TC-45 transmission split open

[jimmysisson]

I'd have jumped onto rubber tires in an instant! Ever drive a steel-wheel job?
You may be right about the frame in terms of all the stuff that's on tractors these days: fenders, lights, toolboxes, footboards, cabs, not to mention loaders and backhoes. A frame might make mounting that stuff easier.
Still, I like the simplicity of the casting-based setup. If I was the first poster on this thread, though, I probably wouldn't. Wonder if he'll be back to put us up to date???
Jim

 

[Soundguy]

He is probably embarrised to.. He may have been using a 3pt backhoe to break his (nice0 tractor.. and now realizes that most people know that you should be super carefull with non subframe units..

Soundguy

 

[have_blue]

Still, I like the simplicity of the casting-based setup.

Having worked in the design and manufacture of castings for 35 years, there is no love lost. I agree with you that they simplify things somewhat, but sometimes at the cost of scrapping the whole tractor when they crack.

I think ATV's will become larger and larger, and evolve into small tractors some day. I bet their versatility will win over a lot of buyers, and they will split off from sporting use into farm and ranch. I've heard of people using HumVee's for light tractor work. A little beefing up, bigger tires, lose the fancy body work and suspension, and you have a very versatile tractor that won't break in half. Maybe I'm wrong, but it's fun to think about.

 

[Soundguy]

<I agree with you that they simplify things somewhat, but sometimes at the cost of scrapping the whole tractor <when they crack

Why do you figure that you have to scrap an entire tractor because a single one of it's modular castings break.

Are you telling me that you would junk your entire tractor if say? A side axle trumpet broke? If so.. put me on your insurer's 'scrap' list.. I'll gladly buy that junk tractor from them at scrap out price and throw a wrench on it and slap a new/used axle trumpet on it and small the entire time.

Same goes for any one of the individually replaceable castings...tranny, diffy.. hyds.. etc, etc.

Replacing the tranny section in a tractor with a frame rail would be similar in scope to replacing a tractors tranny casing in a monolithic cast frame unit. Ya still gotta remove the bad part, and install the new parts... I just don't understand this line of thinking that you are pushing that any casting damage anywhere on the tractor destroys the entire tractor. It's like you are considering the entire tractor as a single piece of cast metal from the hood back to the pto shaft... when it ain't.. it's alot of bolt together sections which can be individually replaced...


Soundguy

 

[joes_427_vette]

By the time he is done buying parts and labor rates at $75.00 an hour he will be within 25% of the replacement cash price of a comparable machine. Not only did the casting break but the shafts, bearings, strain on the gear sections, and small parts that appear to be fine may be just out of spec. This is no task for a average owner. I hope the owner comes out of this ok. The worst would be a problem shortly after repair which would require another disassembly. This is one of the reasons I'm going to a 55. My Bradco 611 hoe is built very strong and it weighs a ton. I don't believe the 45 would hold up under sustained use. Also the combined weight of just the unit would make the hydro trans growl. High range would be used only going down hill ....

 

[Superduper]

".............That's not exactly a practical design, as the picture clearly shows. I don't believe there's a need to build them that way any more. Another down side is you have to split the tractor in half just to work on the clutch. Why build them that way when there are much better ways to do it now? ................."

Personally, I agree with blue. If there is a better way of building something, why stick with the inferior path? However, in truth, tractor sales don't nearly approach the numbers of other heavy metal machinery such as automobiles.
Principles of economics dictates that profit is greater when you can extract the maximum life from the (tooling) cost to manufacture a particular product. Therefore, the tooling life (molds, and other technology) used to create the tractors will have to endure until the cost to manufacture reaches a point of diminishing returns, balanced, of course by the pressures of technological and/or design progress. As tooling replacements are needed, I suspect that you will see design changes implemented. As a whole, we are rather spoiled by the speed in which technology implements new changes, especially in the way of automobiles. However, tractors are a much more durable product than the pintos of yester-year and change will happen, just be patient. It is much easier to recoup the cost of manufacturing tooling when you sell 1 million cars per year, than it is when you sell 10,000 tractors per year. Don't get me wrong, I am not defending manufacturing an outdated design. However, I think that there are a lot more forces at play here than the question of: "we have the technology - why not implement it?"

 

[jinman]

Well, we've all been talking about whether RC1 had used a 3PH backhoe, but his original post just said the tractor had one used on it for 250 hours. He also mentioned that it was a Woods 9000. Hmm... I went to the Woods site and guess what kind of backhoe it is?

Woods 9000

I guess you just can't put one over on this TBN gang. We had the problem "nailed" from the very beginning.

 

[jimmysisson]

Superduper's looking ahead, but I'm remembering my old late '50s Massey TLB. The backhoe pinned onto a huge subframe that went up front and pinned onto the loader frame. If you put the front bucket on downpressure and lowered the backhoe feet, you could lift the tractor off the ground. You essentially had the "steel frame" you guys are talking about, with a casting-based drive train suspended inside it. You got the strength of the steel frame design for the heavily-loaded parts, and the simplicity and sealed-up benefit of the castings. Best of both worlds, and a good model for making tractors today.
Loaders and backhoes probably are too stressful to a cast unit without multiple mounting locations, so connecting the subframes to each other and then to the tractor makes good sense. Only downside back then was the subframes reduced ground clearance substantially. Newer ones correct that problem.
Jim

 

[Redneck_Randy]

Well, we've all been talking about whether RC1 had used a 3PH backhoe, but his original post just said the tractor had one used on it for 250 hours. He also mentioned that it was a Woods 9000. Hmm... I went to the Woods site and guess what kind of backhoe it is?

Woods 9000

I guess you just can't put one over on this TBN gang. We had the problem "nailed" from the very beginning.

You know RC1 has to be real sick and upset over what happened. I know I would. Up until I started reading TBN I had no idea the damage a 3PT backhoe could do to a tractor.

 

[PineRidge]

Well, we've all been talking about whether RC1 had used a 3PH backhoe, but his original post just said the tractor had one used on it for 250 hours. He also mentioned that it was a Woods 9000. Hmm... I went to the Woods site and guess what kind of backhoe it is?

Woods 9000

I guess you just can't put one over on this TBN gang. We had the problem "nailed" from the very beginning.

The problem that I see is that folks have a tendency to lift the rear wheels off the ground with the BH stabilizers. When this happens with a 3-point mounted BH the digging force is directed to the tractor castings, all the way to the front axle wich is still firmly anchored on the ground. We know what can happen next.