Front Loader from a Ford Truck

[4570Man]

I don’t think a 120 FP torque hydraulic motor would ever work. The gas engine had the transmission which was probably like 5-1 in first.

 

[texasranger556]

I don’t think a 120 FP torque hydraulic motor would ever work. The gas engine had the transmission which was probably like 5-1 in first.

Agreed. Double or quadruple that for a start.

 

[MossRoad]

If you want to convert it to hydraulic drive instead of using the existing manual tranny, I have this to say..... don't do it. It's silly, and you'll have a heck of a time figuring out how to regulate your speed forward and reverse with valves, "a pump" and a hydraulic motor. Plus, you'll lose a lot of engine power in the equation.

Go to a pick-your-part type junk yard and get an auto tranny for $100 and be done with it. You'll have thousands of dollars in a variable volume pump, hydraulic motor, valves, fittings, adapters, hoses, build-up, tear-down, re-do etc.... VS the auto tranny for $100.

You could also look into converting the transfer case to give it lower gear ratios, so you can put taller tires on it and still have power to turn them. 4x4 rock crawler type websites have lots of good info about that.

There's lots of fun stuff you can do, but by the end of it all, unless you acquire it all for nothing, you're gonna be right up there with the price of a decent used tractor that'll work better for that task.

But a fun project, nonetheless! Good luck. :thumbsup:

 

[MossRoad]

For getting hydraulic power for you loader cylinders off of your Ranger engine, I'd look into either a pump that mounts in front of your engine off of crank pulley like trash trucks use to power the compactor, or, I'd look at a clutch pump that mounts in-line with your serpentine/v-belts to the side of your engine. It's got an electric clutch, so you can start the engine without any hydraulic load, then switch it on. Increase your engine RPMs and you have great hydraulic flow and PSI.

Here's some examples. There are cheaper one's out there, but this gives you a start...

Clutch Pumps Hydraulic | Hydraulic Pumps | Hydraulics | www.surpluscenter.com

 

[texasranger556]

I wouldn't mess with a clutch on the hydraulic pump. All the tractors I've owned run multiple gear pumps and are direct drive from the engine crank in one way or another. Just leave all spool valves in neutral when starting.

I agree this project will cost far more than intended due to re-designs, broken parts, and all the little stuff, but that horse has already been beaten in the first thread!

 

[MossRoad]

I wouldn't mess with a clutch on the hydraulic pump. All the tractors I've owned run multiple gear pumps and are direct drive from the engine crank in one way or another. Just leave all spool valves in neutral when starting.

I agree this project will cost far more than intended due to re-designs, broken parts, and all the little stuff, but that horse has already been beaten in the first thread!

Have you ever added a direct drive hydraulic pump to a Ford Ranger engine? I'd bet it's not an easy task. By using a clutch pump, all you'd have to do is remove the air conditioning pump, fab up the brackets, mount the pump and get a belt of the appropriate length.

OR

Get a double pulley for the alternator, fab up some brackets, and run it off of a V-belt off of the alternator.

C U Off Road - AirBoss Components

Scroll down for double pulleys.

 

[texasranger556]

Have you ever added a direct drive hydraulic pump to a Ford Ranger engine? I'd bet it's not an easy task. By using a clutch pump, all you'd have to do is remove the air conditioning pump, fab up the brackets, mount the pump and get a belt of the appropriate length.

OR

Get a double pulley for the alternator, fab up some brackets, and run it off of a V-belt off of the alternator.

C U Off Road - AirBoss Components

Scroll down for double pulleys.

I haven't, have you? I just don't see the need for a clutch, all things equal.

 

[MossRoad]

I haven't, have you? I just don't see the need for a clutch, all things equal.

No I haven't. I was wondering how hard it would be to fab up the brackets and a coupler. I have added a clutched air compressor to a truck a long time ago. It was pretty simple. A clutched hydraulic pump would be exactly the same.

My currrent machine has three pumps directly coupled to a 25HP Kohler engine; one on the regular crank shaft and the other two on a PTO stub off the opposite side of the crankshaft. It's very hard on the starter in the winter to crank it over with cold hydraulic fluid. Very hard, but it starts down to -5F, but barely. Not too bad in summer, though. Based on that experience, if I could clutch it out, I would. There's a clutch kit available for a Kohler, but it would add length to the setup that I do not have room for in my engine bay, and since I have pumps on both ends, I'd need two clutch kits. I could get a stacked pump and put all three pumps on one side of the motor, and clutch that, but it would still add length to the setup that I don't have room for.

The clutched pump for a pickup truck engine is pretty darn cheap and belt driven VS a pump directly coupled to the front crank of an engine. The belt drive provides an easy coupling, while a direct coupled pump would have to be connected to the front of the crankshaft on the Ranger. There's not enough room between the crank and the radiator to put a shaft out the front, so you'd have to relocate the radiator up to clear the shaft.

Now I did find this picture on the internet of a belt driven hydraulic pump that appears to be driven off of a double alternator pulley on a tractor engine. There's no clutch and its belt driven. That would be another option on the Ranger if he wanted to skip the clutch.

Came from this link on adding a pump to an AC B.
Adding a hydraulic pump to AC B? - AllisChalmers Forum

 

[4570Man]

That’s probably how I’d do it. The biggest problem I see is the alternator has a wide range of rpm with the upper end too fast for a hydraulic pump.

 

[MossRoad]

That’s probably how I’d do it. The biggest problem I see is the alternator has a wide range of rpm with the upper end too fast for a hydraulic pump.

That's another reason why a clutched unit on an automobile engine would be my preference. You can shut it off if you have to run the engine at high RPM for some reason.

I just wonder how the Ranger's engine would work as a loader with direct drive of the wheels, which means huge RPM swings, which means intermittent power swings on the hydraulics.

 

[Creamer]

The truck loaders I drove using the auxiliary hydraulic pump attached to the front of the engine had no problem with using the direct drive system because when you were asking for power to the wheels you weren't typically moving the loader much. You only move the loader at slower speeds. Still the hydraulic pressure was always present for small loader moves.

 

[bigdeano]

You want to figure how much hydraulic power you want because a belt drive may not be sufficient. It can take a lot of power to turn a good sized pump.

 

[nimblemotors]

I have used a couple online calculators and they give me 3 mph for 3.73 gears, 2.5 xfer, 29 inch tire, and 300 rpm,

http://www.bgsoflex.com/cgi-bin/rpmmph.cgi?gear=3.73&xmisn=2.5&tdiam=29.0&mode=Vehicle_MPH&rpm=300.0&mph=

And with 1:1 4x4 high, 7 mph. I guess that is fast enough, interestingly, I youtubed 3mph and there is movie called that which is the speed of a horse walking..and at 7mph that is a pretty fast walk.

So I'd say the 300rpm motor would be good, the additional torque could help.
BTW, I checked and the truck has a 3.45 gear ratio, so when I change the rear to the 8.8 with either 3.73 or 4.10, I will need to use bigger tires in the 'front', 31 and 33,
which is probably a good thing, and keep the smaller 29 in the 'back'.

I have not been able to find a good auto 4x4 trans for this truck, these 80's trucks are mostly all gone now. In any case, the torque converter / trans would get really hot going back and forth all day,
and there is a typical delay in shifting from 1st to rev, i'd assume there isn't really a delay when using a hydraulic motor going from F to R.
It basically adds minimal cost as I see it, maybe $250.

I think I can drive the pump from the front crankshaft, I'd move the radiator and use electric fans already. with the trans gone I could hook it up to the flywheel, and heck if one wants to clutch the connection, can use the trans clutch with some creative mounting hacking. If a belt drive will do, I can use the water pump fan flange to attach a rubber coupler.

 

[Groo]

Nothing wrong with a manual tranny on a loader.
I basically learned to drive on a manual CUT with a FEL.

Would it be possible to flip the centers on the axles?

If you want to try hooking up a hydraulic motor to the transfer case, I'd go with one about 5x the size of the pump (edit: maybe 3x, I forgot about low range), so basically you'd get your first gear gearing there. The pump should be direct drive from the engine if you are getting you motivation via hydraulics. Mounting a pump to the bellhousing would be a piece of cake compares to mounting a motor ont he transfer case I'd think.

 

[texasranger556]

My currrent machine has three pumps directly coupled to a 25HP Kohler engine; one on the regular crank shaft and the other two on a PTO stub off the opposite side of the crankshaft. It's very hard on the starter in the winter to crank it over with cold hydraulic fluid. Very hard, but it starts down to -5F, but barely. Not too bad in summer, though.

OP appears to live in California. Cold starting is probably not going to be a big problem for him, but that is an assumption.

 

[Groo]

If the valve isn't piloted, it should flow with very little resistance at start-up.

 

[MossRoad]

I have used a couple online calculators and they give me 3 mph for 3.73 gears, 2.5 xfer, 29 inch tire, and 300 rpm,

http://www.bgsoflex.com/cgi-bin/rpmmph.cgi?gear=3.73&xmisn=2.5&tdiam=29.0&mode=Vehicle_MPH&rpm=300.0&mph=

And with 1:1 4x4 high, 7 mph. I guess that is fast enough, interestingly, I youtubed 3mph and there is movie called that which is the speed of a horse walking..and at 7mph that is a pretty fast walk.

So I'd say the 300rpm motor would be good, the additional torque could help.
BTW, I checked and the truck has a 3.45 gear ratio, so when I change the rear to the 8.8 with either 3.73 or 4.10, I will need to use bigger tires in the 'front', 31 and 33,
which is probably a good thing, and keep the smaller 29 in the 'back'.

I have not been able to find a good auto 4x4 trans for this truck, these 80's trucks are mostly all gone now. In any case, the torque converter / trans would get really hot going back and forth all day,
and there is a typical delay in shifting from 1st to rev, i'd assume there isn't really a delay when using a hydraulic motor going from F to R.
It basically adds minimal cost as I see it, maybe $250.

I think I can drive the pump from the front crankshaft, I'd move the radiator and use electric fans already. with the trans gone I could hook it up to the flywheel, and heck if one wants to clutch the connection, can use the trans clutch with some creative mounting hacking. If a belt drive will do, I can use the water pump fan flange to attach a rubber coupler.

How are you going to provide flow to the drive motor and what type of pump and valving are you planning on using?

 

[GLyford]

A hydrostat for the drive circuit would be awesome, for the amount of power and control, then stack on separate stages for steering, loader, and accessories (because you're going to want this thing to run more than just a bucket, right? Mower, snowthrower, post hole digger, grapple, thumb...). Separate pumps is likely easier to set up than one big pump and a priority divider or rotary divider.

But yeah, a real hydrostat is more expensive than an auto transmission.

You could counteract the heat load in an auto some by adding a bigger cooler. I _want_ to say the coolant lines run a low(ish) pressure, so something like a heater core may be up to the task?

As far as making things compatible, the only real reasons to stick with a matching 80's ranger 4x4-auto transmission are 1. mounting locations, and 2. running without needing the ECU. If you are thinking about welding up a loader, number 1 should not be a big issue, especially for something that runs low speed off-road. 2 is probably a good reason.

If you are looking at using one of the "transfer case doubler" setups, you could use whichever transmission you could find to match whatever transfer case you make the doubler section out of. Also, they made a LOT of rangers/bronco ii's/explorers, and I want to say more autos than manuals? I guess it's possible that in the last 30 years all the good parts are gone, but I find it a little hard to believe.

I know some of the manual transmissions crossed into the F150, I wonder if the autos did too? Biggest hangup might be getting the bell-housing bolt patterns to match between a v6/v8 model and an i4 2.3...even then, I think you can get the older/simpler carb/tbi 2.3 to bolt onto some of the newer 2.3 autos? I would be very surprised if there wasn't some hotrodder control box somewhere to run one of these with an older engine.

 

[rScotty]

It's very hard on the starter in the winter to crank it over with cold hydraulic fluid. Very hard, but it starts down to -5F, but barely. Not too bad in summer, though.

My Kubota with a Hydrostat transmission (HST+) has a foot clutch. Using it makes a noticible difference in cold weather starts.
rScotty

 

[aczlan]

My Kubota with a Hydrostat transmission (HST+) has a foot clutch. Using it makes a noticible difference in cold weather starts.
rScotty

Our Kubota B7500 with a HST also has a clutch. If you dont push it in, the starter wont turn on.

Aaron Z