JD Front Bucket Complete

[jrlichina]

Check out Johnny Bucket or CadPlans. Your 318 can handle a small FEL with no problem, the factory hydraulics will provide you with macthed power and speed that you need for a small FEL. The CadPlans 907 loader will work with your 318. Or check out P.F. Engineering they have plans that would also work for your 318(see attched link picture of a 317 & 318).

 

[deere_x475guy]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( Bob

Your bucket project looks great. Are you using the tractor's hydraulics straight (no other pump involved)? Any idea what the hyd. specs are on your 475?

Since I just picked up an old but strong 318 (yeah I know the hydraulics are very limited but...) I keep looking at the dual circuits, the pile of steel scrap behind the garage, and the small hyd. cylinders from the surplus houses and wondering what kind of mischief I can get into! /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Since I plan on getting a big CUT or small utility with a "real" FEL I don't need a full loader but a small bucket like yours (especially if I could get the geometry to work just enough to be able to dump into a low cart) seems like it would be a lot of fun - er "a very practical tool" in the more delicate tasks around the homestead.

Not too worried about actual lift capacity - a couple of hundred pounds is more than enough - or even lift speed. I think the real limiting factor will be how much hyd. fluid displacement differential the 318's system can handle.

Tim )</font>

Hi TimB, I am using the tractor hydraulics. This only lifts 16" so unless you have built some kind of an approach ramp you won't be able to load your utility cart. The specs on my X475 tractor hydraulics are 4.5 gpm and 925 psi. I have done lots of work already with mine in the short few days I have had it completed. No problem with power. Your 318 should handle it well. Like the post previous to mine says there are several companies that offer FEL kits and plans. I currently don't have room to store an FEL and I felt the Johnny Bucket was just a tad light for my liking. So I built my own. The toughest part was getting the geometry right for the length cylinder I had. This was done in Corel Draw and came out exactly as I had planed.

I used my horizontal band saw to cut most of the material. The bucket itself I used my O/A setup and then put my bandsaw in the vertical position to make the final cuts. I am going today to pick up my new Miller Spectrum 625 plasma cutter. This will make cutting up the steel plate for the bucket much quicker and eaiser.

Good luck with your project and post some pics if you can.

Have a Safe Holiday Weekend....

Bob

 

[timb]

The Johnny Buckets don't lift quite far enough for what I was looking for (and at $1000 the Sr. is a bit too steep for what I'd use it for). Didn't care for the 507 single arm from CadPlans but the 907 did look good. I just wasn't sure if I could run it off the built-in hydraulics since Deere used a seperate pump/resevoir for the similar factory "40" loader.

With the limited fluid volume capacity of the 318 I'm afraid of running it dry (or overflowing) with the movement of the cylinders. Might have to peer underneath and at the tech manual and figure out if a secondary resevoir could be added to the system and tucked up inside the frame.

 

[jrlichina]

You shouldn't have to worry about running your system dry. Once the loader is hooked up and as you cycle it all you do is add more fluid, but don't overfill it! Once the lines and cylinders are filled you'll be ok. The reserve amount of fluid in your tractor's system should be enough to keep up with the pump and loader demands, you can check your manual to see what is the actual reserve amount. The pump can only move so much fluid(GPM) so that doesn't change by adding a hydraulic attachment. The reason they add a resivor and pump is to improve performance, i.e. working pressure and speed(GPM). Your system hydraulics will just operate the loader slower and with less power than an exteranl pump(privided it exceeds the rating of your system pump). Lets say your system pump has 1.5 GPM @ 900 psi, that will work fine for lighter loads with a slower speed, but add a pump that has say 5.5 GPM @ 2200 psi and now you need enough reserve to keep up with the 5.5 GPM, hence the need for a larger reserve tank. But now you add the cost of a pump and a control valve. The 507 will work just fine on your machine and cost a lot less, it just looks kind of wierd. It works on the same principle as a back hoe which is a one arm loader. The one arm is stronger than the loads imposed on the bucket. You have half the hydraulics which is the most expensive part of the loader assembly. So you mentioned cost as being a factor which would make the 507 attractive. 507 or 907, which ever one fits your budget and needs.

As far as adding a secondary reserve tank I think that could be hard. I'm not exactly sure about the 318, but most smaller garden tractors use the charge pump on the hydrostatic unit to operate auxilary hyrdaulic implements. This is "hard" attached to the unit and has no external lines, the source and return lines are passages in the housing. The only possibility would be to replace the drain plug with an elbow that has a line to the other tank. I just don't know where the drain plug is on your machine. At least that is one possibility for you to try.

 

[timb]

I *think* the 318 has a separate charge pump (driven by the engine drive shaft) and transaxle/resevoir set. There is a large (suction side?) hose and some other piping there. Have to look closer - I just glanced around that area so far.

The reason I'm worried about creating too much "tide" in the hydraulic system - the "factory" cylinders are very small - so very little differential. I believe that the "rockshaft" cylinder and "implement" dual (at most) cylinders (ala the factory front blade) are all 2.5x4 with 1 inch rods. That means that at worst the system might see a rod in / rod out differential of a bit over 5 ounces even cycling all three cylinders to the max. Whereas a single 2.5x16 (1.25 inch rod) cylinder would see double the overall fluid difference rod in/rod out. The whole system only holds 5 quarts - but I haven't seen any comment on what "reserve" might be. I'll be happy to live with the limited pressure and flow rates as long as I know I have enough fluid reserve to handle the maximum "tide".

Sorry for sort of hijacking the thread! /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

 

[jrlichina]

Well if it is indeed separate you're in luck, then you can add an auxilary/remote tank. The easiest way to make a small tank is to just use some square tube stock like 4" x 4"(or whatever size fits your space 2x3, 1x3, etc.) cut it to length and weld on some end plates, add some fitting bungs and a filler bung. Good luck!