[screamineagle66]

I have it in my head I want to build a Gator type utility with a hydraulic dump bed from a 444, 446 tractor. Has anyone done it ? I haven't seen one, but in my head it seems like it should be fairly easy........

Not necessarily a 2 seater, just with the hydraulic dump being part of the tractor.

 

[ArticIngerCase]

I haven't seen one either, but it's on my list to build. I've see a couple that were made from Cub Cadets, but not from a Case. From an engineering stand point, you're right, it wouldn't take much to build. I'd probably use a 200 series instead of a 400 series so the wheels would fit under the dump bed, IMHO.

 

[screamineagle66]

Well after seeing your work, I certainly value your opinion. It's in stone then, I'm going to start looking for the starting point.......

Are there any differences from the early 444, 446's on up to Ingy's as far as hydraulic power / pressure and capability ?

 

[ArticIngerCase]

Well after seeing your work, I certainly value your opinion. It's in stone then, I'm going to start looking for the starting point.......

Are there any differences from the early 444, 446's on up to Ingy's as far as hydraulic power / pressure and capability ?

Not that I'm aware of, however I would definitely look for one no earlier than a mid-80's so you get the TCV with the integrated holdback feature if it were me. When I was building my articulated, I found this 87 on ebay for somewhere in the area of $400. I think that because it was incomplete, the cost stayed down. I'd try to look for something with issues instead of a whole working tractor as a donor. This gave me a frame, transaxle (which I sold) TCV, pump, and sheet metal. It was a good starting point.

 

[screamineagle66]

Can you explain what that does and why I want that, I'm new to these tractors. The 446 in my sig is my first, it's an '88.

 

[ArticIngerCase]

There are other people that can explain it much better than I can, but in a nut shell, when you have the travel lever set, and you come to a hill, the tractor doesn't run away down the hill like it would if you didn't have the holdback feature. It definitely wouldn't be good if you had a loaded bed. You have it in your 446.

 

[screamineagle66]

I see. So there was a point in time when they no longer came with that feature ?

Looking for a fixer upper was already in the plans, I'm a good shopper........ I've been scanning the normal places for a week or so wilth this idea in my head, there's a couple I'm eyeballing so we'll see. I've got all winter, I don't have a shop where I can work in the winter so I'll start gathering for spring construction.

 

[ArticIngerCase]

I see. So there was a point in time when they no longer came with that feature ?

Looking for a fixer upper was already in the plans, I'm a good shopper........ I've been scanning the normal places for a week or so wilth this idea in my head, there's a couple I'm eyeballing so we'll see. I've got all winter, I don't have a shop where I can work in the winter so I'll start gathering for spring construction.

I think that before 83-84 they didn't have that feature. There was an add-on that went in front of the transaxle motor that accomplished this. After 83-84 time frame it was a standard part of the TCV.

I found a video of that guy that made one out of a Cub Cadet. You can also read about the build HERE

 

[wrench644]

Are you talking about something like the T90? (or G90 and T44)

I also would recommend using a 200 series for clearance issues, unless you just have to have the larger wheels for asthetics.

The tractor in that video has 12" rear wheels.

 

[screamineagle66]

I was just thinking about that, I had some different ideas in my head regarding weight and balance and have gone back and forth from 200 to 400 series a couple times. Is there any difference in the hydraulic capabilities from the two series ?

 

[screamineagle66]

What about a 3016 ? Is this comparable to a 200 series ? It's got the 12" wheels, but seems like a bigger tractor than a 200 ?

 

[wrench644]

Not that I am aware of, if there are they are neglegable, they are basically the same tractor the main difference being the 400 series has 4" additional ground clearance, and the drive motor has a bit higher torque to account for the different wheel diameter.

For all intents and purposes they are exactly the same.

The 3000 series had a different powerplant option, some had Onan's some have Briggs Vangaurds. The engine orientation is reversed in the 3000 series also which has the rotation of the crankshaft turning the opposite direction, these tractors use different mower decks and snowcasters due to the reversed direction, unless you plan to do either with your tractor, it shouldn't matter.

 

[screamineagle66]

Kungdrew - what about a 3016 ? Similar to a 200 series ?

 

[screamineagle66]

Neither of those would matter, it's just gonna be a dumptruck. So the hydraulics are the same ? Or the same capacity anyway ? One just popped up that's cheap and would be a good starting point.

 

[screamineagle66]

There are a couple of good donors available pretty reasonably right now. A 3016 that's gonna need an engine for $150 to $200, or an Ingy 222 Hydriv for about $250 that's in good running condition. Any major differences between the two ? Any reason to buy the 3016 over the 222 when the 222 is running and driving ?

Thanks a lot for the tips, I appreciate it.

 

[wrench644]

Personally I would go for the 222, reason being the kohler engines are plentiful and easy to work on and find parts for. 3016 only tells me so much, that model could ether have an Onan twin or a Vangaurd twin and both of those are a little more pricey to rebuild or replace versus the more economical (and time tested) one lunger kohlers.
The frames are also set up differently for mounting the engines, example, i recently thought about putting an Onan twin in my 224 (originally came with a kohler) I was told by a few respected members that it would work only after some creative modification to the frame.

The best rule of thumb for me has been to keep things as simple as possible. That is why i recommend the 222 for ease and affordability.

Keep us posted on what you find, I am sure some others will chime in with good advce and facts soon enough.

 

[screamineagle66]

The 3016 has a Briggs, which isn't as desirable but also less expensive to replace. The 222 also has a snow blade on it, which I can sell to recoup some of the cost as I don't need it. It seems like this 222 has everything I am looking for, and it's surely cheap enough. Maybe I'll make a road trip tomorrow.

Thanks again, hopefully I can start chronicling the build soon.

 

[wrench644]

No prob, I hope it works out for you. I might be interested in the plow blade if you aren't like 5000 miles away from me, that is next on my list. Good luck. :thumbsup:

 

[Bill.H]

Have you thought about lengthening the frame and moving the wheels back or adding a second pair of rear wheel? I'm just thinking that with a good load in the back you might lift the front wheels off the ground. You could just add weight to the front but then steering might be an issue.

 

[screamineagle66]

I think it's a must to lengthen it, that alone should counter the weight in the back. I have tossed around the idea of a tag axle also, that would add stability and how cool would it be ?! It's early, lots of time for ideas and upgrades.

Thanks for the input.