B3030 / B2630 /B3000 Rear Hydraulic Remote Question

[von-mil]

I am thinking of adding a second rear hydraulic remote to my B3030. I would be ordering the Kubota-made remote kit and float detent valve which stacks onto the base remote valve. The Kubota wholegoods part numbers are B7307 for the second lever kit and B7305 for the second valve. My question is on the routing of the hose assemblies that run from the valve to the bracket that holds the quick-disconnect couplers.

This picture shows the hoses for the first valve going from the valve itself up to the rear of the QD bracket.

There is not a lot of room between the hose assemblies and the angled portion of the lower ROPS structure. The second QD coupler housing gets mounted directly beneath the existing one.

So my question is, on a B3030, B2630 or B3000 with two sets of Kubota rear remotes, how good of a fit does the kit provide for the second set of hoses? The hose assemblies for the first remote that I installed had all the right bends and angles for a perfect fit but the hoses were not very flexible. If the second set is not quite as accurate I am worried that I may not be able to make the connections.

Does anyone have any first-hand experience with this? Thanks.

 

[varmint]

When you say "stacks" do you mean it goes below the existing valve body or on the inside of it? If the couplers install just below what's there now, seems like it should fit, just, in front of the ROPS. Of course, someone who really knows will hopefully join the thread! Nice little project, if all fits! Maybe more photos showing the areas involved would help those of us who are ignorant about this?

 

[Monster5601]

So my question is, on a B3030, B2630 or B3000 with two sets of Kubota rear remotes, how good of a fit does the kit provide for the second set of hoses? The hose assemblies for the first remote that I installed had all the right bends and angles for a perfect fit but the hoses were not very flexible. If the second set is not quite as accurate I am worried that I may not be able to make the connections.

Does anyone have any first-hand experience with this? Thanks.

I have dual remotes on my B3030, you can make the connections to the tractor (following the routing in the installation guide) but the problem is there isn't enough room for the hydraulic lines on the rear side of the stack. As you know, to make a connect/disconnect event, the coupler has to slide forward or reward in the housing. Because of the congestion the four hydraulic lines create behind the stack, they restrict the coupler's movement and do not have the room to side inside the housing.

I've added spacers to give the front side of the bottom housing a slight down-tilt which eased the hydraulic line collision of the lower lines against the upper lines. I'll snap a couple of pictures later today and post them up. Even with my modification, it is still difficult to disconnect the QCs to the point of causing stress to the hydraulic lines. I plan on fabricating an angle bracket to mount the QCs that will expose the coupler sleeve but I've been saying that for four years. May be this weekend.

 

[von-mil]

When you say "stacks" do you mean it goes below the existing valve body or on the inside of it? If the couplers install just below what's there now, seems like it should fit, just, in front of the ROPS. Of course, someone who really knows will hopefully join the thread! Nice little project, if all fits! Maybe more photos showing the areas involved would help those of us who are ignorant about this?

I probably wasn't very clear in my description. The valve body "stack" is tucked away under the right fender and isn't real visible. The inside face of the second valve gets bolted directly to the outside face of the first valve. There shouldn't be any problem there. The worry I have is where the hose exits the rear of the tractor and into the back of the quick-disconnect couplers. The second set of hoses should come out directly underneath the two existing ones meaning they would need to be routed in between the ROPS and the first set of hoses. And there is just not very much room there. I'll try to get some different pictures - I may still have them on my PC from when I did the original install.

 

[von-mil]

I have dual remotes on my B3030, you can make the connections to the tractor (following the routing in the installation guide) but the problem is there isn't enough room for the hydraulic lines on the rear side of the stack. As you know, to make a connect/disconnect event, the coupler has to slide forward or reward in the housing. Because of the congestion the four hydraulic lines create behind the stack, they restrict the coupler's movement and do not have the room to side inside the housing.

I've added spacers to give the front side of the bottom housing a slight down-tilt which eased the hydraulic line collision of the lower lines against the upper lines. I'll snap a couple of pictures later today and post them up. Even with my modification, it is still difficult to disconnect the QCs to the point of causing stress to the hydraulic lines. I plan on fabricating an angle bracket to mount the QCs that will expose the coupler sleeve but I've been saying that for four years. May be this weekend.

I'll be very interested in seeing those pics, especially any that show how Kubota built the hose assemblies for remote #2 (where metal piping is used for sharp bends versus an all-rubber hose, that sort of thing). Thanks for your input.

 

[Monster5601]

Nothing like a picture to tell a story. If I didn't have the frontal down-tilt, the angle of the hoses had so much pressure on them they didn't want to allow the QC to slide in the housing.

[URL=http://s1028.photobucket.com/user/Bob_Walchli/media/Tractor/2016-04-02%2010.06.47%20Medium_zpskbgbr5me.jpg.html][/URL]

[URL=http://s1028.photobucket.com/user/Bob_Walchli/media/Tractor/2016-04-02%2010.08.03%20Medium_zpstbxu5ysu.jpg.html][/URL]

[URL=http://s1028.photobucket.com/user/Bob_Walchli/media/Tractor/2016-04-02%2010.07.50%20Medium_zpspbu54f7z.jpg.html][/URL]

 

[von-mil]

Nothing like a picture to tell a story. If I didn't have the frontal down-tilt, the angle of the hoses had so much pressure on them they didn't want to allow the QC to slide in the housing.

Very helpful, thank you. The thing I saw right off the bat is that your upper hoses end with a steel 45 degree bend. Compare your first picture with the picture from my first post. My hoses don't have that 45 degree bend; instead they feed straight in to the back of the quick-disconnect housing. Perhaps Kubota changed the design at some point in order to correct the problem you are having. I bought mine in 2014.

Based on what I've seen, I am assuming that if I order the second remote kit, it will be a good fit. Now I just need to decide whether to go ahead and do it. I'm having a pretty hard time justifying the price tag.

Thanks again for snapping those pictures.

 

[Jdengr]

I installed both rear remotes on my B3030 in 2014. I had the same trouble that Monster described. I tried spacers and turning the mounting bracket upside down but wasn't satisfied with the arrangement. I ended up making two new hoses to get everything right.

Also, the second valve (I used a float position valve) interfered with the bracket that held the rear outlet port for the backhoe. I had to modify the bracket to clear the valve. YMMV.

 

[varmint]

Sort of guessing here, but the mounting plate on Bob's couplers seems to have more of an offset, which may be the reason there are 45's on the hoses? Seems like fabbing a way to space the second couplers down a bit from the upper set may help with the hose interference issue? Or maybe even mounting the couplers side by side, instead of stacked?? Looks tight, in any event.

 

[varmint]

Sort of guessing here, but the mounting plate on Bob's couplers seems to have more of an offset, which may be the reason there are 45's on the hoses? Seems like fabbing a way to space the second couplers down a bit from the upper set may help with the hose interference issue? Or maybe even mounting the couplers side by side, instead of stacked?? Since the second valve body will be inboard of the first, having the second coupler set also inboard seems like it should work. Looks tight, in any event.