Saw it on my trucking travels, bought it, will pick it up when I get the flatbed hooked to my semi after I get back. But anyways... First thing I'm trying to do is get an appropriate operators manual so I can get the specs etc, and therein a bit of frustration. Manuals for the "125 A" are a dime a dozen, but then there is series I, II, ??? and they seem to correspond to a series of SN's which the manuals show on the cover. Have not yet found any range that includes mine, which is 5FC142. It is a rear-steer, non articulating unit. These have that unmistakable geometry to them. Not SURE what engine it has either, but the guy said a Detroit, though he has not had it long and was short on specifics. Also, the model number is usually shown as just 125A for any online inquiries, but I don't see anything that details what 125ADC means. I DO see a manual for 125 IIIA Tractor Shovel that applies to SN's after 403A101 for the GM engine, which mine would logically be starting with 5, correct? So maybe I've answered my own question? I included a pic of the manual, hopefully I did it right, this is my first post. So would my "new" 1980 then be a series III 125ADC, and did I see correctly on this forum that the series III is downgraded in size from the earlier series I to differentiate it from the larger model(s)? I'm betting there is veteran here that can easily answer these Q's, and I thank you kindly in advance!! Super excited...
There's no way it's a 1980 if it's only rear steer. 1980 would be an articulated 125B or possibly a 125C. I can't remember the exact year they went to the C series but it was early 80's sometime.
Maybe post a couple pictures of the machine when you get it include one of the engine.
Thanks, trying to find out from the guy why he thinks it's a 1980. Also, including a couple pics that might be helpful. It seems like the combination of the model and the serial number probably tells more of the story. I just don't know how to interpret it.
I took some pics before I left. Just posted some. Here's some more. I should have took better engine pics. Any input appreciated
The first (Clark) Michigan 125 was called the 125A Series I, and had the bucket arms pivot mount, situated to the rear of the operator. The operator sat between the bucket arms. The Series I was built 1954 to 1962. It came with GM 3-71 diesel power or Waukesha 195 gas power. Then in 1962, the Michigan 125 was completely redesigned and the loader tower was mounted in front of the operator, with thin bucket arms mounted in a current layout, with the bucket lift cylinders tucked in behind the front wheels. This model was called the 125A Series II. It was still rigid frame/rear wheel steer. I seem to recall the Michigan 125 Series II used the small JN series 6 cyl Cummins engine. Not sure if the Waukesha gas engine was still available in the Series II, I think it was deleted by the Series II. In 1965, the articulated Michigan 125 was released, and this was called the Series III, and later this model became the 125B. A serial number of 5FC142 shows your loader is a 125A Series II, built in late 1964. 1964 production numbers ran from 5FC101 to 5FC154. I think you'll find the last letter in the Clark and Michigan model numbers usually refers to the engine brand - so a "C" means Cummins, and "GM" means GM 2 stroke diesel powered. Can't recall what the "D" refers to, it's been 30 years since I last owned a Michigan loader! John Parks of General Gear in Boise, Idaho is a good man to get to know. Used Clark Michigan Equipment Parts for sale Pictures
You posted as I wrote up my last post. The engine in your machine appears to me to be a GM diesel, not sure if it's a 3-71 or 4-71. It's possible the GM 4-71 was an option to the little 6 cyl Cummins in the Series II.
I would have guessed mid 60's and the patent dates would correspond with this.
Wow, that's all great info, I wish I could find it documented somewhere, maybe it is and I just don't know how to find it, but glad it's in the brains of a few people still! Also Wow, it's a '64 rather than an '80. Not a small "mistake". Of course, if it's in good shape which to ME it appears to be after looking at others available for sale, maybe it doesn't matter so much. But it seems to me to be in really good condition for a machine almost 6 decades old. The thickness and quantity of steel is very amazing to me, which of course is a newbie comment, though true! So I guess I have one of the last builds in 1964. I ordered a 125A III operating manual, so now I know that's not correct, but hopefully mostly so. Just looked up General Gear in Boise- thanks for that input as well! The engine fired right up and sounded good, and all the basic functions are in order. I thought I got a good deal at $9500, but my perspective is limited. Always lots to learn...
The 125A Series III operator manual is not applicable to your machine, the Series III is articulated and a totally redesigned machine, as compared to the Series II. Look for Series II manuals, which is what you need to acquire the correct operation and repair information. Clark-Michigan equipment was quite well built, relatively simple in design, and robust. They're a good, quite basic machine, although with a few "quirks" peculiar to their design. The CV joints in the rigid frame machines are the main area of wear, and generally the first area to need repair. The Clark-Michigan hydraulic sealing arrangements weren't quite as good as the Cat designs, and their hydraulics tend to leak more than Cat machines. The Clark transmissions are a simple design, and robust, Clark made their name and wads of money out of transmission manufacturing on a large scale, long before they bought the Michigan company. Of course, Clark forklifts were (and still are), legendary. The Michigan name was so well thought of when Clark bought them, that Clark continued to call their machines "Michigans", and later, "Clark-Michigans", as Clark went about redesigns. Clark were as big a company as Cat in the 1950's, and they produced much larger wheel loaders than Cat did in the 60's, long before Cat even built wheel loaders! The Michigan 475B was a huge 700HP, 189,000lb machine, in production in the late 1950's, and Cat didn't even have a machine to match the Michigan 475B for size, until it produced the 992C in the early 1970's. Clark even produced the Michigan 675B - a 687,000lb, 1,270HP monster of a loader that was ahead of its time, and only 14 of these machines were built. Unfortunately, Clark went into decline due to numerous corporate poor decisions and poor leadership, and a failure to keep abreast of, and produce improved designs. Not unlike GM and International Harvester in many ways. Clark Michigan wheel loader history www.earthmoversmagazine.co.uk
OzDozer, you right now are my Clark/Michigan informant hero! Haha, I'm laughing but I mean it, and am now following you. And also seriously, I appreciate the time you took to help inform me. Funny, last night I was up late and watched the Clark vids Pts. 1 and 2 that you linked- awesome! The 475 and others... amazing, and especially clear back to the 50's?? Loved machines like this as a boy, but my main connection was running a Cat 980 loader in a gold mine in Alaska in 1982 and 83, 15 hours a day, pedal to the metal. You could hardly pry me out of it at the end of the day- most enjoyable job I've ever had to this day. Then I spent 40 years getting 3 degrees, a career in engineering and education... and now semi-retirement, but VERY "semi"... Anyways, I was initially a bit disappointed that my machine is 16 years older than I thought, but after seeing how thick and pristine the steel of the boom arms (?) are, why should I be? And overall, it's current functionality after almost 60 decades makes me feel endeared to it, and I don't even have it home yet. Probably, I'm most disappointed that I now believe (I think you would confirm) that is has a 2 cycle detroit diesel engine, and I'm not a fan of that design, and believe it's subject to longevity issues. But then, after this many years, should I be? Seems to be running smoothly now (who knows if it's been rebuilt), and it starts instantly upon hitting the starter. Perhaps you could also give your opinion of the weight? When I get the correct manual, perhaps I'll have my answer. Actually, next week when I get it I'm going to the CAT scales with my semi to weigh it. Having taken a peek at the HUGE hipsocket joint of the rear wheel articulation, I'm wondering how much maintenence that design requires. In reality, I have a current need for this machine, but it's not like I'm going to be running it 10 hours a day week in/out. For most of my needs it's overkill, but, I admit, I also tend to love overkill! Thanks again OzDozer (and also Welder Dave), I'm like a child learning English at the moment and thus relish more info, and already grateful that I chose to give Heavy Equipment Forums a shot.
The build date of much equipment for sale is often unknown or guessed. You have to have access to older books of specs to find out - and many of these books have been thrown out. Below is the correct parts manual for your loader. Interestingly, the Serial Number of your loader indicates it was originally powered by a Cummins, so it seems like the Cummins may have blown up and a previous owner fitted a GM diesel, as it would have been a fairly easy conversion. CLARK Michigan 125A Series II Tractor Shovel Parts Manual Book List Catalog | eBay Find many great new & used options and get the best deals for CLARK Michigan 125A Series II Tractor Shovel Parts Manual Book List Catalog at the best online prices at eBay! Free shipping for many products! www.ebay.com Nothing wrong with the GM diesel, they're reliable, and parts are still available for them, much more so than the equivalent age Cummins. It's just that the GM diesel is noisy, suffers from excessive oil leaks, and has less torque than the equivalent HP Cummins. Not sure on the weight, I'd have to opine around 23,000 to 25,000lbs. I can't find the precise specs for weight on this particular model. Your loader is in good condition, and appears to have had an easy life, with no abuse. The bucket is in good shape, no sign of panel damage or other abuse, and all the signs are it has been looked after by careful owners. Brakes will be your only other major maintenance item. As with all equipment this age, that utilises open drum brakes, they're prone to corrosion, wheel and master cylinder leaks, and brake lining wear. Here's a neat little booklet from Clark that explains in very simple terms, how their powershift transmissions are constructed and operate. Clark utilise a simple countershaft transmission with oil-actuated multi-plate clutch packs on the ends of the shafts. It's a neat and effective design. https://www.tractorparts.com/PDFs/CLARK_POWERSHIFT_TRANS_THEORY_OF_OPERATIONS_BOOK_9013.pdf
Below is the correct operators manual for your loader. Even if you feel the sellers pricing is too high, and you don't want to pay his asking price, at least the cover information gives you the details of what to look for. Clark Michigan 125A II Tractor Shovel Owner Operator Maintenance Manual 3FC101 | eBay Find many great new & used options and get the best deals for Clark Michigan 125A II Tractor Shovel Owner Operator Maintenance Manual 3FC101 at the best online prices at eBay! Free shipping for many products! www.ebay.com
The guy I just bought it from only had it for a year or two, and does not need it. He told me the "old" guy (in his 80's) with health issues he got it from had it for about 30 years and it sounds like he babied it... Pushing over trees and such. Said he was in tears when he got it from the guy. I guess that leaves about 30 more years of uncertainty in its history! But I'm glad you confirm what seems obvious to me about the overall condition- I was really impressed with how nice the bucket is. That alone has got to be worth several thousand $$'s. Tires are old and cracked a lot on the sidewalls, but it also comes with 4 additional tires, worn but not cracked. I have a feeling I won't care about the brakes. Back in the 80's on the Cat 980, brakes didn't function but it was not a problem even while building a little mountain. Interesting... I noticed the fairly loud engine noise, additional "evidence" of it being a GM, but glad to hear you say they are OK and parts available, and perhaps if it replaced the Cummins then it may still have plenty of life left. Hoping... Thank you for the manuals you linked. After reading your previous post yesterday confirming it's a seriess II, I found and ordered the operators manual in the attached pic. The "5FC" units have info in supplements in the manual I ordered, but I'd be surprised if they are still there. The one you show is a later manual and nice, though also 5x the cost. Perhaps I'll be surprised and the supplements will be included. Now I'll order the parts manual as well. Again, great info and MUCH appreciated! CLARK MICHIGAN MODEL 125 II A TRACTOR SHOVEL OPERATORS MANUAL No. 1649 | eBay Find many great new & used options and get the best deals for CLARK MICHIGAN MODEL 125 II A TRACTOR SHOVEL OPERATORS MANUAL No. 1649 at the best online prices at eBay! Free shipping for many products! www.ebay.com
Nice loader and super nice of @OzDozer to help you out. I could not believe all the stuff he came up with there. I've run a 980 without brakes and let me tell you it's all fine until you kill the engine with the bucket up. I would work at getting at least a little bit of brake action.
I think you made a typo. The 475A came out in 1965 as the largest of the new articulated models. The 475B came out late 60's not late 50's. There were kind of 16 675's made and 1 prototype. I say kind of because 2 675B's were bought back by Clark and made into 675C machines. The prototype had 2 GM engines but the production models had 2 Cummins engines. The 675C was offered with up to a 36yd. bucket I assume for coal loading. The prototype was built in 1970 and the 14 production models built between 1973 and 1976. Not sure what years the revamped C models were built. The biggest issue with the 675 was the tires. They were the largest tires in the world but still not really up to the task on such a heavy loader. Have read somewhere that tire changes were frequent. I think better tires may have came at a later date. Pics. I've seen show much wider tires than the originals.
Yes, that's correct on my 475 information, Dave - I just had a bit of a brain fart on the models sequence. Didn't know there were 16 x 675's built, first time I've seen that. Also, I made another small error, when I thought it was the Michigan model letter that referenced the engine make - it wasn't the model lettering, it's the serial number that references the engine make. Inadequate size tyres are not confined to the Michigan 675, it's a common problem with a range of smaller loaders as well. The brother and I bought a new Komatsu WA-700 in 1993 and we had a lot of tyre trouble with it, thanks to undersize tyres. We couldn't do a lot of tramming between stockpiles with it, without the tyres overheating and failing. I moved out of mining in the mid-1990's, and the brother stayed in it, and he "inherited" the WA-700 and he told me later he fixed the problem by installing larger diameter wheels and tyres off a Cat 992C. It was a lot of costly engineering work, he had to get the wheel centres reworked. A lot of loaders had tyre size options, and the "floation" tyre option was nearly always a good choice. You have to choose your tyre type and sizing and tread style, according to the type of work you're doing. Cat have reams of information covering tyre choices, and operational advice. The 675 tyre problem is the same problem that R.G. LeTourneau faced, whenever he came up with any new, bigger, rubber-tyred model - he had to get Firestone to make the tyres specially for him. Even a number of the old LeTourneau pull pans have oddball tyre sizes that are no longer available.
There were only 14 675's built but 2 were re-built into C models. I can't find any info on if they were re-sold. That's where the "16" comes from. With only 14 (16) machines sold it's a little puzzling there's no info on who purchased them. In the old films talking about the development of the 475 they tell who the 1st machines went to. I'd also be interested in the 580 Payloader that was around the same time as the 675. I know a couple were used in the Alberta oilsands. I actually saw a bucket from one being repaired at a big welding and machine shop. I was modifying a bucket off a P&H to fit an Hitachi. There was a big rush for the bucket so it was taken to the shop for final welding using flux-core wire, I think Innershield self-shielded flux-core. I remember that they had to put a porta-power between the ears to just slightly tweak them so the pins slid in easier. Welding sequence was quite critical to keep things in alignment because of the heat involved. I remember when I got up and personal with a couple idled Letourneau L700's. Not nearly as big as a 675 but the tires were 28 or 32 ply and had weight ratings on them that seemed mind boggling at the time. I'm curious how many plies an L2350 tire is?
Firestone make the 70/70-57 Firestone SRG DT LD L4 bias-ply tyre for the L2350, and they're 84 ply! Michelin Nth America are now making a 70/70R57 Mine L4 radial for the L2350, but I haven't been able to find a ply rating. The Radials quite often don't refer to a ply rating, they often simply use a load rating.
Do you have any idea how much pressure they take? I may have been wrong on the L700 tires. They might have been 38 ply. It was about 25 years ago I saw them sitting in an open field in an industrial park. It must be worthwhile to make the tires as they've got be 10's of thousands of dollars to replace them. Would 657 scrapers use similar tires or less rating because the load is more balanced on all 4 wheels?
Firestone tyre data is in the link below, with the 70/70-57 data on page 42. The Firestone bias-ply pressures run from 65psi to 98psi, depending on tyre loading. Speed is limited to 5mph with these tyres, that's where Michelin radial comes in, with vastly improved allowable tramming speeds. There's a Youtube Michelin brag video on the 70/70R57 Michelins in use on a big Brazilian mine. https://commercial.firestone.com/content/dam/commercial/bridgestone/pdfs/data-books/Data-Book_Firestone_OTR.pdf
300,000lbs. each at 98 PSI! What tires do the 400 ton haul trucks use?
59/80R63 on the 797F, I believe.
skyking, your point about the brakes is very well taken! Compels me to share a memory on that exact topic: I was building a steep ramp with the tailings of the mining operation with the 980, and by the 2nd year it was getting very big/long as well as quite steep, the 5 yd bucket raised by the time I was at the top to dump it, and yes the possibility of killing the engine was very real, the pedal being used to hold it in place at the top to not go backwards but also not too much to go forward over the edge which would be almost certain death or close to it. At one point the foreman watching me asked me what I would do if the engine stalled? Well, I had a ready answer for that because during all those long hours I had contemplated that happening, and I had gone over in my mind what I would do... mentally over and over so if it happened there would be no hesitation on my part. So I had a ready answer for him: "I would instantly pull it into neutral, hit the starter, then yank it into reverse". He seemed OK with my answer, but still wanted me to take it easy. The consequence of coasting backwards down that slope would be quite disastrous to say the least. Anyways, I was very mentally engaged with the potential disaster of that, so when you posted your warning it was like an alarm going off in my head So... though I won't likey be building a steep ramp as such, I agree with you that having a little brake action will likely be something to prioritize!
Mine was while mining from a pit and feeding a crusher. My usual ride was a 988B that had a seal failure and they gave me a B 980 with two different front tires and no brakes. I mean no brakes. If you were on a hill you had the right go pedal and that brake disconnect pedal was the GO FASTER! pedal The apron feeder was a portable unit buried in overspill and a pretty steep ramp. The back down was with your butt towards the river about 80' below, but there was a sufficient safety berm there. Or so it seemed. I'd take old crooked betty down there and plow the pit bottom with my oddball tire and head on up in 3rd, then 2nd up the steep, then 1st and dump in a nice smooth motion. One fateful day I missed that last downshift and she died right there as the dirt spilled out with the bucket about 2' up. WHEEEEE I headed for the river with no nuttin, and not time for getting it started again. It sorta high centered on the safety berm as I got it started. I drove down to the shop and told the head mechanic to get me some $%&&***** brakes, just a little please. They did.
I've run without trailer brakes on a lowbed for years, but only in isolated farming areas. I'd never operate any wheeled construction equipment without brakes ... Oh, wait up, I owned a Cat 12E grader! Brakes are pretty optional on them, you fix them one week, and next week they've stopping working again! At least you can power the moldboard down for a brake, if the engine is still running. Then again, my old IH AW-6 tractor crane ain't exactly a braking powerhouse either! But it never gets past walking pace, anyway! These old Fowler/IH tractor cranes are pretty good at not stopping under load, anyway - you load them up with 3, 4 or 5 tons on the hook, go down a slope, and the tractors back wheels are nearly airborne, and your chances of stopping get pretty minimal!!
I loaded the old moxy offroad trucks with that loader too. Find just the right little hill to load up.....
Yikes skyking, your story made me tense reading it. Such a similar situation to mine, but the difference being I never actually had the stall happen! Glad it didn't turn out worse...
This is the spot, you can see the pit there as a bay in the lake that was formed by the dam. Just up the lake is Eagle Island that I helped build with a 9L, pushing rotten rock from the cut. https://goo.gl/maps/UNCFRXn9vWjNZ2Kd9
Well, just to follow up, here is a pic during picking up the 1964 series II 125A on Sunday. Soon I'll be posting a video to my YouTube channel to memorialize the event, can't help myself! Super exciting... Christmas in June! My operators manual says it is 28,400 lbs. However, I weighed my semi before and after pickup, and after subtracting off the weight of the extra tires, it weighed in at 32,000 lbs. I'm pretty sure that the specified weight in the manual did not include that massive counterweight in the back. Pretty sure that was an option for this machine. Thanks again for the help clarifying some things for me!
Companies expecting people to run equipment like some have described is why we have all the government rules today that people complain about. I don't consider my self to be some safety fanatic but the least you can do is make sure a machine can stop and steer in the conditions you expect your people to work under.
Congrats on getting it loaded and headed home.