B7100 Hydraulic block diverter (70060-00360 or 70070-00385)

[TheOldHokie]

I would confirm that with actual measurements. They have different part numbers. Doesn't mean it won't fit, of course. I note that the first diagram you posted (and the one I viewed on the Kubota Canada site) show the outlets both on the same long side. The 70060-00360 version has one outlet on each end, and the superceding part (70070-00385) has both outlets on the face of the cover. But all 3 are drawn with similar proportions. The 70070-00385 may be a touch thinner which makes sense -- the passages are straight through so it doesn`t have to accomodate the internal 90° bend.

The one shown in your second drawing, from the workshop manual, appears to have different proportions. Less rectangular than the other.

As for the loader number, I suspect that the only significant difference between the L1730 and the L1731 is the choice between independent hydraulics and tapping into the tractor hydraulics. It sounds like something Kubota might do, anyway.

I believe L1731 is the front pump option for the L1730 loader.

I would confirm that with actual measurements. They have different part numbers. Doesn't mean it won't fit, of course. I note that the first diagram you posted (and the one I viewed on the Kubota Canada site) show the outlets both on the same long side. The 70060-00360 version has one outlet on each end, and the superceding part (70070-00385) has both outlets on the face of the cover. But all 3 are drawn with similar proportions. The 70070-00385 may be a touch thinner which makes sense -- the passages are straight through so it doesn`t have to accomodate the internal 90° bend.

The one shown in your second drawing, from the workshop manual, appears to have different proportions. Less rectangular than the other.

As for the loader number, I suspect that the only significant difference between the L1730 and the L1731 is the choice between independent hydraulics and tapping into the tractor hydraulics. It sounds like something Kubota might do, anyway.

Kubota numbering scheme is schizophrenic but based on KPAD it appears that:

L1730 is base loader
L1731 is tractor hydraulic supply option for base loader
L1735 is front pump hydraulic supply option for base loader

There are a number of other L173x options listed for different mounting kits for the various the L series tractors.

Dan

 

[TheOldHokie]

Torch is correct. Over the years many versions of this block. The port's out the sides the top O ring boss threads versus pipe thread. But the bolt pattern has stayed consistent.

I was about to make one with SAE-6 ports on the top. Top porting is the simplest and easiest way to make it. Will that be an issue on any of the tractors?

Dan

 

[North Idaho Wolfman]

I was about to make one with SAE-6 ports on the top. Top porting is the simplest and easiest way to make it. Will that be an issue on any of the tractors?

Dan

You need side ports on some of the L's as that block is right under the seat and there is no clearance above it.

 

[TheOldHokie]

You need side ports on some of the L's as that block is right under the seat and there is no clearance above it.

Next easiest to make is side porting. That requires one reclamping of the work piece. End porting requires two work piece moves but eliminates one table move so its probably a wash.

Dan

 

[North Idaho Wolfman]

The reason for different blocks with side or end ports is on some models there will be another block or device blocking one or the other.
Some models with power steering will have a proportional valve on the side thus blocking side ports.

The "perfect" block would have all three ports top side and ends, but that would be incredibly complicated to make sure all ports had enough strength to hold up under pressure.

 

[TheOldHokie]

The reason for different blocks with side or end ports is on some models there will be another block or device blocking one or the other.
Some models with power steering will have a proportional valve on the side thus blocking side ports.

The "perfect" block would have all three ports top side and ends, but that would be incredibly complicated to make sure all ports had enough strength to hold up under pressure.

I have it drawn up - there is no problem with top, end, and side porting other than machining cost. Probably cheaper to produce in the long run since you can make a single short run that fits all models and simplifies inventory.

Dan

 

[torch]

So a block with one port on each end, two on one long side and two on the face would be darn near universal for those machines that take 4 bolt coversÉ Interesting.

Edit: Whoops. We`re on a whole second page now. I see this was covered. Sorry, just catching up after my nap.

 

[Russell King]

I am a bit confused by the amount of information but think the final answer is probably yes but try to locate a drawing in one of my manuals this weekend.

My tractor has the block under the seat as in the lower picture in post 13

Thank you for the offer to make these and I would be buying one for sure.

I will post a sketch if I find one and some pictures of the tractor area around the block.

 

[torch]

My tractor has the block under the seat as in the lower picture in post 13

That`s the one that looks like a different shape than all the others. It looks more square, the others are distinctly rectangular.

Can still be made, but will require measurements (from a manual, if available) for sure.

 

[North Idaho Wolfman]

I have it drawn up - there is no problem with top, end, and side porting other than machining cost. Probably cheaper to produce in the long run since you can make a single short run that fits all models and simplifies inventory.

Dan

Dan,
Would you send it over to torch, as I feel he should have first crack at it as it was his idea to make these.

 

[North Idaho Wolfman]

That`s the one that looks like a different shape than all the others. It looks more square, the others are distinctly rectangular.

Can still be made, but will require measurements (from a manual, if available) for sure.

Torch,
Once we get this ironed out a little we'll start you a new sale Thread and sticky it.

 

[torch]

Hey, if someone else wants to help out others, I certainly won`t stand in his way! Odds are his cost of shipping will be lower, at least within the US. I`ll happily share all information at my disposal towards that end (in fact, I kind of did already LOL). I started the thread in response to a series of PMs I received from a person who read my thread from a few years ago when I made mine. He couldn`t get a local machine shop to take his business and asked if I could help.

My intent was never to make a product for profit. Just to cover the cost of material and a few bucks towards shop costs -- heating the shop, cutting oil, wear and tear on tooling and powering the machines. It`s a hobby (of course, that`s not what I would tell She Who Must Be Obeyed -- for her the official line would be that I need to buy this new gizmo to build a little retirement business ).

 

[TheOldHokie]

Dan,
Would you send it over to torch, as I feel he should have first crack at it as it was his idea to make these.

I will be happy to share the drawing with anyone that wants it. Its really not much more than what Torch has posted -= I just added top and side ports. I have been doing these sorts of things for a couple decades now and this is one of the simpler ones I have tackled. I am like Torch - its a hobby not a business. Here is my first effort. I stopped with the top ports because I decided to use a piece of 1 x 2 steel bar I had handy which is .25 thinner than my drawing. With the reduced thickness the other ports are going to get awfully close to cutting into the threads on the top port. I will have a go at them in a bit.

Dan

UPDATE: I added the end and side ports - just enough room to squeeze them in without taking out the threads on the other ports. I was rushing a bit and its not my finest work but I submit it as a candidate for Wolfmans "perfect block".

 

[torch]

Nice!

 

[torch]

Did you end up tapping that for -6? Is there room to tap it -8? Most aftermarket controls of appropriate size have -8 ports..

 

[TheOldHokie]

Did you end up tapping that for -6? Is there room to tap it -8? Most aftermarket controls of appropriate size have -8 ports..

The ports are all SAE-06. The bolt hole spacing is too close together for -08 ports. I also confirmed the block on the Lxx5 series uses the same port and bolt pattern. That information is in the operator's manual.

Dan

 

[torch]

Is it the holes themselves that are the issue, or the fittings when they screw into the holes? When I plumbed my FEL joystick, the holes were too close together for elbows to thread in. I had to alternate short elbows with long reach elbows.

 

[Vigo]

Following with interest. My 6100 with FEL didn't even come with that manifold in my pressure line, but luckily my buddy bought a near identical 6100 with FEL that had the block so i was able to swap pressure lines with him since his has a backhoe as well and no real plans for future hydraulics that HAS to utilize the 3pt pump (the thing has 3 pumps at this point and im actually thinking about reducing that number).

My plan is actually a little 'science experiment' to plumb a check valve and pressure regulator in between the stock pump and my front loader pump to make an 'unloader valve' so that they work together as a 2-stage pump system. Will require some creative replumbing but I tend to be more interested in doing what's interesting vs what's practical. The 6100 is like a big toy and im just having fun learning. Might be interested in buying one of these blocks if they become available here.

 

[TheOldHokie]

Is it the holes themselves that are the issue, or the fittings when they screw into the holes? When I plumbed my FEL joystick, the holes were too close together for elbows to thread in. I had to alternate short elbows with long reach elbows.

Its a bit of both. The side ports could be moved a bit closer to the middle to get clearance for an SAE--08 port but the block would need to be a bit thicker.

I assume your concern is flow restriction through the port and that really is not an issue. The most common mistake made by tractor owners is over sizing hydraulic plumbing thinking that smaller plumbing is going to reduce flow.

Here is a picture of a D01 solenoid valve and sub-plate. These valves are rated for 20+ GPM all of which has to travel up the sub-plate, into the valve, then through the valve and back down and out through that sub-plate. The ports in that sub-plate and valve are the same diameter as the through hole in an SAE--06 fitting and the fitting is a heck of a lot shorter than the path through the valve and sub-plate. Kubota uses that exact type valve and a similar sub-plate for loader third function on most of the B and L series tractors. The flow rate through this diverter block is going to be 3 to 6 GPM max depending on the tractor. its fitted to. All you are going to achieve with an SAE-08 port/fitting is geometry that is more cramped than it already is.

Dan

 

[torch]

Its a bit of both. The side ports could be moved a bit closer to the middle to get clearance for an SAE--08 port but the block would need to be a bit thicker.

I assume your concern is flow restriction through the port and that really is not an issue. The most common mistake made by tractor owners is over sizing hydraulic plumbing thinking that smaller plumbing is going to reduce flow.

Looking at charts like this: https://clearwaterhydraulics.com/hose-size-vs-gpm-ezp-24.html -06 is fine for 3 gpm, but getting iffy for 6 gpm. But the block is a local restriction -- in and of itself, it forms a small part of the entire system. The restriction in any elbows is several times greater.

But my thought was actually more related to fitting and hose sizes. If the hydraulic block port is the same size as the spool valve port, it simplifies the need for adapters.

OTOH, I like the idea of using 0-ring fittings over pipe threads. But the tooling costs are higher. If you already have the reamer and tap set for -08 then it's not an issue. If you only have -06 size available, then it adds to the cost for a small batch of orders. I threaded mine 3/4" 3/8" pipe for two reasons: 1. adapters for a range of smaller hose sizes are readily available and 2. I already have 3/4" 3/8"pipe taps. ;-)