Need Help: Sizing Tilt Cylinder

[Work Horse]

No need to guess. To test the cylinder :

1) Raise the bucket, operate the handle to roll if full back and secure it with a strap.

2) Disconnect the hose at the base end of the cylinder and plug/cap the port in the cylinder

3) Remove the strap, increase engine to roughly 3/4, and then move loader control handle to roll back position and hold it there. If the cylinder extends the seals are bad. If mot the seals are fine.

Dan

Thank you for this!

I dug around yesterday and wasn't able to source a plug for the cylinder to perform the test. The threads do not appear to be NPT.

I was able to confirm the bore of the cylinder is only 2" - which is the same size as the two lift cylinders for vertical travel. Seeing as my loader was designed with only one tilt cylinder - this would lead me to believe it was undersized from the get-go.

What would you consider a good candidate for replacement, 3 inch?

To answer your questions from earlier:
Bore: 2"
Rod Size: 1 1/8" (is that a common size?)
Stroke: 10"
Compressed size: 20.5" (center to center)
Expanded size: 30.5"
Pins: 1"

 

[Work Horse]

I've heard these fittings can be a bit of a pain to get right. The OD for the male end is roughly 1 1/8"

 

[TheOldHokie]

View attachment 131045

I've heard these fittings can be a bit of a pain to get right. The OD for the male end is roughly 1 1/8"

That looks like an ordinary pipe swivel. They should assemble with no issues as long as the male part has the proper internal chamfer like the one on that hose. It does not need pipe thread sealant and using it does nothing but make a mess. Water supply fittings from a box store dont always have the chamfer and wont seal reliably.

The port in the cylinder looks like it is is NPT. Remove the elbow and you can plug it with an ordinary pipe plug. You can plug the elbow with a pipe nipple and cap. The nipple must have the internal chamfer.

Or usevthe hose and put a cap on the other end.

Dan

 

[TheOldHokie]

Thank you for this!

I dug around yesterday and wasn't able to source a plug for the cylinder to perform the test. The threads do not appear to be NPT.

I was able to confirm the bore of the cylinder is only 2" - which is the same size as the two lift cylinders for vertical travel. Seeing as my loader was designed with only one tilt cylinder - this would lead me to believe it was undersized from the get-go.

What would you consider a good candidate for replacement, 3 inch?

To answer your questions from earlier:
Bore: 2"
Rod Size: 1 1/8" (is that a common size?)
Stroke: 10"
Compressed size: 20.5" (center to center)
Expanded size: 30.5"
Pins: 1"

I doubt its undersize to begin with - people that build loaders typically understand all of the physics of the design which is more than just cylinder size.

If you want to go larger 2.5" with a 1.125 rod will get you a 25% increase in break out force. Thats not unreasonable.

2.5 bore x 10 stroke hydraulic cylinder, tie rod double acting cylinder | Magister Hydraulics

2.5" bore x 10" stroke tie rod hydraulic cylinder 2500 PSI. Heavy-duty hydraulics, 2-year hassle-free warranty, free ground Continental US shipping. Magister cylinders manufactured with wear rings for long life. Cast iron clevis ends with screw-on clevis on the rod end, honed cold-drawn tubing...

www.magisterhyd.com

A 3" cylinder with 1.250 rod will get you 87% more force. IMO thats excessive.

3 bore x 10 stroke hydraulic cylinder, tie rod double acting cylinder | Magister Hydraulics

3" bore x 10" stroke tie rod hydraulic cylinder 2500 PSI. Heavy-duty hydraulics, 2-year hassle-free warranty, free ground Continental US shipping. Magister cylinders manufactured with wear rings for long life. Cast iron clevis ends with screw-on clevis on the rod end, honed cold-drawn tubing...

www.magisterhyd.com

Dan

 

[Work Horse]

[/QUOTE]

Thanks a lot for the help Dan, as I'm sure you can tell hydraulics are not my specialty.

If I have some time this afternoon I'll look for a plug to test the cylinder. I was in a bit of a rush yesterday.

I was able to tighten the lever on the 3PH slightly but it didnt make much difference.

I doubt its undersize to begin with - people that build loaders typically understand all of the physics of the design which is more than just cylinder size.

If you want to go larger 2.5" with a 1.125 rod will get you a 25% increase in break out force. Thats not unreasonable.

2.5 bore x 10 stroke hydraulic cylinder, tie rod double acting cylinder | Magister Hydraulics

2.5" bore x 10" stroke tie rod hydraulic cylinder 2500 PSI. Heavy-duty hydraulics, 2-year hassle-free warranty, free ground Continental US shipping. Magister cylinders manufactured with wear rings for long life. Cast iron clevis ends with screw-on clevis on the rod end, honed cold-drawn tubing...

www.magisterhyd.com

A 3" cylinder with 1.250 rod will get you 87% more force. IMO thats excessive.

3 bore x 10 stroke hydraulic cylinder, tie rod double acting cylinder | Magister Hydraulics

3" bore x 10" stroke tie rod hydraulic cylinder 2500 PSI. Heavy-duty hydraulics, 2-year hassle-free warranty, free ground Continental US shipping. Magister cylinders manufactured with wear rings for long life. Cast iron clevis ends with screw-on clevis on the rod end, honed cold-drawn tubing...

www.magisterhyd.com

Dan

Excellent, appreciate all the help Dan!

 

[Work Horse]

In my excitement to get the new bucket and cylinder installed I forgot to perform the test on the old cylinder.

I just painted the bucket a couple of days ago and haven't had a chance to really test it out yet. I do suspect I have some leak-by at the hydraulic control. I left loaded suspended a few feet in the air with the bucket tilted back and both leaked down overnight.

The loader arms have had leak-down since I can remember installing the loader, but it was never at a rate that was of any real concern. The leak-down on the tilt cylinder has always been an annoyance though. If the hydraulic control proves to be the bigger issue, I still wouldn't consider the cylinder upgrade a loss by any means.

 

[TheOldHokie]

In my excitement to get the new bucket and cylinder installed I forgot to perform the test on the old cylinder.

I just painted the bucket a couple of days ago and haven't had a chance to really test it out yet. I do suspect I have some leak-by at the hydraulic control. I left loaded suspended a few feet in the air with the bucket tilted back and both leaked down overnight.

The loader arms have had leak-down since I can remember installing the loader, but it was never at a rate that was of any real concern. The leak-down on the tilt cylinder has always been an annoyance though. If the hydraulic control proves to be the bigger issue, I still wouldn't consider the cylinder upgrade a loss by any means.

Congrats.

The leakdown on the lift arm cylinders cannot be caused by piston seals and is definitly in the valve.

The bucket leakdown could be either but with a brand new cylinder I think its safe to say that is also internal valve leakage.

Dan

 

[Work Horse]

Congrats.

The leakdown on the lift arm cylinders cannot be caused by piston seals and is definitly in the valve.

The bucket leakdown could be either but with a brand new cylinder I think its safe to say that is also internal valve leakage.

Dan

Why is it that the loader arms can't cause leak down? I would have thought the properties of the lift and tilt cylinders would be the same...?

Do control valves "wear out" or is that based upon how the valve is manufactured in the first place? I haven't even looked at what they can cost, but I'm sure they are not cheap... and I'm sure there are better brands than others.

 

[TheOldHokie]

Why is it that the loader arms can't cause leak down? I would have thought the properties of the lift and tilt cylinders would be the same...?

Do control valves "wear out" or is that based upon how the valve is manufactured in the first place? I haven't even looked at what they can cost, but I'm sure they are not cheap... and I'm sure there are better brands than others.

The properties of teh cylinders are the same but the lift cylinders are retracting and the bucket cylinders are extending. That means the internal volume of the lift cylinders is decreasing and the volume in the bucket cylinders is increasing.

If the seals are leaking oil will move from rod end to base end and the bucket cylinders will pull a vacuum as the rod extends on the bucket,. But there here is no place for the displaced oil to go when the rod is retracting and the cylinder is hydraulically locked in that direction. The only way the rod can move that direction is if oi is leaking out through the valve, Consider a hypodermic syringe as another example.

New valves leak right out of the box and it gets worse as they wear over time. If they get too worn they cannot be repaired and you replace them.

Dan

 

[Work Horse]

The properties of teh cylinders are the same but the lift cylinders are retracting and the bucket cylinders are extending. That means the internal volume of the lift cylinders is decreasing and the volume in the bucket cylinders is increasing.

If the seals are leaking oil will move from rod end to base end and the bucket cylinders will pull a vacuum as the rod extends on the bucket,. But there here is no place for the displaced oil to go when the rod is retracting and the cylinder is hydraulically locked in that direction. The only way the rod can move that direction is if oi is leaking out through the valve, Consider a hypodermic syringe as another example.

New valves leak right out of the box and it gets worse as they wear over time. If they get too worn they cannot be repaired and you replace them.

Dan

I appreciate the explanation, I'd never thought of it that way. Thank you!

So no matter what it definitely sounds like the control valve is leaking. I guess I need to determine if the leak-down is too much to deal with... Sounds like I will end up replacing it sooner or later.