Anyone put larger rams on their bx24 FEL arm?

[bx24]

The other day I was lifting a finish mower deck with my FEL and I pretty much maxed it out about half way up (I am assuming the pressure relief valve kicked in). What really surprised me was that I was able to curl the bucket with no problem to lift the deck further.

Has anyone put the next size larger rams on the FEL arms? I understand if they are too strong I will:

1- Stress the FEL for more than it was designed
2- Same thing for the front axle
3- Create a possible "front tipping" situation.

I don't want this to lift the world, but 100 extra pounds of capacity would be nice

 

[KeithInSpace]

Makes sense you'd be able to curl...breakout force is much higher than lifting force.

Unless you do something more drastic, like changing the pump, you'd probably be relying on an increased ram diameter. If it fits, you'd need more fluid to perform the same lift at the same pump head...all your lifting movements are going to take longer whether you have something in the bucket or not. More fluid is necessary to fill the ram.

Other than possibly wrecking something else on your tractor, as you mentioned, it doesn't sound like the craziest thing in the world.

Story: Brother puts a Saleen supercharger in his 2006 Mustang GT for something around 420 HP. Goes like stink. Burns up the automatic (which was abnormally clunky to begin with). Oddly, Ford fixes transmission under warranty. Saleen comes out with an "overdrive" package for the supercharger for another 50 HP. Unfortunately, he will probably be replacing the transmission and rear-end within 3 months of installing.

Point: When you make something "more", all you're going to find is the next weakest link. As these things normally go, you'd probably end up putting the OEM rams back on after you break a few things that are more precious to you than another 100# of lifting capacity.

I only have 34 years under my belt, but I've seen it enough times. But if you DO try it, be sure to let the rest of us know how it works out. A cheap 100# extra isn't the worst thing in the world...

 

[Tommy V]

The reason you could lift the bucket a little higher is because you brought the weight closer to the point where the rams act on the bucket. It is the same reason you can lift something closer to your body than with an outstretched arm.

 

[bx24]

Tommy-

The way the bucket was positioned, the leverage factor was kept to a minimum because the distance to the fulcrum did not change more than 2 or three inches. It just amazed me that the lift was maxed yet curling was no problem.

Keith-

80%+ of my lifting (as I would expect most peoples to be) with the FEL is only a foot or two off the ground so while the cycle time would be longer (pushing more fluid), I don't think that would cause too many problems. The quantity of fluid in the reservoir would be a push because of the double acting rams.

Interestingly, when I first picked up the machine, some of the bolts that hold the quick connect FEL cradle to the frame where not torqued completely and it became very clear where the design deficiencies were. If you look at the b21 file below, you will notice the added bar between the front "bumper" and the FOPs cage. Because I want to add heat for winter jobs plus the fact that I hate forgetting the ROPs is up (and hitting the top of the garage door), I will be installing a custom made FOPs for my tractor (yes yes I know the dangers of making your own protection systems). Anyways, I plan to add this bar between the bumper and the FOPs with some sort of quick connect so I can still quickly remove the FEL if need be. The image below labeled flex shows the problem common to bx24s when you are pushing something hard with the FEL. If you don't believe me, check it out next time you guys are sitting pushing something. It will flex almost a half inch (especially in float mode). Not a big surprise given how much mechanical disadvantage there is by design. By locking the top to a FOPs, I am hoping to really tighten things up.

Poke holes in my ideas .... the tractor is getting closer to the plasma cutter and welder by the minute!

 

[MacTractor]

It would seem to me, unless you change out the pressure relief valve, making your rams larger will do nothing for you. As you had mentioned in the post, you thought the PRV was kicking in when you were lifting the mower deck.

I would suspect to make the FEL lift heavier objecks would require a re-work of the hydraulics. I agree with KeithInSpace, that unless you look at the power upgrade as a system, you will just keep creating week links in your current one.

That being said, I believe that there is not such thing as too much power. ****, I would have a gas powered dishwasher if my wife wouldn't notice.

Cheers,

The other day I was lifting a finish mower deck with my FEL and I pretty much maxed it out about half way up (I am assuming the pressure relief valve kicked in). What really surprised me was that I was able to curl the bucket with no problem to lift the deck further.

Has anyone put the next size larger rams on the FEL arms? I understand if they are too strong I will:

1- Stress the FEL for more than it was designed
2- Same thing for the front axle
3- Create a possible "front tipping" situation.

I don't want this to lift the world, but 100 extra pounds of capacity would be nice

 

[Harry c]

BX24
Sounds like you're willing to risk some possible damage to get some extra capacity... I haven't heard of anyone breaking the FEL on a BX. Has anyone?? The larger cylinders would definitely do the job. Another option, one far more common in the Construction industry, is bumping the pressure relief a couple hundred psi. A 10% increase in pressure increases load lifting capacity 10%. No more strain on the loader or frame than 10% larger area cylinders. Also no loss in speed. The max pressure is only present when a cylinder is bottomed out or max load is applied so normal operation doesn't really increase wear or fatigue. You might want to check your pressure anyway if you frequently need a little more lift. Most new units (not necessarily Kubotas) are set below recommended limits anyway.
You covered your plan to reinforce the mount. The bar would increase strength but if there haven't been any problems, why bother? The flex or movement is no doubt there but a little flex is not necessarily a bad thing.

 

[rdsaustintx]

MacTractor don't know much about hydraulics.

I just imagine you picking yourazzend off the ground a LOT if you think you need more lifting power on a BX

RDnT

 

[Berniep]

I have often wanted more lifting power, but if I have it I will use it and I look at that little front axle and wonder, "how much pressure can it take?

 

[PAexcavator]

I did this on my L3010, used cylinders 1/4" larger diameter, worked out to around 10% - 15% boost on mine. Just calculate % difference in diameter of original and projected cylinders and use your lifting capacity to see what that % increase will give you.

You may find out that the increased lift makes filled rear tires, or a weight box, or both, mandatory.

I did it on my tractor in about 15 minutes by ordering a set of custom cylinders from Bailey Hydraulics with the same ends and hydraulic fittings as original, same length, only 1/4" larger dia.

I did it because I could drive into a pile and curl the bucket, filling it, with no problem, but always had to back up to be able to lift it since the additional drag against the pile was enough to overlaod the cylinders.

 

[Volfandt]

Sounds like a great idea. Especially for those of us not worried about warranty's anymore.
A 10% gain would equate to nearly 50 lbs. 50 lbs don't sound like much until you have to bend down and pick it up but would a modest 50 - 65 lb increase be worth the additional cost?
Perhaps a combination of bumping up the pressure relief and going w/larger diameter cylinders could bring 100lbs or more.....

Since the newer BX's have increased FEL lifting specs I would think the older BX's would be able to handle it fine.

question is, who's gonna try it 1st