Snow Attachments Snow PUMP

[farm boy00]

Another thing op van do is talk to grsthegreat about his blower on his loader

 

[fitterski]

I'm slowly prepping to try starting the 12-valve 6bt (waiting for a starter and cutting pieces for a stand). Meanwhile I finally got an answer to the same question that I asked for the Duramax as well while that engine was a candidate: "what is the radial i.e. lateral load limit on the flywheel end of the crank?". I was under the impression that this was an easy to obtain SPEC item for every engine that exists, possibly because I once got an answer of 700 lbs although I forget what engine it was for, might have been for my Deutz. I never got an answer for the Duramax, for the 12-valve Cummins finally came through with bulletin # CEB00576 which it would appear does not recommend belting directly to the engine. I'll probably just do it anyway given that I have little choice on the existing rig. On any truck-hosted setup that might follow or replace outright it will not be a factor.

 

[fitterski]

I just noticed that I did not get any email alert for postings since #83 so here goes briefly just for a few of your appreciated bits of insight:

#83 pmsmechanic
The direction of rotation is not a problem because making of just flipping a fan is no big deal. The toothed belt reduction can expensive, the two pulleys and the belt on the existing rig set me back well over a thousand but a used tranny with a tx-case is $300.

#84 redneckintraining
The only handling problem with the existing rig is weight, that is to say I should not increase it any or I may have to raise the hyd. pressure which I would rather not do. One of its nicest advantages is that I can attack a tall snow pile at any height and sculpt it down. This seldom happens but would be impossible with any other setup. I don't have a garage, won't either given my age and not being able to justify one anymore.

#85 franklin2
The small pulley between bearings is not the current arrangement but is close to it. I'm using a rubber flywheel adapter to whicj a shaft connects the other end of the shaft resting on a bearing, pulley in-between. This is a good and simple setup and could just as easily be used on a truck. The torque peaks at 1600 and yes I could devise a similar reduction on a truck but it does pose obstacles like where to find 2-3 feet necessary for the small and big pulleys with some room in between for a tensioner which is needed more to wrap more belt around the small pulley. A double system requiring less space would start costing a LOT.

#88 pmsmechanic
I upped an image earlier about a snow-blower made in the 60's using a gang of belts. The side-load there was way over a thousand lbs, mind you the engine was a big Cat, I don't have the details. I'm not too concerned since the toothed belts do not depend on any constant tension even if occasionally the transient load might become high. Shear pins do protect the auger where the torque is huge, if I encounter a large but otherwise undramatic load with the impeller then the engine simply stalls. This 6bt of course will start with double the torque. I do have a pacic button which trips a solenoid immediately releasing the power lever from the electrical actuating cylinder to the spring-loaded shutdown end.


#89 leonz
Thanks for the ref. When I looked at the po$$ibility of a clutch for the Deutz, it being an almost exclusively industrial engine, the only thing I found was new and at $2000 which of course ended right there. Since the 6bt is also automotive it's an entirely different story. But I will look into thosre Rockfords as well, if only for my own education


#92 aczlan
No need to run wide open when idle + 200 might do the job. The ideal as bigdeano also observed is to match the power to the demand. I'm still far from getting into this aspect but with hydraulics for example it should be doable: a fan that turns at the speed preset by the operator and consistent with snow conditions, and governed power that automatically follows the load, sortalike a governor sensor on the fan but commanding the engine lever.

#93 bigdeano
Yes, currently i use engine 1000 to redline 2500 which mean about 400 to 1000 at the fan. This would vary with fan sice, tip speed being the limiting figure. With dry snow I get reasonably good toss at 1800 engine rpm already. I vatry the vehicle speed to control the feed seeing that engine rpm starts to weaken with increasing load at a certain point. You could say I'm dosing the speed by ear.

#85 farmboy00
One of the neat features of a wide-range 6-speed with a tx-case is that it gives you so many speeds that you can really plan on changing the fan diameter every day and still find the one or two or three that you can use meaningfully. Much like the engine being (finally!) decided I will probably have many fewer gearing variables to cover once the fan diameter is fixed. A shear-pin even at the engine is something I should investigate because of the now more than doubled torque on tap. I would prefer an automatic but according to many opinions already expressed here they are not as capable as I had presumed.

I don't do facebook but the youtube link I've seen before. I once had a little 7hp honda and it would throw 70 feet butit's all a question of feed rate, tons/minute. My driveway is 2200+300 feet, 16 wide. Just yesterday I had an average of 8" on it, took me 1 hour prep 1 hour blow. This is where the new engine comes in ...hoopefully

#99 franklin2
I think it was with the best of intentions This is why some snow-blowing national would go a long way to pumping new life into the industry's economy!

 

[pmsmechanic]

Fitterski I just read all of your comments.

All I'l going to add is that the 4BT and the 6BT are identical engines other than the number of cylinders. So if your looking for a bell housing or something don't hesitate to look at a 4BT. Also both engines were used in numerous industrial applications. As a result just about anything can be bolted to the back of a B series engine. There is about a 3/4 inch thick aluminum plate on the back of the motor that the bell housing bolts onto. That plate can be had in just about any configuration. They aren't cheap but are available to put a B series engine into Ford trucks and IHC tractors. The adaptor plates are also available to bolt on a SAE 2 or 3 transmission bell housing.

There there are several automatic and manual transmission adaptors available from Dodge. Make sure you get the adaptor that belongs to the transmission that you are planning on using as they come in several different thicknesses.

 

[pmsmechanic]

This is my SAE 2 or 3 bell housing and adaptor for a B series. The back piece is the one that bolts to the engine. It's for bolting an Eaton/Fuller transmission to a B series.

 

[fitterski]

Fitterski I just read all of your comments.

All I'l going to add is that the 4BT and the 6BT are identical engines other than the number of cylinders. So if your looking for a bell housing or something don't hesitate to look at a 4BT. Also both engines were used in numerous industrial applications. As a result just about anything can be bolted to the back of a B series engine. There is about a 3/4 inch thick aluminum plate on the back of the motor that the bell housing bolts onto. That plate can be had in just about any configuration. They aren't cheap but are available to put a B series engine into Ford trucks and IHC tractors. The adaptor plates are also available to bolt on a SAE 2 or 3 transmission bell housing.

There there are several automatic and manual transmission adaptors available from Dodge. Make sure you get the adaptor that belongs to the transmission that you are planning on using as they come in several different thicknesses.

I had a hunch about the 4bt stuff, thank you, it's nice to hear confirmation! I'm looking at two issues with respect to this engine-rear. One is that since it came out of a '94 dodge that same standard tranny/tx-case would be a primary candidate with the auto following. I also hear from the grapevine that the reason that Allisons in GM's are so cheap is that nobody needs replacements, they're that tough. The other is that in any belted solution I'd want a support right by the flywheel on each side in addition to any others that might avail. I've seen some flywheel adapters with such mountpoints but only on the bigger Cummins engines (so far) and have zero experience in automotive mixmatching. I could probably make an adaptor plate with such mountpoints added to it but finding one used is always an easier solution. Mounting on a hosting truck really opens up many new options but I will likely just start by adapting to the present rig for one season, to get some hands-on time with the engine before taking the ball another yard. The existing rig includes many constraints. All this may change at any time if I happen upon the right truck at the right price.

 

[fitterski]

This is my SAE 2 or 3 bell housing and adaptor for a B series. The back piece is the one that bolts to the engine. It's for bolting an Eaton/Fuller transmission to a B series.

Really neat the way you stood the pieces up with sticks, it speaks of an ability to communicate clearly Is that flywheel housing the 'adaptor' you talked about? I like what looks like mounting provision although being in aluminum I'd have some questions about the brute strength.

 

[pmsmechanic]

Ok so I finally got around to posting the same setup from the other side which is what i wanted to do in the first place. Now the front piece is what bolts to the engine. Don't worry about it being aluminum it'll be strong enough for what you want to do with it. This bellhousing is from a medium duty single axle truck. I picked it up on eBay for a project that i haven't got around to yet. This afternoon if i remember I'll take a picture of an automatic transmission setup that i have laying around. It's a bit different than this. I'll post it so that you can get an idea of what a factory manual or automatic belhousing looks like.

 

[fitterski]

View attachment 498410

Ok so I finally got around to posting the same setup from the other side which is what i wanted to do in the first place. Now the front piece is what bolts to the engine. Don't worry about it being aluminum it'll be strong enough for what you want to do with it. This bellhousing is from a medium duty single axle truck. I picked it up on eBay for a project that i haven't got around to yet. This afternoon if i remember I'll take a picture of an automatic transmission setup that i have laying around. It's a bit different than this. I'll post it so that you can get an idea of what a factory manual or automatic belhousing looks like.

Thanks very much for your help. I spent an hour last might looking at the transmissions used on dodge trucks and spotted an nv3500 with some really interesting ratios. This was developed in response (supposedly with a lower number following?) to complaints that the nv4500 was geared too high. By low and high meaning hight ratios and low ratios respectively. So as I read further it said that the nv4500-HD was made specifically to accommodate the 6bt torque around 400 ft-lbs, a little detail which I think also means that no automatic nor other manual could handle the torque. This was back in the day, I presume that today the situation is different but it's food for thought, don't look too good for automatics.



I also went looking for the Gates belt simulator I had used in 2008 but couldn't find it, so I sent them an email. It dawned on me that a two-stage belt reduction could actually save weight over a single-stage because two 1-foot pulleys and two 4-inchers (just throwing random sample around ) weight less than a 2-footer and one 4-incher. This could be interesting if I could also find cheap aluminum pulleys with steel rims, not likely but again food for thought.

 

[fitterski]

..This was developed in response (supposedly with a lower number following?) to complaints that the nv4500 was geared too high. By low and high meaning hight ratios and low ratios respectively.

I messed that up, the complaints were about ratios being too low, as in 3:1 as opposed to 4:1

 

[pmsmechanic]

An nv4500 is borderline for a Cummins. They are rated for 400 ft/lbs and stock torque was 420 ft/lbs. I wouldn't get too excited about a nv3500 at all. They were never available behind a cummins. I do think that a snowblower would be easier on a trans over going down the road but I'm not an engineer so I don't know for sure.

Actually if your aiming for 1000 blower rpm and 2000 engine rpm then a 2-1 reduction once would do the job.

Edit to add that since you really don't need overdrive then a good stout highway truck trany would do the job too.

 

[fitterski]

An nv4500 is borderline for a Cummins. They are rated for 400 ft/lbs and stock torque was 420 ft/lbs. I wouldn't get too excited about a nv3500 at all. They were never available behind a cummins. I do think that a snowblower would be easier on a trans over going down the road but I'm not an engineer so I don't know for sure.

Actually if your aiming for 1000 blower rpm and 2000 engine rpm then a 2-1 reduction once would do the job.

Edit to add that since you really don't need overdrive then a good stout highway truck trany would do the job too.

Do you mean a truck tranny with low gears and no transfer case? At the top of my dynamic doodle page I have only a few ratios for ballpark guidance, generally from 2.0:1 to 5.0:1 depending on the fan diameter used. Most of these come in the "Low" range available only with transfer cases in small trucks.

The belted single reduction idea is not dead, it's worked out just fine except for engine torque for 8 years. I'm still kicking around many possible solutions.

 

[fitterski]

I'd like to process a minor detail before finally axing the idea of a smaller host vehicle such as a Jeep (strong axles) or my 2003 Jimmy 4x4. It ticks me off to see this car, which I bought new and have babied for 14 years, being unmarketable. I can't even GIVE it away! The problem is not size but weight and the available payload of only 1600 lbs or less, about similar with a Wrangler too. The 12-valve with the lightest gearing will totakl out around 1400 lbs, the blower (using lots of aluminum) probably at least 800.

I could install a larger Dana rear axle and larger tires to keep the rear structural and traction numbers within reason. The front however cannot be made stronger, springs will only affect riding height. Assuming that I can keep the added front load (blower) to about what the heaviest allowable plow would be on a small gmc truck, that would still leave the matter of finding a superior Dana or other locking g80 or manually lockable axle with the same existing 3:42 ratio, or a ratio that I could also change the front to.

As always, suggestions welcome.

 

[farm boy00]

I'd like to process a minor detail before finally axing the idea of a smaller host vehicle such as a Jeep (strong axles) or my 2003 Jimmy 4x4. It ticks me off to see this car, which I bought new and have babied for 14 years, being unmarketable. I can't even GIVE it away! The problem is not size but weight and the available payload of only 1600 lbs or less, about similar with a Wrangler too. The 12-valve with the lightest gearing will totakl out around 1400 lbs, the blower (using lots of aluminum) probably at least 800.

I could install a larger Dana rear axle and larger tires to keep the rear structural and traction numbers within reason. The front however cannot be made stronger, springs will only affect riding height. Assuming that I can keep the added front load (blower) to about what the heaviest allowable plow would be on a small gmc truck, that would still leave the matter of finding a superior Dana or other locking g80 or manually lockable axle with the same existing 3:42 ratio, or a ratio that I could also change the front to.

As always, suggestions welcome.

Why not switch both?? If your Jimmy is straight front axle then put heavier axles under both front and back. And if you had a lower gears then more torque to keep going.

You would be losing higher up road speeds but if this isn't a big deal why not do it. I know ford super duty axles are heavy duty and will most likely be wider so more stable. Only thing is that they are driver side (left) input for the front axle and you need super duty rims but are easy and cheap to find

 

[franklin2]

I always take the path of least resistance. Too much sideline work to modify one of those smaller vehicles to carry this rig. In 1985.5 Ford realized it's mistake and started putting the dana 60 back under the front of their f350's. It needed this to hold up under 8ft snowplows contractors were using. I think that is the minimum you are going to need to carry this thing around. The diesel sitting on the back axle will be a good counterweight.

 

[dnw64]

I'm not going back through this thread to find the references, but IIRC you said (paraphrasing)

the engine quit, never again

start it from a booster pack and it will never know it had any relationship to electricity

a diesel can run away and must have a fail safe

It seems a bit optimistic (to say the least) that any engine, no matter the engineering, build quality, controls, etc, will never stop until you want it to. Not in a Mission Critical situation, which you seem to indicate.

My take after reading through this thread is that you have unrealistic goals. Now, it's good to have goals that are beyond your reach; any Improvement 101 class will tell you the same. Then again, having a truly unobtainable goal will likely only end in heartbreak. It seems like you have settled on "keeping the banks down so snow will blow off the road". Have you considered alternatives such as:

• Hiring a house mover to locate your house closer to a town/county/state maintained road
• Moving in with your kids
• Purchasing an airplane with skis
• Running tubing under the road surface and connecting it to a boiler to melt off any accumulating snow.
• Buying a SnoCat
• Joining EA*

*Equipment Anonymous, an organization dedicated to helping those suffering with the insatiable desire to create equipment that has no practical value.

(all faintly sarcastic, of course...)

 

[fitterski]

I always take the path of least resistance. Too much sideline work to modify one of those smaller vehicles to carry this rig. In 1985.5 Ford realized it's mistake and started putting the dana 60 back under the front of their f350's. It needed this to hold up under 8ft snowplows contractors were using. I think that is the minimum you are going to need to carry this thing around. The diesel sitting on the back axle will be a good counterweight.

I don't know what plows with fittings etc. weigh.

You're probably right, so is farmboy00 except that the Jimmy is an independent front (S-15 or S-10 I'm not sure) and swapping that out would really be a PITA. A jeep would be a good setup to start with in this respect. I couldn't agree more about the Dana 60's, the net is full of broken frames and busted front ends on account of plows (and far more so at GM). THE one beauty of a smaller vehicle is maneuverability, tight turning radius and all that. I was driving my Tundra around the other day and realized that even it is a big rig though it's not a F350. I saw that I would have to use marker rods and mirrors to know where the blower was going to cut and not eat mailboxes or cars left in the snowbank.

While on plows and what they weigh, just in passing, I was kicking around the idea of a fixed blower on the front which would also back ity up closer to the frame. No raising/lowering mechanism, no HD steel blade either, just a (tilt) lowerable auger for at least 300 lbs shaved/saved. I could get another 200 out by using some aluminum (most commercially and thus inferior ones weigh 2000+ pounds, I would aim for half that at the most).

 

[aczlan]

While on plows and what they weigh, just in passing, I was kicking around the idea of a fixed blower on the front which would also back ity up closer to the frame. No raising/lowering mechanism, no HD steel blade either, just a (tilt) lowerable auger for at least 300 lbs shaved/saved. I could get another 200 out by using some aluminum (most commercially and thus inferior ones weigh 2000+ pounds, I would aim for half that at the most).

Why wouldn't you do that? It is not like you need to lift it off the ground much being as you are blowing snow, not stacking it.

Aaron Z

 

[dnw64]

You're probably right, so is farmboy00 except that the Jimmy is an independent front (S-15 or S-10 I'm not sure)

Ahh, the mini-Jinny. No way is that suitable for the type of rig you're talking about IMO. Even a full-sized/1500 would be marginal I think. Realistically if you are going to use a pickup I personally wouldn't consider anything less than a 350/3500. Although a true HD 2500 might do. But for the ones you're likely looking at, cost-wise, there isn't going to be any significant difference. 350/3500 (or more!) all the way.

 

[fitterski]

...(all faintly sarcastic, of course...)

When I started on the present rig it was unrealistic, whoever heard of a loader backhoe pushing a snow-blower? Not only that but KEEPING the bucket on? The guy's gotta be nuts! But I can drop the blower in seconds and do some work with the bucket, then pick up the blower again. I ain't seen no shining-star quick attaches do that near as fast yet AND I don't even have to shuttle back and forth to the yard to do so. Now 8 years later I'm thinking of making it a little even more unrealistic

As for the diesels they ALL used to be purely mechanically controlled and unstoppable except by a few mechanical means. Progress has ruined them. The cited incident was on account of the Cat-426 system that BECAUSE it is electrically kept alive and the wire lug on the fuel valve solenoid broke off. No juice, no fuel, no diesel. THAT cost me $4000 just to get back where I had started.

About the driveway, I spent a lot of effort and money to build 2500 feet from the public road ..on a 90 foot high cliff ..on the sea. I actually built my own road too, with the same Cat-426 that was all but done for when I got it. It has paid for itself 20 times over and is still running great, another unrealistic expectation