Top and Tilt on Kubota L39

[smooth_pilot]

After my last round of filling potholes and spreading gravel on a driveway I decided that adding a top and tilt (TNT) system to adjust the box scraper would be a good idea. This would also involve adding rear remote hydraulic ports to my Kubota L39. I had hoped to use the backhoe ports but these become inoperative when the 3-point hitch cylinder is active.

I checked with my local dealer to see what these additions might cost. The quote for the L9553 Three-Spool Remote and L9554 TNT kits installed came to $2800. A bit more than I was hoping for, to say the least.

With this information I began considering a do-it-yourself project. I present myself before you to take advantage of your esteemed collective wisdom. There have been several projects in the past where, in retrospect, I wish I had just gone OEM.

I am leaning toward the Prince Mfg. SV series valves but am open to other input. They have a local distributor that seems more than happy to work with me, they have a bunch of stock work sections that can be assembled in a variety of configurations and the cost for a stack similar to Kubota's with the addition of a joystick and power-beyond would be under $500.

The Kubota kit appears to just be comprised of just three 4-way, spring-centered valves. No option for series routing, detents, power-beyond, float, fine metering, pilot-operated check valves or motor control.

I can envision that some of the valve options could add to the versatility of the hydraulics. Additionally, since my most frequent use for the remotes would be the TNT, it seemed that it would be very intuitive to operate two of the valves with a joystick; forward and back for pitch, side to side for roll. A third valve would be used for adjusting blade angle, disc harrow wedge, rear grapple or scarifier lift. A fourth valve with work ports open to tank in neutral might be added for running a remote motor. The PB ports would feed the remote valve on a wood splitter. What else do you guys (gals) use your hydraulics for?

Using series valves for the TNT circuits would seem likely to make simultaneous adjustments of both cylinders more positive. Would the pressure drop on a Cat. 1 TNT be too great with series flow to move the cylinders under load? Switching the two TNT work sections to series flow would add about $100 to the valve. Does anyone think it would be worth it?

After reading some of the other threads it seemed like going with electrohydraulic valves and a remote multifunction joystick might be a good way to go but decided that it would add unnecessary complexity. The location that Kubota uses to mount their valve would put the mechanical joystick in a comfortable position to run the TNT. Being able to feather the valves seems more valuable than the mounting flexibility offered by the electric joystick. I can't see that being able to operate a third (or fourth) function from the stick would be useful all that often.

Many posters have stated that they like the DPCV's on the CCM TNT cylinders. Using Prince SVL valves with built-in DPCV's on the TNT circuits would add about $150 to the valve stack but would then work with any cylinder attached to the valve. The downside would be that a burst hose would still drop the implement.

Please lay your thoughts on me before I turn on the money faucet!

 

[kennyd]

Sounds like you have definitely done your homework!

 

[3RRL]

Yeah, I agree with Kenny.
Looks like you know what you're after.
You just have to convince yourself of which way you really want to go.
You've already listed the pros and cons so just figure what you'll be doing (or want to do) with your new system. Instead of stackable valves and other features such as float or motor use, I used a reasonably priced 3 spool valve that serves for me. I like the idea of a joystick type valve to run the TNT though. I've got one like that mounted on my wife's tractor for her TNT but have not hooked up the system yet. The valve is in place waiting for the hydraulic cylinders. I also like the DPOCV and mine are hard mounted onto the cylinders. I've done all my own hydraulic improvements and although at times it may seem to get expensive, there is a definite money savings doing it yourself over a dealer installation.

With what you know already, I'm sure yours will turn out very good and custom to what you want.
Here is an old thread when I first installed my TNT system if you haven't seen it yet.
Adding Hydraulic Side Links

 

[Tig]

.. have a local distributor that seems more than happy to work with me,

I found this to be very important when I undertook my first project.

Using Prince SVL valves with built-in DPCV's on the TNT circuits would add about $150 to the valve stack but would then work with any cylinder attached to the valve. The downside would be that a burst hose would still drop the implement.

My check valves are on the cylinders but if I broke a hose I would still be done for the day.
I had a bolt break on an implement, that caused it to drop like you described. I carry a 3' chain with me and I used it to gather things up for the trip back to the shop.
Maybe others can find a downside but I think check valves in the spool would save money in the long run since you don't need one for each cylinder that you own.
Have fun and be sure to take pics.

 

[smooth_pilot]

Thanks for your input guys!

Rob, Your old thread was very helpful. Some of the links within it were valuable, too. Nice machining work, by the way. I wish that I had the tools and skills to do that kind of work.

I am impressed by the amount of roll articulation you get with two hydraulic side links. I don't think that I will go that far on this pass but will have a circuit available to drive a second cylinder if it seems necessary later. At that point it should just involve the $$ for the cylinder and hoses.

Steve, I appreciate your comments. Broken is broken. I just want to minimize the chance of anyone getting hurt as long as the additional expense doesn't get out of hand.

The CCM cylinders don't seem to be much more expensive than other commercially provided cylinders without the DPCV. Additionally, most people like their service and quality. I'm currently planning to go with DPCV's built into at least two section but that raises a question. What happens if a cylinder with an onboard DPCV is hooked to a valve with an on-board DPCV? I know it would be redundant, but would it create any serious problems?

 

[mjncad]

What does Kubota charge for the kits? You can probably install them yourself. I installed the 3,4 & 5 SCV and PB kits on my Deere.

 

[smooth_pilot]

The L9553 3-spool remote kit is $1225 MSRP. It contains the valves, hoses, adapters, etc.

The L9554 Top and Tilt kit is $779 MSRP. This kit is only the top and side link cylinders plus hoses. I can do WAY better than that with CCM cylinders and locally fabricated hoses.

 

[MtnViewRanch]

I don't know about anybody else, but I use the float mode of my tilt cylinder quite often while smoothing my roads after grading. I believe that this is not possible when you have a DPOCV on the cylinder. Not a big deal, just one other thing to consider though.

 

[3RRL]

I don't know about anybody else, but I use the float mode of my tilt cylinder quite often while smoothing my roads after grading. I believe that this is not possible when you have a DPOCV on the cylinder. Not a big deal, just one other thing to consider though.

Hi Brian,
lol ... Of course you are using that cheatin' expensive Road Grader of yours ... hahaha
I find after I get my roads to the contour I want, there is very little need for the top and side links to float. I tilt my blade up so it uses the rear blade to smooth and the front does not cut. I just use the 3 pt hitch and lower it down so the boxblade floats.

smooth pilot,
Yeah, you can always add the second side link cylinder later ... if you even need it. I use my boxblade for about everything since it's the only blade I got. I use it to cut some pretty deep gutters along my road. I figured why not have the added side articulation?

 

[MtnViewRanch]

Hi Brian,
lol ... Of course you are using that cheatin' expensive Road Grader of yours ... hahaha
I find after I get my roads to the contour I want, there is very little need for the top and side links to float. I tilt my blade up so it uses the rear blade to smooth and the front does not cut. I just use the 3 pt hitch and lower it down so the boxblade floats.
quote]

Rob, is it raining up there? It's pouring down here. We really really need this. As far as using the float, you are pretty much correct, that normally once the road is the shape that you want it, any float action really is not needed. But when going from one road to another as in a Y or even a T where the terrain twists off in the opposite direction it is nice and easy smoothing when the blade will twist (flows) into the other grade.

Just my 2 cents

 

[smooth_pilot]

Brian,

Don't you get enough vertical float from the TPH itself? It seems that if the tilt cylinder were allowed to float that it would change the relative heights of the scraper blades. E.g. If the top link compressed, the box would tilt forward and the front blade would be able to take a deeper cut, assuming that the weight of the box is being carried on the back blade. Can you explain more?

I can picture that some float in the roll axis might be valuable where two crowned roads intersect but that would need to come from "floating" the side link. I'm pretty sure that you are right about not being able to float a cylinder with DPOCV's. Prince does not offer the option of a float bypass on their DPOCV work sections, either. I guess they figure that if you ever want to lock a cylinder in one position that you always want to lock it.

At this point I'm thinking that I will just go with the non-checked work sections in the valve and put DPOCV's on the cylinders that need them.

 

[HayDR]

Brian,

Don't you get enough vertical float from the TPH itself? It seems that if the tilt cylinder were allowed to float that it would change the relative heights of the scraper blades. E.g. If the top link compressed, the box would tilt forward and the front blade would be able to take a deeper cut, assuming that the weight of the box is being carried on the back blade. Can you explain more?

I can picture that some float in the roll axis might be valuable where two crowned roads intersect but that would need to come from "floating" the side link. I'm pretty sure that you are right about not being able to float a cylinder with DPOCV's. Prince does not offer the option of a float bypass on their DPOCV work sections, either. I guess they figure that if you ever want to lock a cylinder in one position that you always want to lock it.

At this point I'm thinking that I will just go with the non-checked work sections in the valve and put DPOCV's on the cylinders that need them.

A three point hitch is designed to be fixed in all 3 positions. If you use float on one position independently of the other 2 positions, you can expose your implement and tractor to safety issues to which it was not designed. Your three point hitch is designed to float up with the 3 points being fixed. Changing the geometry of your hitch points independently can cause the forces to damage your tractor and/or put the operator in an unsafe situation.

Take a box blade if it contacts a fixed or semi-fixed object with a fixed three point, it will usually floats up and over as a unit. If you have your toplink floating the first thing that will happen is the blade will tilt forward with the front cutting edge going down into the object. This can cause the box blade to be damaged and/or the hitch of your tractor to be damaged. If you are traveling forward at 3 mph and come to a stop instantaneously, your tractor front end can raise off the ground very quickly causing an unsafe situation.

I can think of many situations where independent float is going to make an operation unsafe. If you do not have a DPOCV on your hydraulic toplink, please it is not advisable to use the float position in your hydraulic selection.


Unsafe operations of tractors can kill or severely injure an operator, please think safety first.

 

[smooth_pilot]

Great observation. Corroborates my gut feel.

 

[MtnViewRanch]

I believe that I said that I use float on my tilt cylinder,(side link) not my top link, so the blade riding up forward does not come into effect. And as far as smoothing my roads go, that would be with my rear blade or my roll-over Gannon and with the cutting edge turned around backwards, so that it smooths and does not dig in. It simply rides over any immovable object. It most likely would not be a very good idea to have anything in a float mode while a blade is in a digging mode.

I suppose that I should have made these things clear in my post, but did not, sorry for any confusion.

 

[smooth_pilot]

Thanks for the additional information Brian. Sorry that I didn't pick up on your explanation on the first pass.

I ordered a four-section valve set today. Went with two 4-way, spring-centering valves with a joystick. One 4-way, spring-centering with a single handle. One 4-way motor spool with 3-position detent handle. Fairly basic but it can be easily modified in the future, if needed. I'll post some photos of the mounting mockup once the valve assembly arrives.