Been considering upsizing my hydraulic pump on the 1845C as the hydraulics have always seemed a little "slow" for me. Plenty of power, just slow especially in raising, or dumping. I don't know the installed displacement of the pump but would like to consider a 10 - 15% upsize to speed them up a bit. Not really worried about excess heat as in the past when working the machine hard, I never overheated anything when the temps were over 90 degrees out and I don't do anything like that any longer. I do not have high flow hydraulics, just standard. Anybody ever done this and had problems? Nothing really wrong with what I have, just slow in operation. Thanks,
We tryed this once and the rest of the system couldnt handle the extra flow it would dog down the engine when you went to use the hyd.
I looked into this at one time for my 1845c. In the end, it required more than just the pump would need to be changed. I even considered adding high flow to it. Lot of work for the gain. So I decided it wasn't worth it for me. It's a great machine for what it is. But it is what it is. And not as fast as some newer machines.
What kind of pump is in it, gear, vane or piston?
Hi John, it is a gear pump driven directly from the crankshaft.
Have you had the pump flow tested to see if it meets factory specs for flow at given pressure? I know the manual for my Deere backhoe has a test procedure listed for flow testing along with the manufacturer's specs for what the pump should produce.
The flow on gear pumps depend on the size of the gears and pump casings. Changing size then becomes an issue of the amount of room where it mounts, the capability of the mounting surface to handle the extra weight and whether or not the tubing and hoses have to be moved in order to hook up to the new pump. If the pump is cast iron you could likely put in an aluminum bodied pump.
No I have not. I have flowmeters and gauges to do it, just have not. I don't suspect there is anything wrong as I've operated other's 1845C tractors and they are the same in my "seat of the pants" evaluation. Hydraulic operations are smart and responsive, just slow compared to something newer. Loading my dump truck for example, or dumping snow onto a pile takes seemingly longer than it should for the bucket to dump and cycle. Plenty of power to raise the back end up even with the additional factory weights installed onto the back end.
Flow rates are a mater of time and not power. There should be a spec on how much time it takes to lift the bucket from the ground to top out. That's all you need to check the pump flow. A gear pump can loose efficiency and still have power as long as it has enough flow to make up for the oil slipping between the gear and the casing.
It appears to be an aluminum bodied pump with an SAE B flange and ORB connections. Never had it apart and there are no leaks. There is enough flexibility and length to the hoses to bring them back a bit to incorporate a longer body gear section with a new pump and there is ample space to not impact the oil cooler which is mounted to the rear access door. I don't know what static or parasitic pressure is in the system as I've never had a reason to check anything. I did have a service manual for the tractor but a former employee took it home with him before I knew he had it. I remember reading a flow and pressure testing procedure but thats been about 20 years ago..... Ill go to the minn par site and download a soft copy as I do most on computer now anyways.
I will ask a friend at the Case Construction dealer for a time specification on this. The time to elevate from ground to full stroke is acceptable on all counts and I don't think it has decayed in my tenure but the dump cycle of the bucket has always been slow. In reality probably Nature of the Beast.
I agree on nature of the beast. I've done testing on a lot of equipment where slow function was actually a matter of the operator just being able to operate things faster than the machine was capable of.
With exception of my granddaughter and soon to be others joining that fray as they get older, I'm the only operator. I'm planning to enclose the cab and install a heater, line bore the loose coupler assembly this summer, and generally tidy up the machine. Has 2631 hours on in and really is no worse off than when I purchased in 2001. Since having the tilt cylinders repacked last August, it doesn't even spot the floor any longer. Really would like to have something with tracks but cannot justify the expense with the way I use the machine. On top of that I have the AC HD-11 dozer, the soon to be operational Clark backhoe, and on the fringes of acquiring the FR-10, (Rebadged AC 345) wheel loader mentioned earlier. And I'm not a "dirt worker". Come to think of it there has to be a plan there; I just don't know what it is yet.....
The tilt cylinders are quite long on the 1845C. It just isn't going to cycle those long tilt cylinders as fast as the newer machines which typically have shorter cylinders. The 95XT also had long tilt cylinders. It also had slow tilt times (even though it made more flow and more psi). Personally I wouldn't mess with it, as said, it is what it is. If it doesn't do what you want, I would find something else that is faster. Your 1845 would be worth more (at least to most) if it was OEM and not altered.
I had never thought about the stroke length being a culprit but you are absolutely correct on both machines. That really is the only fault, (whine) I have with the machine. I ruled out the 95XT I'd had on loan/demo citing much the same what I considered extended time for bucket cycling and kept my tractor. Hindsight, glad I did too as that 95XT burnt for some reason when a hydraulic hose burst. No since poking the monster so will leave well enough alone. I really like this tractor and have no intention of replacing it unless futuristic seeing granddaughter steals it for her horse barn, as then I'll be SOL for a tractor.
If you want a bigger, faster machine of that era, the 90XT/450 cycled extremely fast. I never owned one but have run them. I was always amazed at how fast they were. I owned 2-95XT's and 2-465's over the years, I bought those for the much larger ROC, but for moving dirt fast, those 90's/450 could not be beat.
I remember well when they came out and the 90XT was touted as a "Digging" machine, where the 95XT was more of a combination and "Loading" machine as the linkage kept the bucket more forward though the lift cycle. I too liked the larger cabin of the 95XT. I also had on demo a few years later a 445CT and liked it a lot but the gent wouldn't budge on his price and was far too high for me.
By ROC I mean Rated Operating Capacity. The 90 was 2450 pounds and the 95 was like 3200. The cabs are the same for both. The 90 had plenty of lift for managing an 84"bucket, but not as great for a lot of lift and carry type projects. As you stated, the Radial lift design made it difficult to dump in the center of a dump truck. The 95 could easily dump to the center, even if it did it more slowly. I felt the 95/465 was a good mix of both, but the dump times were frustrating at times. When I traded the 465 for an SV300, I loved how much faster the 300 was. Loading trucks was much faster. I did lose some of the reach of the 465, but the speed was much appreciated.
I was working at a Case dealer when 1845C's were being sold new. We had a customer that was the first guy in Australia, if not the World, who built a road profiler to be used on one. He kept making different changes but in the end had them pretty well worked out. He was buying 3-4 machines a month - modifying them & then on selling them to contractors & councils all around the country. He ended up using quite a large pump that required modifying the rear door. He fitted backhoe front engine mounting frames (they had 2 x mounts) & modifying the chassis to suit. The injector pumps were all upgraded from 50hp skid steer spec to 70hp backhoe spec to cope with the extra load demand. I don't think any changes were made to the cooling system, but he did use a very top end hydraulic oil in them which would cope (not boil) with extra heat the machine could develop under heavy working conditions.
I do remember the ROC being substantially higher than my tractor and at the time they were selling both the new "XT" series, and the 1845C back in 2001. Used to see a lot of 1845C tractors at work all over; not so much any longer. Never have been disappointed enough in this to consider selling it or worse be without something at all. After completing my shop I sold off the backhoe, and trencher, but decided the skid steer was much too handy to be without. That thought process has not changed at all over the years. I deliver a lot of New Holland equipment and although it is very nice, it is also a lot of money to purchase. I don't know/think there is a single 75+ horsepower skid steer, or mini excavator I've delivered that hasn't been back in for emissions issues either. 74 horsepower and less are much more reliable. That is not a "dig" on the brand as I know others are suffering the same fate. Think I'm going to continue to make do with what I have. It's been paid for since day one and I don't think I have $600.00 in repairs over my ownership tenure. Pretty reliable but I've never made a living with it so a bit more "ginger" at the controls than some. Thanks for everyone's time.
1693TA, I think you need to unload that machine on someone! If you deliver I'd be willing to take it!
I hate to pain too badly but there is a waiting line.....
Yea! but I'm far enough away that I won't be asking you to work on it if I break it!
Fair enough should I decide to be rid of it.
1693TA , wouldn't increasing RPM's help to speed the lift etc.
It would yes but engine overspeeding tends to shorten the life expectancy of an engine along with increasing heat generated through the hydrostatic drive pumps. Excess heat can really wear these out fast. Thanks for the suggestion.