[TheHomesteader]

I’ve read a few threads regardeing an H4 conversion on here, but most are incomplete or the photos are missing. Forgive me if this is a repeat thread.

I have in my spare parts the following:
-318 2 spool valve
-318 hydraulic levers
-various flexible and hard hydro lines from a 332 and 330

I plan on mounting the hydraulic spool valve on the right side of tractor on the inner side of the frame rail, and running the levers through the frame rail and up through the right fender deck.
The only thing I am unsure of is where to tee onto the pressure line and where to tee into the return line.
Am I able to do this right at the charge pump fittings or will that screw with the steering pressure and the on board hydraulic spools?

this is a rough mock up of where they will be positioned except the spool valve will be inside the c-Chanel frame rail. And the levers will be on the outside between the frame and the tire.

 

[N2 Tractors]

Sub'd

Do you have plans to beef up the frame in that location?

I'd think it might be pretty simple to mount all that onto a plate that gets bolted to the frame. Could make servicing it easier if/when the time comes. Then again welding the mounting plate directly to the frame would beef up the frame a bit.

Do you have a rear locking axle or have any plans for adding one? This might get in the way if mounted on the right side.

Just giving you something to chew on

 

[mjydrafter]

I did an H3 conversion on my 332, that was enough of a project.

Just connect the "out" on the steering valve to the "in" on the valve, and then "out" on the first valve to "in" on the second.

The steering will get the juice first.

I haven't run into any problems, but I don't usually use 2 circuits at a time. I have when running the 4 way, but you still usually use one at a time.

 

[TheHomesteader]

I don’t have immediate plans on the locking diff but I would really like to convert to foot control hydrostatic (dreaming). I don’t think I’ll need to stiffen the frame at all and mounting looks to be fairly simple.

plan is right now to elongate this hole on the right side to allow for the lever control body to fit in there.

it may need some spacers and what not to fit around the brake linkage and deck lift Linkage.

I can see this project being a bit easier plumb than the H3 conversion.

 

[chuckv]

Aux Hydraulics used to sell an H4 valve and lever assembly that was a bit different...I believe it was called a V41-T

Chuck

 

[TheHomesteader]

Thanks Chuck,

I have seen that picture while searching for H4 conversions. That just seems extremely awkward in my opinion. I got the H4 "beside the operator" inspiration from Aux Hydraulics 4x5 kits that they sell which puts the additional spool control lever through the right side fender deck.

My end goal is to do the following:

1) convert the rear mechanical float rockshaft to a fixed position controlled rockshaft, but rather run the cylinder for the rockshaft off my float position spool on my new hydraulic spool. this will allow me to run a float position for a rear blade or the rear mount 2000RPM PTO snowblower that I am in the process of designing.

2) run the new non-float hydraulic control to a set of rear remotes to run a hydraulic snowblower shute control, dump cart, or angel control for rear blade ect.

 

[chuckv]

For your rock-shaft, the mechanical (linkage) float is essential for proper operation of the mower deck...and is the primary reason that 318 and similar tractors do not have any down pressure on rear attachments. Any change you make must at least accommodate this basic requirement.

If I understand your statements above correctly, the hydraulic control for the rock-shaft will still have float -- just hydraulic rather than the original mechanical slotted linkage method. Not sure what this improves functionally, unless you want the option of down pressure for a rear blade, etc. It does make you responsible for selecting float for any use of the mower deck... Maybe you intend to leave all the slots in the deck linkages so this last concern would not apply (but you forgo the down pressure option for a center blade, etc.)

You then intend to add a second rear attachment control via hydraulic ports to run a different class of rear attachments like the dump control, angle controls, etc. that do not need/desire float features. Is this all correct?

Chuck

 

[N2 Tractors]

The rear of the 316 through 430 frames have a tendency to crack at the axles mounts. Same thickness of material where you intend to remove material. Google cracked frame on any of those and some info should pop up and give you an idea why I mentioned beefing it up.

It’s very possible the top and bottom part of the C section in frame where you will be removing material will still have enough strength to carry the load with out cracking.

 

[TheHomesteader]

Chuck,

As aways, I appreciate your in-depth input and rationale regarding these technical-type topics.

I believe the float mechanism on the rock shaft is strictly for the rockshaft operation only, regarding any three point attachments? There is slotted linkage on the mower deck hangers as well as a slots on the lift linkage between the rock shaft and deck linkage, so if I lower the deck to rest the gauge wheels on the ground it will still float over the terrain even with a solid mounted rockshaft position? maybe my theory is wrong? I will still intend to have the rockshaft position adjustable via the threaded rod, maybe I can fabricate a simple bolted plate on the rockshaft, locking out the mechanical float position. I can then simply un-bolt and revert to mechanical float rockshaft if necessary in the future.

I will likely never have a center blade, I just don't see the point in my personal opinion. As well, I am willing to remove the deck while using the tiller, middle buster, snowblower or any other three point attachments (except weight bracket/trailer mover).

Not to say I would need it, but I would like to have the option of down pressure for a rear blade, or a furrower/middle buster, maybe other things too?

Correct, I can't see me needing a float control on the rear auxiliary hydraulic ports for dumping cart, angling blade or rotating the blower shute.

-Brodie

 

[chuckv]

Brodie,

Thanks for the added information. Yes, the rear rock-shaft has float built in via slots in the driven sector -- see image:

These slots also appear in the rock-shaft that has the extensions used on the 3-pt version.

If you don't need down pressure on the attachments mounted to the rear rock-shaft, why have the hydraulic valve float position and modified (locked) linkage???

As to the deck lift, there are additional slots in those links that further ensure float. The link #21 in the image below is shown shortened, it actually is 27 inches long...

Proper adjustment of the mower deck is to have it hang at least 1/4 inch above the ground -- it is not meant to ride directly on its anti-scalp wheels, which will lead to weld failures eventually.

We can discuss the benefits of a center blade separately -- we got good use out of ours...

Chuck

 

[TheHomesteader]

Scenario 1:
If I have a rear blade attached on my position controlled three point (or any other ground engaging attachments) I would want the option to have down pressure for cutting-in as well as float control, similar to the 54 snow blade up front.

Scenario 2:
If I have a position controlled three point hitch for some applications, I would also want float control for my future rear dual-stage blower to allow it to float over stuff like the front 49 blower does.


Thinking about it, I may need to extend the slots on the deck lift linkage (part #21 in your above parts diagram) to allow for more float? Is there a particular reason as to why I should not touch the mechanical float on the rockshaft? I'd love to know the side-affects of doing so before I spend the time designing this system.

Do you see it being a better option to have the float control for my rear axillary ports? One of them must have the float control, so I just assumed that it would be more beneficial to have it on my three point.

-Brodie

 

[TheHomesteader]

Hi Chuck,

To expand on your images attached in your previous reply, I have attached the deck hanger linkage parts diagram that allows for even further float control:

The slotted holes in part #1 and #3

 

[stevev]

While following this thread, makes me realize how nice it must be to have foot control to leave your hands free for the rest of the monkey motion?

 

[chuckv]

Brodie,

True, those slots allow for yet another float source to the deck lift...and since there are several sources of float, it was a bit if an issue to add any down pressure to my center blade build. Ended up just adding some spring-induced down pressure that was sufficient to get an initial 'bite' on gravel, etc. Attached is the PDF of the saved thread that still has pictures intact.

For your scenarios described in the post #11 above -- scenario 1 is not presently supported by the 'stock' rock-shaft linkage. Scenario 2 that speaks to float for a rear mounted blower is already there using the stock tractor configuration, however...

Steve -- yes foot controlled ground speed is a benefit if you have lots of hand motion inputs to various attachment adjustments, etc.

Chuck

 

[TheHomesteader]

Does anyone know why Deere put insulation/baffles around the charge pump? there is a lot of thin plates with insulation on them in different areas under the fuel tank (as seen in my picture's attached to post #1 above). I would really like to remove them as they will be in the way for the H4 conversion, as well, they seem like they would cause unnecessary heat to be retained at the charge pump?

 

[N2 Tractors]

I don't recall ever seeing the pump area being insulated with material like that in the past. closed frames have a shroud around the fan with a top 6 bolt cover and freewheel bolt/knob on it all made out of thin gauge steel.

 

[charms]

Does anyone know why Deere put insulation/baffles around the charge pump? there is a lot of thin plates with insulation on them in different areas under the fuel tank (as seen in my picture's attached to post #1 above). I would really like to remove them as they will be in the way for the H4 conversion, as well, they seem like they would cause unnecessary heat to be retained at the charge pump?

Those insulated baffles are only on the 330/322/332 tractors, and it is an effort to keep grass/leaves debris out of the radiator. With that area closed off, the main area left for air flow to the rad is the belly screen, and screens on the dash pedestal.
The baffles would have the effect of making the hydro warmer, especially with no oil cooler on the 332.

 

[chuckv]

Oil coolers were an option on the 332 ... see the PC 2139 page below. Of course, these parts are NLA now.

Chuck

 

[charms]

Oil coolers were an option on the 332 ... see the PC 2139 page below. Of course, these parts are NLA now.

View attachment 289755

Chuck

Interesting. I did not know they were an option.

 

[chuckv]

There was a thread in the technical FAQ on making a replacement oil cooler for these tractors, but all the pictures are missing now due to various crashes of the site, etc. Does anyone have a saved version with the images that we can recover???

Transmission Cooler for 317 322 332

George: I'm extremely interested in this myself for my two 300 series yanmars. My main concern is that on my '22, I've got a 2000-rpm pto and I might not have the room. Your pictures are going to help there. Next, how much trash do you generally get in the fins when you're mowing? Even...

www.wfmachines.com

Chuck