Love the the old michigan loaders. I would like to see all the clark or michigan loader photos you guys got. Thanks!:usa
Here are some of my photos taken back in the 80's at a mine in New South Wales,Australia. I operated these loaders for more then 15 years,and at the end of the day you knew you did a days work. They had 1710 Cummins at approx 800+ Horsepower. We loaded a tri axel tipper every 3 minutes at one and a half buckets per truck. These loaders are still being operated to this day, however not at the same mine site.These Old Michigan Loaders Shifted loaded and stockpiled up to 20,000 Tons of coal a day. I have operated at another mine Michigan 175 and 275 Loaders with 871 Detroits. These photos are of Michigan 475s. Equivilant to a Cat 992. Hope you enjoy. Dave
A couple more A few More Pics
YESSS!!!! Bring on the 475's, I've been up close with those, they are monsters! Unfortunately the camera developed issues when I was there so I'll have to see about a trip back this spring for fresh pics. Here's one I've got of an old Michigan, I believe it's a 175. Non-articulated.
Here's one we took on trade a couple years ago.
We use to haul shale to a facility that made cement and they loaded use with an old 475. It didn't take long to load a tri-axle. This is a picture of the 175a series 2 I bought to loade clay. I have been working on the transmission over the winter it had a slight malfunction.:Banghead
Here is a Michigan 35A my friend just finished restoring, i believe the machine resides in MA.
Hi all, new member here from the UK. I spent most of the 1980's & 90's maintaining a fleet of heavy earthmovers over here including a fleet of Michigan loaders. Every thing from a couple of little 55's up to a pair of 475's. The main stay of the fleet were ten 275's and a couple of 280 wheeled dozers. These were all used in the steelworks where the 55's were lifted by crane into the bulk ore carrier ships to get into the corners where the crane grabs couldnt reach, the 275's were used on the iron ore stocking grounds whilst the pair of 475's were used to remove the slag from the slag pits at the blast furnace. These were all 'B' machines apart from one of the 475's which was a 'C'. This was bought as a replacement for a 475B which fell through the crust of slag into the molten iron and met a 'firey' end!! Ive got a few pic's here of the 475's to post but being a new member I cant just yet......Watch this space.
These are great photos. I am looking foward to your photos TEREX!
I am surprised CatMatt, that any 475's would still be working today. I fought the bloody things at steel mills near Gary, Indiana for a while. Ours had the Detroit’s 16V71's, and constantly busted motor mounts and wasted hydraulic pumps. Had a storage yard full of used pumps and a warehouse full of new ones. Of course, those systems ran on Houghto-Safe 500, a water/glycol mixture, instead of regular mineral oil 10wt. These were used in digging slag, positively the worst duty for a loader in the world. Another was in a coal mine in Kentucky. It was in the Michigan exhibit at the Houston ConExpo in 1980 and was bought new by the mine owners at the show. Had very smooth sheet metal like a new car, and fenders, only one I ever saw with fenders. It had led a rough life for four years with virtually no PM. I was the last foreman hired at the mine under a maintenance contract and being the last, the other maintenance foremen tried to stick me with the dern thing, offered to trade me for one of the six 992C's I had, also rather run down. I told those guys I'd shoot myself first before I'd give up one of the 92's. I'd already had my fill of 475's. I ended up with the critter not quite a year later anyway when the coal market went south and all the contract people were let go but me and one other fella. I didn't have to do anything with it for another year because it wasn't used. Then we got busy, I had fixed some beat up Wabco 75 tonners, and we needed a loader for them. It didn't work out though, the old girl was just to beat and tired and I couldn't throw money at it fast enough to keep it going. It had the 1710 Cummins in it, but our main trouble was the transmission. It wasted the tranny one last time and my boss and I decided to deadline it with no more repair. It was still there several months later, sitting in our boneyard, when I left the company. I didn't shed a tear over it.
clarke 475 this one working down under in 1989 now retired to loading logs cheers malcolm
Michigan 475B Heres some images of the two 475'B' loaders I maintained for British Steel back in the 1980's. Pictured outside the workshops looking very clean. They used to be covered in white dust/grit off the slag , must have been steamed cleaned ready for servicing. A room with a view ! The orange light and button in front of the steering wheel was the fire extinguishing system often set off by the operators as they hit the button whilst cleaning the window ! This 475 fell through the slag and into the hot stuff. Only the bucket and front arms were salvaged the rest was cut up on site. This is one of the tyres off that that caught fire. It exploded with such force it caused damage to a few buildings and from this time on we inflated the tyres with nitrogen to prevent any further possible explosions. The operator who was not the fittest of people (20 stone plus) was seen running like an olympic 100m. sprinter away from the fire ! He was OK once he changed his underwear !
Michigan 475 C After one of the 'B' loaders caught fire they bought a 475 C to replace it. It had the same cummins VTA1710 engine as the B only it was rated at about 800bhp which meant it made more smoke! The transmission was similar too only Clarks called it a 'modulated' transmission which meant you could powershift (change gear under full power) also you could shove it in forward gear whilst still traveling in reverse again under full power without damaging the transmission. It was a lot more comfortable with a much better cab, had a bigger bucket, had massive disc brakes all round which would put you through the windscreen if you pressed the pedal hard enough. Reading SurferJoes comments, we also had to use water / glycol in the hydraulics (sickly smelling stuff) because if a pipe burst in the hot slag it was not as flamable as the hydraulic oil. Needless to say the drivers prefered the 'C' machine as it was more comfortable,quieter etc. but when the going got tough and the slag was proving difficult to dig out the 'B' machine was prefered as it had more low down grunt. Hot slag it must be remembered is similar to trying to dig concrete that has been left to set, ideally a D9 with a ripper should have been set loose first to break up the slag, but no the 475's were left to do it. As a result the transmissions took a real hammering, first gear clutch packs and forward gear clutch packs were my speciality, also we had the odd tooth break off the crownwheel in the diff, if you were lucky the magnetic sump plug would catch it first before it caused any more damage, the Cummins engine would be OK for 8000 hours then it was time to change the heads before the valve seats fell into the engine and a whole lot more...but I wont bore you ! At that time it has to be remembered that neither Cat, Komatsu, Volvo, Terex or any of the other big names made a similar sized machine and then of course there was the 675. Twice the size of the 475..double trouble !!
I'm surprised that the "C" model shown has teeth on the bucket. All of our machines, the 992's and 475's, has spade nosed edges with no teeth or adapters. They could not be kept on for digging the pits. In fact, we had trouble keeping the edges on at all. The original Cat machine sealed bucket pins and bushings were removed, the loader arm bores made larger, and extra fat high temperature bronze bushings were installed. They were never greased for obvious reasons. The Michigan loaders received the same treatment. The water/glycol fluid supposedly gave the operator about 13 additional seconds to evacuate the cab if a hose or something broke and started spraying fluid all over that would catch fire from the immense heat in the still hot or liquid slag. We used DowTherm 209 for the same reason, plus silicone coolant hoses. Doesn't seem like much extra time, but one would be surprised what an operator can do when threatened by being badly burned or killed in a machine fire. All our tires used the Erlau chains, and all were loaded with calcium chloride. Even so, the slag burned holes in tires with regularity. Our machines also had a lot of counterweight on them. The 992's received a slab 18 inches thick that wrapped around the entire radiator housing and that covered both battery boxes. It weighed about 12000 pounds alltogether. If not used carefully by an experienced operator, our 992’s broke in half very easily. We were just getting around to installing whole-machine fire suppression systems when the steel economy went to hell in 1980. Up to that time, we had some home-made setups that required the operator to pull the pins from the bottles as he was exiting the machine. As I recall, the company had several burned up machines in a boneyard in Detroit. They also has several dead and severely injured operators in those early days. One ran through a pool of liquid slag to get away from a crawler loader that died and was on fire. The company set him up with his own gas station which he ran for years. His legs were burned off half way to his knees. Another operator was killed when an overhead crane operator dumped a pot full of molten slag behind him in a mill in Detroit. The loader operator burned to a crisp, a fitting end to a man that was having an affair with the crane operator’s wife. Slag was first removed by hand and horse and mule powered wagons, then early steam and power shovels took over. When Cat first came up with the traxcavator, it was tried and used with some success along with early chain-drive trucks. That trend in crawler loaders continued with what were called “steel mill specials.” The 983 loader started out as a “special.” 977’s were a great favorite for years. Rubber tired loaders were around the mills from their early origin, Hough’s especially. As loader technology advanced and they became bigger, they gradually took over from the crawlers. The firm I worked for used all sizes as they became available and were huge buyers of Hough 560’s and 400’s. They never really used the 25K Cat 992’s, preferring the Michigan 475’s instead. That may have been because of the unfortunate incident of the first Cat 773 haul trucks with the fiberglass hoods that burned to the ground on their first loads due to super hot slag spilling off the loader buckets onto the hoods. But in later years, Cat 988’s and 992’s became the preferred machine, with brand new spare machines ready to go and parked at Michigan Tractor in case of need. Haul trucks remained Euclid’s however.
Looking at a 1962 85A. Does anyone have an idea on parts availability for these loaders? It has a hercules motor, was this a repower?
that sure does look sweet brand newish someday my 35aws might look like that
I found these pics of a 675 http://www.flickr.com/photos/doncampbellmodels/300005767/in/set-72157594319699248/ I'm new here but while browsing through the fourms I believe the owner of the pic is a member here.
Clark 125 now retired to pushing snow: Clark2 Clark4
Clark 475 at a Sand & Gravel Pit in OH 090 091 092? 093 094
A few pics of my old 75A with the detroit 4-71 noisemaker.I got one tire with a a slow leak,as you can see.It needs some brake work,but runs great,and has very strong hydro,and no leaks.Id like to fix the brakes,I really use it for mainly snow,and removing trees.
Clark 275B at a Gravel Pit in OH
Clark 275C at Gravel Pit in OH
Another 275B at the Gravel Pit in OH
Hello everyone I'm in the market for a loader and have been looking at the 475's I'd love to hear more about them, things to look for when purchasing, do's and dont's, how easy it is to get them shipped (parts disassembly), everything. Thank you in advance for your time!
If it is truly 475 Michigan loaders you are interested in, than I would warn you to stay far, far away from them, unless you are truly gifted with more money than the Canadian national treasury. The last of these machines were produced in the mid-eighties, and there were never a lot of them. They came with either Detroit or Cummins engines, hooked to a Clark transmission. The Detroits pulled their engine mounts out of the frame and had other problems. When these units ran however, they were quick and strong for a very large loader. The Cummins equipped machines had problems all their own with normal Cummins problems. Neither engine is in current production by the way, though I suppose some parts are still available. The biggest problems I had with them were the transmissions, particularly the forward-reverse and speed clutches. Once the machines get some hours on them, the clutches don't seem to hold very well. Other pains in older machines like these, are worn out and loose pins and bushings in the main frame and boom. Not cheap to repair. Transmission parts are probably very hard to find these days at a decent price. Takes at least two truck loads to move, depending on weight laws and restrictions. Bucket and tires/wheels, cab, and miscellanous stuff on one trailer, the chassis on the other. 475's don't weigh quite as much as a 992C Cat. The tires may be loaded with calcium though. It takes a 15T hydracrane to help assemble and disassemble. A minimum crew of two mechanics. The machines are relatively simple in design and engineering. Not much fancy electronics on these old hulks. Parts may be a big problem. The machines I looked after near Gary, Indiana, were close to the main Clark-Michigan distribution center in Chicago. The other was in southeastern Kentucky and wasn't close to anything. I believe Volvo bought out the Michigan line, but don't think they got much or learned anything valuable. They produced at least one loader roughly based on the 375, but so far as I know, it's no longer in production either. They may still continue some parts availability however. The only Michigan loaders I would consider, would be the 275 models on down. Big enough to do some decent production, small enough as to not break your piggy bank. Good Luck!
Well I need at least a 7 yard but would really like as big as I can get, what would you suggest in this price range for a large dependable loader?
You there joe? ha
What a load of crap! The Michigan 475 was an excellent machine, and as reliable as any Cat of the same size. I owned 6 of them, and purchased them all used, and they made me a lot of money, and they provided superb service. To say that few were produced is also crap. Several thousand of them were produced over 22 years of production between 1966 and 1987. We had sizeable contractors here in Oz in the early 1970's who had a small fleet of them running in a remote gold mine, and those 475's racked up 50,000-60,000 hrs each, in extreme working conditions. They were used in the huge salt production operations of Dampier Salt in the NW of Western Australia for nearly 2 decades, and provided sterling service in conditions that would kill any machine (heat, salt, long hours). The transmissions in the 475's were as simple as they come. A spur gear transmission with clutch packs on the ends of the shafts that were readily and easily accessible any time. Try comparing a quick and simple 475 clutch repair, with a Cat transmission, with its mega-$$ clutch packs, and inaccessible transmission. The VTA-1710 Cummins in my 475's was a superb piece of engineering - quiet, reliable as the day is long, and totally fuel efficient. Working one of my 475's against a 992B on the same job, saw my 475 continuously using less than 70l/hr, as against the 90l/hr of the 992. Both were 700HP. The brakes were the 475's biggest failing, and failure to upgrade the braking system was the reason the Michigans fell out of favour. Numerous corporate reshuffles that involved multiple ownership changes, and a myriad of other corporate c*ck-ups were the main reason why the Michigan loader line fell out of favour. It wasn't anything to do with the basic design. Remember, that Clark and Michigan had huge loaders out and working, long before Cat even sat down at the drawing board, to design 988's and 992's - and you then begin to understand that these machines were leaders in the big loader market long before Cat even produced a single large loader. The problem was that no-one in the Clark/Michigan/Volvo/Euclid mish-mash of corporate share-shuffling and chicanery, ever gave a dollar towards updating a design that was initiated in the early 1960's. As a result, the Michigan loaders fell behind, because no effort was ever made to update them to match the competition. The head honchos in Clark/Michigan were more interested in share-shuffling than improving their product line. Volvo made an basic attempt to upgrade the Michigans after they took over the company - but it was very obvious that Volvos upgrade was a "quick-fix" that involved minimal money, and that they had no interest in spending the required money to update what they obviously saw as an obsolete design.
Thanks so much for the info, anything else? What am i in for moving one of these things? Does the 1710 have top end, and head issues like the horror stories i keep hearing?
I dunno what the "horror stories" are that you're hearing. The VTA-1710 is two 855 cu. in. Cummins mounted in V-formation to make 1710 cubes. The 855 is one of America's finest engines ever built, so the 1710 doesn't have too many problems that aren't due to abuse, poor maintenance or just plain worn out. The only problem they do have is occasional cam follower breakage - which was common on the early 855's, and which was the reason for the modifications that produced the "Big Cam" 855 Cummins. The Clark/Michigan 475 is a HUGE loader. 86 tonnes (190,000lbs), with a 9.2M³ (12yd³) standard bucket - and they need to be broken down substantially for transport. In most places in Australia, we can move them around by simply taking off the cab, and leaving the loader intact otherwise. In Canada, you may have to remove more components, such as wheels and bucket to meet your local transport regulations.
As I have written earlier I maintained two 475's in the 1980's and would like to add to the debate, based on MY experiences. First of all these are still big machines to maintain and jobs that can be carried out using muscle power and a fork lift truck on a smaller machine like a 275 will need a good crane on a 475. As for spares they are probably getting thin on the ground. Transmission wise I always found the Clark box in the 475 quite a tough unit. I only had to change one because of a collapsed bearing and the resulting damage spread bits all around the box. The clutch packs, 6 in total (speed and direction) were easy to get at and a clutch pack could be changed by one man in about 6 hours including draining the trans. sump, cleaning the strainer screen and changing the filters, unlike some other makes of trans. where the whole lot would have to come out. One weak point I found was that the weld on the back of the clutch drums somtimes cracked allowing the fluid to leak and pres. to drop leading to the inevitable clutch slip. The Cummins VTA 1710 in my experience was OK but as I stated earlier on two seperate occassions we had valve seats collapse and fall into the engine creating havoc at around 10,000 hrs. (not a problem I have ever come across on the 855 engine) so we always changed the heads on our 1710's at around 8000 hrs. Then at around 14,000 hrs. the engines would become 'short of breath' and overhauled. We had trouble for a time with oil leaks from the turbos but we traced this to the new type cummins paper filters in the rocker cover breathers blocking, once the old mesh types were put back in again most of the turbo leaks stopped. As for the rest of the machine it was very solidly built and although well maintained took a lot of punishment. As with any machine pins and bushes if left ungreased will wear very rapidly so particulaly check for wear in centre pivot as with the size and weight of the 475 its a big job ! The brakes on the B were drum brakes and needed regular adjustment but the brakes on the C were huge discs and were very good however the the brake pump on it was small, gave problems and never lasted very long. So there you have it, in my experience it was a very good machine in its day but they are getting on a bit now. 'The bigger they are the harder they fall' ! Good luck.
Thanks for the info Terex, the more i can hear about the the clark loaders before i purchase the better. My next big question to you guru's is are the C models that much better than the B models? On the 275 and 475, what are the changes they made throughout those model years? Did they go backwards between any years of the loaders in terms of reliability and design?
The early 475 B machines had 8 speed transmissions, after S/N 421F-101 went to 4 speed trans. Eng. rated at 635 HP. 475C eng. rated 700 HP. Transmission was modulated. Early machines had air brakes. After S/N 487B101CAC Cummins, S/N 488B101CAC GM went to full hydraulic disc brakes.
So in your guys recommnedation is the 275C a way better machine than the B? What improvement did they make specifically in that model change? What were the problems they did or did not fix? Thanks again for everybodys input, so nice to have a place to actually get answers from people who have been there.
275B had either a NTA 855-C-360 or C-380 or KTA-1150 or GM 8V92. 275 C had KT-1150C (Big cam) 275B had non modulated trans. 275 C had modulated trans. 275 B had air brakes. 275 C after S/N 492B101CAC had full hydraulic disc brakes. Several other minor changes from B to C.
Alright Guru's lets do a comparison between the 275C and the newer L320, as well as the 475C and the L480. Is the price you pay for the newer unit money well spent? Updates?
Anybody?
A newer machine with lower hours is almost always better. One hopes that there are fewer problems with the newer model, and that lower operating hours means less wear and tear. This isn't always the case. Downtime for repairs will likely be less as better parts availability and easier access to the damaged component is assumed. With any Clark-Michigan machine now, parts availability has to be extremely limited. One can always have certain parts made, but that ads up to more downtime and more expense. Frankly, given the age and other factors with the Clarks, I believe you would be better off paying a bit more for a Cat 992C or newer. Service and parts availability is the best. Less downtime. It's not so much that the parts are more expensive. It's the fact that they ARE available for older models. Production either way will be about the same, providing either machine keeps running steadily. Two of the 475's I maintained were in a steel mill loading out hot slag. Very difficult work for them, as I've mentioned in earlier posts to this thread. Scheduled maintenance was intensive, but as they aged, the decision to go to the 992C's was understandable from an availability and cost standpoint. That is not to say that the Cats were stronger. We brought in a brand new 992 from the dealer in Michigan that had been modified and refitted to our needs. First night out as I watched this machine work, I several times observed the operator having the rear wheels high enough off the ground to walk under with one arm straight overhead. The production super and I both spoke with him several times that he could not continue to try breaking out the slag that way. He did, and about three in the morning I had to go over to the slag pits to see how to get a broken in half 992 out of the way. The operator was fired straight away. My team finally got the 992 drug up near the shops about two in the afternoon. The dealer (and Caterpillar) refused to believe that a 992 had busted in half, particularly a new one. Neither one wanted to warranty the repair. The company had four more 992's sitting at the dealer in Michigan, and one of those was dispatched down. The company also reminded Caterpillar that it owned several million dollars of Cat equipment, but that Cat was not the only maker of large wheel loaders in the world. Cat saw the light, and had a come to Jesus meeting with the dealer, after which repairs were commenced, and the new articulation mounts were modifed much larger and stronger. The company had used Hough H400's for a very long time. These were slightly larger than the 992B Cats, which had been tried but were returned as the 400's ran circle around them. I haven't seen one of these working in a long time, but suppose there are still some plugging away. I hope you find a decent machine to work with. Good Luck!
Does any one know what price I could ask for a 1980 Clark 475 C Wheel Loader with 1,500hrs. It is in working condition. Thanks
5 grand to me
Ummm pretty sure it might be worth a little more.
A genuine 1500 hrs? Sounds a little suspicious to me. A loader this size is bought to work, and earn the money needed to repay the outlay needed to purchase it - and not be a shed queen. Do you have any proof of the hours logged? A loader with 1500 hrs on the clock should present as new. Often, many people take hour meters at face value for hour readings. They are the last item you look at when examining a machine - to see if they correlate with what the machines condition is telling you. All the 1980's model machines I have come across in this size have all done at least 20,000 hrs - and many have done 60,000 to 80,000 hrs - particularly if they have been on 24/7/365 work. In the mining industry, many 2 year old machines have 10,000 hrs on the clock.
Shoot me some current photo's and anymore info you have on the machine, such as where it last worked, its current location etc. My email is [email protected]
YES it is a genuine 1500 hrs.....opps I mean exactly 1,577 hrs.......believe what you may. This beauty of a machine has been lucky enough to be a Shed Queen for the last decade. My late grandfather used it in his construction company up in Northern Canada - Northwest Territories. When he decided to leave the North he took all machines with him. He never sold a single machine from the construction business when he started his farming operation in Northern Alberta. All the equipment has been left in his estate, most we have now sold. A few key pieces we have kept. A few pieces we have donated to a museum because there were only a few built. The machine is located in Manning, AB. I will find some photos of it from last year. I also have a similar machine with a LOT more hours.. ....1978 Clark 475B Wheel Loader with 12,341 hrs. Once again this is original hours. The machine clock hasnt turned over. Also wondering what the asking price should be of one of these.
Unfortunately for you 475's are a limited market, and the only machines that large being used for work here in Alberta are at fort Mac, where money is no object and of the operators I've talked too wouldn't be interested in an older machine. But there always a certain amount of operations needing to move that much dirt. Of the 475s I looked at the sale price was 15-24 thousand. The biggest thing I've been told is for about 99% of the operations in Alberta there too heavy at 168000 lbs they would have a habit of gettinf stuck all the time. Add in the fact that as I've been told moving them is a complete pain in the ass, and you have a tough sell to Alot of operations. Although I'm Still interested in having a look at both machines and talking further as I'm one of the guys who needs to move some dirt.
Kangela - That's good news, and I'm rather surprised that anyone could afford a 475C for a shed queen. However, I guess there's a few people who can afford to have huge sums of money tied up in machines, that are just sitting around. I was never able to do that - every machine I ever owned, had to work long and hard, all day every day. I like the 475's, they are a favorite loader of mine, I owned 6 of them, but they're all gone to Machinery Heaven now. All the 475B's and C's I purchased were used machines, mostly ex- a large Salt Company operation. They all had around 15,000-20,000 hrs on them, but a couple had had extensive overhauls before they were sold, too. They are worth very little nowadays. As an indication, I purchased my last used 475C in 1991 for AU$70K. I purchased one 475B in 1989 for $30K. It looked rough after being on the salt, but I had her sandblasted and painted, and it looked a million dollars. That 475B worked tirelessly with hardly a break down for over 5 yrs and earned me over a million dollars. She had been overhauled not long before I purchased her, and she was basically in very good condition. Even with a very low 1500 hrs on your 475C, I'd be surprised if you achieved any more than about $50K for a sale price. These are an old machine now, parts are becoming more difficult to source, and more importantly, the number of interested purchasers is low in number - because of the loaders huge size making transport costly - and because of the limited applications as to where this machine could be put to work.
Whats your cell number Kangela, if your motivated to sell i'd be willing to drive up to have a look at the machines as well.
Sent you an email D-Young-747
Hi all, I have seen a video on youtube showing a Michigan 475 D. As far as I know the last model of the series was the 475 C. Does anyone know anything about it? If you search ''Monsterbagger Rattelsdorf 2/4'' on youtude you can see the videoclip. Any help would be appreciated.
That video on YT is a Komatsu WA800-2 decaled as a 475D. Not sure what thats all about.
Thank you very much!
Those are huge! I love em.
75 b's a couple of the old man's from the late seventies and early eighties in Kiangaroa forest, New Zealand this one ran the 4 cylinder detroit and had what the old man described as "a horrible bloody tin hut for a cab that fell apart after the first six months" http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb22/truckerdj/scan0003-Copy.jpg http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb22/truckerdj/Logging02801-05-201008-48-391024x768-1.jpg the one below had a 6v53 and the newer cab installed at assembly in New Zealand at the old mans request. Dad loved it said it was the best loader he'd had , the assembly plant manager hated it saying they had to custom make so many parts for it , throttle linkages, engine mounts, exhausts, air intakes etc. The dealership admitted after watching it perform, that it was the best clark loader they had sold. http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb22/truckerdj/scan0003.jpg http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb22/truckerdj/scan0004.jpg http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb22/truckerdj/scan0005.jpg http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb22/truckerdj/scan0005-Copy.jpg cheers trev
Nice pics Trev - Thanks!
have spent tens of thousands of hours in different wheel loaders in my life but none have ever come close to that second machine. There was just something about it........ Trev
We had one like this but with an open cab. We " Lovingly" called it " The Antique" . It was a devil to get in and out of.
Nice images. I would love to operate those machines.
Hi everyone, I hope I didn't post in the wrong place. I recently come across the Michigan L190B , its about the same size as Cat 980. I have no idea how old is it, according to Volvo website, this machine was made from 1991. being googling the info of Michigan, it seems this company had been thru many hands. I suppose the older models(175C, 275C, 475) were made by Clark Michigan, how about this L190B? by Volvo? the price of this old machine is only 5 figure Malaysia Ringgit(1MYR = $0.32USD), 3 of the tires are near brand new, the other is 7/10. I recon the tires alone would have worth half of the asking price already. my friend said he could repair the machine as he have experience with smaller Michigan loader before. the only issue here is the PARTS . from the other thread, I heard Volvo had sold the rights of manufacturing Michigan parts to MinnPar . anyone with experience in sourcing the Michigan parts from MinnPar before? since the machine is in Malaysia, ordering parts from US will take weeks, I hope anyone can tell me how to get the parts in Malaysia/Singapore or around South East Asia. Pardon me if I didn't follow the rules. Thanks in advanced.
Trooper: You can go on Minnpar web site and get a parts manual for the L190B which has the Clark Trans and Convertor and Cummins engine. I believe that the axles are Volvo with wet disc brakes. This was a time of transition from VME to Volvo Construction machinery. The first true Volvos were the small machines, the large machines were basically Clark Michigan with Volvo decals.
Thanks for the info. MinnPar had replied me, unfortunately, they do not have an authorized dealer in my region. lets hope we can repair it without major parts replacement.
This may sound stupid but how do I shift the gear on L190B ? the machine was bought 2nd hand, many of the dashboard switch and electronic are gone or damaged. We don't know if the level/switch/wiring are gone but theres some special move involved. Please give some guidance.
Sorry, I can't edit the post so have to make another. Looks like there is suppose to be 2 level on the left of steering wheel, one of forward/reverse, another for gear shifting. Either it was broken by the previous owner or the seller took it off, maybe to hide the transmission issue. Like to ask anyone familiar with this machine, is the gear shift with mechanical or electronic?
hi i just got a mid 50,s michigan 85ag home ...the previous owners put in a gas engine as the original engine was shot...now the loader will not go forward or reverse any help would be appreciated there are a couple of linkages missing one from the handle to the right of the seat next to the wall and the other runs over to the left side of the engine and hooks to nothing? PLEASE HELP
never mind LOL not that anyone looks thru here anymore????the trans was out of fluid
Lol that'll do it every time.
Hello!! Did you get that Michigan after all? We do have parts for it in Greece and we work with a company in Malaysia that can supply you. Would you be interested?
These are a couple of machines we have sold in Greece, totally rebuilt and repainted. We love them!!!
Howdy, New to the forum and I'm sure it's been covered, but I haven't found it yet so I'll keep looking... We have a 75C and we are having two issues 1. We are loosing brake fluid through the brake booster pressure relief valve when you let of the brake pedal. 2. We parked the loader the other day, started it to day threw it in gear and the darn transmission won't engage at all, forward or reverse. The loader doesn't even lurch when the selector lever is moved. I don't have any manuals on the loader or the transmission, but I've been looking at and I'm leaning towards the left brake because it disengages the trans or torque converter. Is the mechanism that disengages the trans hydraulically actuated, air actuated or electrically actuated? There is a small hose that attaches to the side plate where the shifting linkage is... If somebody could either point me to an old thread or give me a crash course on the system I would appreciate it. Have a good day...
You will have an air cutout with a switch on the dash that disengages the drive line when you step on the brake treadle.That is where I would start looking.Ron G
The brake declutch is only supposed to effect forward clutch only. The declutch valve is in the transmission control cover, follow the hose from the brake pedal to the trans, disconnect the hose and plug the port and see if that helps, do the hydraulics work? if not it's probably the fiber drive gear on the flywheel stripped out, from there on could be one of several things, clutch pressure regulating valve on the side of the convertor, charge pump, or suction hose, is the prop shaft from the convertor turning? Put a gauge in the clutch pressure regulating valve,you should read the pressure in all the gears.
If the hydraulics are working, you are looking at lack of oil pressure in the transmission. This is due to a failure of the transmission pump or its suction hose drawing air.
Thought the declutch was customer speced could be forward or reverse or both..... Start with the easy stuff first. I mean what changed from when you parked it till now ya know... Not much I bet.
Indeed it is customer specified for the Clark transmissions, but all the Michigan wheelloaders' declutch valve declutches only the forward gear....
It has been a while since I ran one but I think I remember two brake treadles, the left one decluthes the driveline and the right one just applied the brakes.That is nice to know when roading the machine.Each manufacturer has there own approach to the application,there is no standard among them.Ron G
I've got a clark 55b I work the machine about 8 hrs a week depending on demand for product. Its a good solid machine I've done a lot of work to it but it never lets me down.
[
was wondering if any one knows the approximate weight of a early 60,s 55a wheel loader 6cyl continental gas?
Hello!! The 55B is around 10 tons, so I suppose this will be somewhere close...