder relocated to the forward position to lift the blade during use as seen in another of your picutues:


The procedure could then be reversed to lower the blade back to the ground. That is likely why I see the lift cylinder pinned to the rearward lug in almost all the pics I can find where the blade is just sitting on the ground. Now this would not work with your modifications since the upper lift cylinder bracket has been made integral to the subframe, but it would work for the x55 setup. So.... thanks kennyd.

 

[Mechanos]

I decided to go ahead and pick up a 380 that was advertised locally. The guy I bought it from said that he's had it for about 8 years, but only used it a couple of times one winter. When he got it (from someone else that had it for a while and "never used it") it was missing the rear mounting brackets and the front lift bracket. He fabricated a front lift bracket and a pair of rear brackets that allowed him to mount it to his 755, but the rear mounts were not "right" since the frame was still configured for the 855/955. It helped lower the price a little and otherwise made no difference to me since I knew I would not be using the rear mounts... I had other plans.

I have the 7 backhoe attachment for my 955, so I already had these brackets bolted to the loader bar that accepts the front of the hoe's sub-frame.


I welded an additional ear onto the backhoe brackets to accept the rear of the 380's sub-frame.


The lift bracket that the other fella fabricated simply bolts to the front bumper so the 70A front loader brackets can remain in place. The lift bracket can also remain in place with the 70A mounted.


Since the original mounting brackets were long gone... so were the stepped diameter pins that secure the rear of the sub-frame. Deere wants $51 each for those pins... I think not. About $7 each for a hitch pin (cut down to length with a new lynch pin hole drilled) and bushing welding in place got me an affordable step-pin.


Here is a close-up of the rear hanger with the 380 mounted.


And here are a couple of shots of the old "430" :laughing: with the front blade attached. Notice all the 70A loader brackets are still there.


Since the 70A is truly quick-attach, I can mount or dismount the loader in under a minute. I've only mounted the 380 about 3 times so far so I still don't have a "down-pat" routine. Even at that, I can still drop the 70A and have the 380 mounted up in about 5 minutes... maybe just a hair longer. This process is done entirely with the 380's hydraulics and does not require the use of any jacks or additional lifting equipment (while not necessary, an iron worker's bull pin is extremely handy for lining up holes for the 1st pin). Dropping the 380 is even quicker since I don't have to worry about aligning anything.

As easy as it was for me to modify the mounting brackets to work with the 70A's brackets, I honestly can't believe Deere didn't come up with something like this. I will have to assume that they never even tried.

 

[techwrtr2]

very nice, i'd not mind doing the same