Snow Attachments Snow PUMP

[pmsmechanic]

An nv4500 is borderline for a Cummins. They are rated for 400 ft/lbs and stock torque was 420 ft/lbs. I wouldn't get too excited about a nv3500 at all. They were never available behind a cummins. I do think that a snowblower would be easier on a trans over going down the road but I'm not an engineer so I don't know for sure.

Actually if your aiming for 1000 blower rpm and 2000 engine rpm then a 2-1 reduction once would do the job.

Edit to add that since you really don't need overdrive then a good stout highway truck trany would do the job too.

 

[fitterski]

An nv4500 is borderline for a Cummins. They are rated for 400 ft/lbs and stock torque was 420 ft/lbs. I wouldn't get too excited about a nv3500 at all. They were never available behind a cummins. I do think that a snowblower would be easier on a trans over going down the road but I'm not an engineer so I don't know for sure.

Actually if your aiming for 1000 blower rpm and 2000 engine rpm then a 2-1 reduction once would do the job.

Edit to add that since you really don't need overdrive then a good stout highway truck trany would do the job too.

Do you mean a truck tranny with low gears and no transfer case? At the top of my dynamic doodle page I have only a few ratios for ballpark guidance, generally from 2.0:1 to 5.0:1 depending on the fan diameter used. Most of these come in the "Low" range available only with transfer cases in small trucks.

The belted single reduction idea is not dead, it's worked out just fine except for engine torque for 8 years. I'm still kicking around many possible solutions.

 

[fitterski]

I'd like to process a minor detail before finally axing the idea of a smaller host vehicle such as a Jeep (strong axles) or my 2003 Jimmy 4x4. It ticks me off to see this car, which I bought new and have babied for 14 years, being unmarketable. I can't even GIVE it away! The problem is not size but weight and the available payload of only 1600 lbs or less, about similar with a Wrangler too. The 12-valve with the lightest gearing will totakl out around 1400 lbs, the blower (using lots of aluminum) probably at least 800.

I could install a larger Dana rear axle and larger tires to keep the rear structural and traction numbers within reason. The front however cannot be made stronger, springs will only affect riding height. Assuming that I can keep the added front load (blower) to about what the heaviest allowable plow would be on a small gmc truck, that would still leave the matter of finding a superior Dana or other locking g80 or manually lockable axle with the same existing 3:42 ratio, or a ratio that I could also change the front to.

As always, suggestions welcome.

 

[farm boy00]

I'd like to process a minor detail before finally axing the idea of a smaller host vehicle such as a Jeep (strong axles) or my 2003 Jimmy 4x4. It ticks me off to see this car, which I bought new and have babied for 14 years, being unmarketable. I can't even GIVE it away! The problem is not size but weight and the available payload of only 1600 lbs or less, about similar with a Wrangler too. The 12-valve with the lightest gearing will totakl out around 1400 lbs, the blower (using lots of aluminum) probably at least 800.

I could install a larger Dana rear axle and larger tires to keep the rear structural and traction numbers within reason. The front however cannot be made stronger, springs will only affect riding height. Assuming that I can keep the added front load (blower) to about what the heaviest allowable plow would be on a small gmc truck, that would still leave the matter of finding a superior Dana or other locking g80 or manually lockable axle with the same existing 3:42 ratio, or a ratio that I could also change the front to.

As always, suggestions welcome.

Why not switch both?? If your Jimmy is straight front axle then put heavier axles under both front and back. And if you had a lower gears then more torque to keep going.

You would be losing higher up road speeds but if this isn't a big deal why not do it. I know ford super duty axles are heavy duty and will most likely be wider so more stable. Only thing is that they are driver side (left) input for the front axle and you need super duty rims but are easy and cheap to find

 

[franklin2]

I always take the path of least resistance. Too much sideline work to modify one of those smaller vehicles to carry this rig. In 1985.5 Ford realized it's mistake and started putting the dana 60 back under the front of their f350's. It needed this to hold up under 8ft snowplows contractors were using. I think that is the minimum you are going to need to carry this thing around. The diesel sitting on the back axle will be a good counterweight.

 

[dnw64]

I'm not going back through this thread to find the references, but IIRC you said (paraphrasing)

the engine quit, never again

start it from a booster pack and it will never know it had any relationship to electricity

a diesel can run away and must have a fail safe

It seems a bit optimistic (to say the least) that any engine, no matter the engineering, build quality, controls, etc, will never stop until you want it to. Not in a Mission Critical situation, which you seem to indicate.

My take after reading through this thread is that you have unrealistic goals. Now, it's good to have goals that are beyond your reach; any Improvement 101 class will tell you the same. Then again, having a truly unobtainable goal will likely only end in heartbreak. It seems like you have settled on "keeping the banks down so snow will blow off the road". Have you considered alternatives such as:

• Hiring a house mover to locate your house closer to a town/county/state maintained road
• Moving in with your kids
• Purchasing an airplane with skis
• Running tubing under the road surface and connecting it to a boiler to melt off any accumulating snow.
• Buying a SnoCat
• Joining EA*

*Equipment Anonymous, an organization dedicated to helping those suffering with the insatiable desire to create equipment that has no practical value.

(all faintly sarcastic, of course...)

 

[fitterski]

I always take the path of least resistance. Too much sideline work to modify one of those smaller vehicles to carry this rig. In 1985.5 Ford realized it's mistake and started putting the dana 60 back under the front of their f350's. It needed this to hold up under 8ft snowplows contractors were using. I think that is the minimum you are going to need to carry this thing around. The diesel sitting on the back axle will be a good counterweight.

I don't know what plows with fittings etc. weigh.

You're probably right, so is farmboy00 except that the Jimmy is an independent front (S-15 or S-10 I'm not sure) and swapping that out would really be a PITA. A jeep would be a good setup to start with in this respect. I couldn't agree more about the Dana 60's, the net is full of broken frames and busted front ends on account of plows (and far more so at GM). THE one beauty of a smaller vehicle is maneuverability, tight turning radius and all that. I was driving my Tundra around the other day and realized that even it is a big rig though it's not a F350. I saw that I would have to use marker rods and mirrors to know where the blower was going to cut and not eat mailboxes or cars left in the snowbank.

While on plows and what they weigh, just in passing, I was kicking around the idea of a fixed blower on the front which would also back ity up closer to the frame. No raising/lowering mechanism, no HD steel blade either, just a (tilt) lowerable auger for at least 300 lbs shaved/saved. I could get another 200 out by using some aluminum (most commercially and thus inferior ones weigh 2000+ pounds, I would aim for half that at the most).

 

[aczlan]

While on plows and what they weigh, just in passing, I was kicking around the idea of a fixed blower on the front which would also back ity up closer to the frame. No raising/lowering mechanism, no HD steel blade either, just a (tilt) lowerable auger for at least 300 lbs shaved/saved. I could get another 200 out by using some aluminum (most commercially and thus inferior ones weigh 2000+ pounds, I would aim for half that at the most).

Why wouldn't you do that? It is not like you need to lift it off the ground much being as you are blowing snow, not stacking it.

Aaron Z

 

[dnw64]

You're probably right, so is farmboy00 except that the Jimmy is an independent front (S-15 or S-10 I'm not sure)

Ahh, the mini-Jinny. No way is that suitable for the type of rig you're talking about IMO. Even a full-sized/1500 would be marginal I think. Realistically if you are going to use a pickup I personally wouldn't consider anything less than a 350/3500. Although a true HD 2500 might do. But for the ones you're likely looking at, cost-wise, there isn't going to be any significant difference. 350/3500 (or more!) all the way.

 

[fitterski]

...(all faintly sarcastic, of course...)

When I started on the present rig it was unrealistic, whoever heard of a loader backhoe pushing a snow-blower? Not only that but KEEPING the bucket on? The guy's gotta be nuts! But I can drop the blower in seconds and do some work with the bucket, then pick up the blower again. I ain't seen no shining-star quick attaches do that near as fast yet AND I don't even have to shuttle back and forth to the yard to do so. Now 8 years later I'm thinking of making it a little even more unrealistic

As for the diesels they ALL used to be purely mechanically controlled and unstoppable except by a few mechanical means. Progress has ruined them. The cited incident was on account of the Cat-426 system that BECAUSE it is electrically kept alive and the wire lug on the fuel valve solenoid broke off. No juice, no fuel, no diesel. THAT cost me $4000 just to get back where I had started.

About the driveway, I spent a lot of effort and money to build 2500 feet from the public road ..on a 90 foot high cliff ..on the sea. I actually built my own road too, with the same Cat-426 that was all but done for when I got it. It has paid for itself 20 times over and is still running great, another unrealistic expectation