Anyone try these (BX tractor upgrade)?

[TheOldHokie]

The retracted over-all length eye-to-eye is the same. The Kubota cylinder leaves 1.5" of rod unused (likely for safety), the aftermarket cylinder is 1.5" longer and takes advantage of the otherwise unused rod length. The aftermarket stroke is therefore 1.5" longer resulting in 11-3/4" additional lift height. Since the retracted length is the same there is no loss of negative bucket height and therefore the front of the tractor can be lifted off the ground the same amount.

The downsides are there should be 35% more lifting ability but [due to friction?] some is lost and there's "only" 32% more lift according to the videos I've seen, and lift speed should be 35% slower due to the larger cylinder and timed results seem to show 37% slower. In my guestimation since both figures are within 3% it could be partially due to observational error, but even if accurate is less than what's noticeable. (I've found less than 10% change is "generally unnoticeable" in casual observation of most things.)

I'd also guess 35% is about the most the lift force should be increased by, more than that will likely eventually result in the user doing something to cause structural deformation.

I dont think that picture is taken with the front wheels off the ground but from that angle you cant tell.

Buy lets assume they are anx he has done what you think.

HPBX300 DIMENSIONS

Retracted length = 20"
Stroke = 13.8"
Extended length = 33.8"

I dont need to measure cycle time I can compute it. For a fixed flow rate it is proportional to volume. Since he increased volume 37% the cycle time will increase by 37%. Thats simple arithmetic.

EDIT

The OEM cylinders are actually 40mm bore = 1.58". Redoing the lift force arithmetic using that number gives ypu a 25% increase in lift force with a 1.75" cylinder and 61% increase with a 2" cylinder.

Dan

 

[Yotekiller]

Excellent work guys! Now I need to get this info for my L2502. I had to cut wood last night when I got home and forgot to get the measurements I needed.

 

[TheOldHokie]

Excellent work guys! Now I need to get this info for my L2502. I had to cut wood last night when I got home and forgot to get the measurements I needed.

What are you trying to do there?

Dan

 

[Yotekiller]

What are you trying to do there?

Dan

Locate cylinders for it to increase the lift capacity a bit, and restore my hydraulic PSI back down to factory.

 

[TheOldHokie]

Locate cylinders for it to increase the lift capacity a bit, and restore my hydraulic PSI back down to factory.

Unless they changed from the LA525 the OEM cylinders are 50mm bore = 1.97". Moving up to a stock 2" bore only nets you a 3% increase in lifting force. A 2.5" cylinder is a rather hefty 61% increase.

How much did you bump the pressure?

Dan

 

[Yotekiller]

Unless they changed from the LA525 the OEM cylinders are 50mm bore = 1.97". Moving up to a stock 2" bore only nets you a 3% increase.

How much did you bump the pressure?

Dan

So I would need to jump to a 2.5" if it would fit. Don't recall seeing a 2.25 while I was looking at them.

I bumped up 300psi to 2650.

 

[TheOldHokie]

So I would need to jump to a 2.5" if it would fit. Don't recall seeing a 2.25 while I was looking at them.

I bumped up 300psi to 2650.

Thats about a 13% increase. I think you are stuck with the pressure boost.

Dan

 

[Yotekiller]

Thats about a 13% increase. I think you are stuck with the pressure boost.

Dan

I am ignorant when it comes to this hydraulic stuff. So going from a 1.97" bore to a 2.5" bore is only a 13% increase?

Edit: I see now you were saying 2.25 is only a 13% increase. Hopefully I can find some 2.5's that will fit.

 

[TheOldHokie]

I am ignorant when it comes to this hydraulic stuff. So going from a 1.97" bore to a 2.5" bore is only a 13% increase?

No - 2.5* cylinders are a 61% increase. If you went that big you would have to be careful you did not accidentally lift too much and damage the loader arms or possibly the tractor.

Safer to stick with the higher pressure. The worst thing there is probably slightly reduced pump life

Dan

 

[WI_Hedgehog]

Safer to stick with the higher pressure. The worst thing there is probably slightly reduced pump life

That would only be the case under maximum load though? Normally the valves are in bypass and there's no pressure or additional wear on the pump under No/Light/Medium load, only under Full load?

(Full Load would include topping-out the 3-point hitch and mower lift, correct?)

 

[TheOldHokie]

That would only be the case under maximum load though? Normally the valves are in bypass and there's no pressure or additional wear on the pump under No/Light/Medium load, only under Full load?

(Full Load would include topping-out the 3-point hitch and mower lift, correct?)

Thats why said a slight decrease in pump life. In fact I almost said negligible.

The only time the pump is at the elevated pressure is when actually lifting the added weight or you have a cylinder stalled. Thats a very tiny fraction of run time.

Dan

 

[WI_Hedgehog]

Thats why said a slight decrease in pump life. In fact I almost said negligible.

The only time the pump is at the elevated pressure is when actually lifting the added weight or you have a cylinder stalled. Thats a very tiny fraction of run time.

Thank you for confirming. I'm new to hydraulics so double-checking pretty much everything at this point, because it's far better to ask than break stuff due to ignorance.

 

[TheOldHokie]

Thank you for confirming. I'm new to hydraulics so double-checking pretty much everything at this point, because it's far better to ask than break stuff due to ignorance.

That is quite possibly one of the best philosophies ever enunciated on this forum

 

[GreensvilleJay]

Pretty sure going to a bigger bore, usually means slower travel, as more oil needed to fill the cylinder.
aww, what's the fun in building it right the first time ?? You learn from mistAkes.

 

[Trimley]

I dont think that picture is taken with the front wheels off the ground but from that angle you cant tell.

Buy lets assume they are anx he has done what you think.

HPBX300 DIMENSIONS

Retracted length = 20"
Stroke = 13.8"
Extended length = 33.8"

I dont need to measure cycle time I can compute it. For a fixed flow rate it is proportional to volume. Since he increased volume 37% the cycle time will increase by 37%. Thats simple arithmetic.

EDIT

The OEM cylinders are actually 40mm bore = 1.58". Redoing the lift force arithmetic using that number gives ypu a 25% increase in lift force with a 1.75" cylinder and 61% increase with a 2" cylinder.

Dan

Here's what I've acquired so far.

Rod diameter = 1.125" (1-1/8")
Cylinder OD = 2.142 (2-9/64")
Pin to Pin
Min length = 20.875 (20-11/16)
Max extension = 35"
Stroke = 14.125 (14-1/8")

I've searched for comparable cylinders, and found very close options, however the inlet and outlet are in the wrong position.

 

[TheOldHokie]

Here's what I've acquired so far.

Rod diameter = 1.125" (1-1/8")
Cylinder OD = 2.142 (2-9/64")
Pin to Pin
Min length = 20.875 (20-11/16)
Max extension = 35"
Stroke = 14.125 (14-1/8")

I've searched for comparable cylinders, and found very close options, however the inlet and outlet are in the wrong position.

Post a link to your cylinders. Port location should not be a huge obstacle.

Dan

 

[Trimley]

Post a link to your cylinders. Port location should not be a huge obstacle.

Dan

I can't find specifics. The part number is B02500, but that doesn't look like it.

 

[mcmxi]

Is this what Kioti does to get "better" numbers for their tractors i.e. use larger hydraulic cylinders with more stroke?

 

[RCW]

Is this what Kioti does to get "better" numbers for their tractors i.e. use larger hydraulic cylinders with more stroke?

Just an observation, I mentioned in another thread somewhere that a friend of mine bought a Mahindra several years ago.

Don’t recall model number, but about a Kubota B series equivalent.

Major selling point to him was a supposed loader lift capacity to be nearly 2,000 pounds.

Tractor doesn’t weigh that much.

 

[mcmxi]

Just an observation, I mentioned in another thread somewhere that a friend of mine bought a Mahindra several years ago.

Don’t recall model number, but about a Kubota B series equivalent.

Major selling point to him was a supposed loader lift capacity to be nearly 2,000 pounds.

Tractor doesn’t weigh that much.

What a shocker that some manufacturers use smoke and mirrors to sell their products. I admire Kubota's conservative and understated approach. It seems that they consider the system in its entirety and have a sense of how the equipment "should" be used.