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.
Has anyone built a Deere Gator type utility from a 446 ?
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.
Not necessarily a 2 seater, just with the hydraulic dump being part of the tractor.
1 - 7 of 42 Posts
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 said: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 ?
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.
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.screamineagle66 said: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 found a video of that guy that made one out of a Cub Cadet. You can also read about the build HERE
I would keep in mind what I was talking about the TCV with the holdback circuit built in. The 3016 will definitely have that, but depending on the year of the 222, it may not. Also, you may want the larger 16hp engine, instead of the 12 hp in the 222 to power this thing. If it were me, I'd go for the 3016, and rebuild the Vangard, but that's just me. I have over 700 hours on my 4016 with that engine, and it hasn't given me any trouble what so ever.screamineagle66 said: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.
The OP could pick up both and use the best parts then sell the rest! Sounds like they both need a good home.kungdrew said:Good point Scott, I didn't go into detail about the Holding valve because I didn't want to get too many things running through the OP's brain but you are right on.
There is always the possibiility that the 222 might have the valve installed already, I just picked up a 79-224 that did but it wasn't listed by the seller because he didn't have a clue what it was or was intended to do.
I don;t have any experience with the Vangaurd engines but I understand they have plenty of power but not the same torque that the K's and O's have and if the 12 wasn't enough power he always has the option of swapping a 14hp into it to make up the difference.
I was just steering him towards the 222 because he stated it was in good running shape to begin with which would allow him to get started on his conversion without having to do an engine rebuild before anything else.
The holding valve is about a $150 upgrade, not a bad choice whn considering the alternative of taking on the engine problems and associated costs to start with.
Either one of us has solid ground to stand on OP, the main thing is finding something you are comfortable with and suits YOUR needs.
Scott has an excellent track record and the skills to back up what he says. I was just trying to help as much as I could while the board was slow last night.
I talked about the holdback circuit of the TCV earlier in this thread. I'm not sure I can explain it any better than that.
One other thing, I read this morning that there was some talk about installing a second transaxle in this. Looks wise, I think it would be cool, but is really not very practical. Here's why: adding a second axle would make steering that much more difficult, especially when loaded. And, the one rear axle is going to handle anything (weight wise) that you can load on it. IMHO
I was wondering how you made out. Like Drew said, keep watching and something will pop up.
Let us know when you're ready and you'll have more help than you'll know what to do with! :thumbup:
Let us know when you're ready and you'll have more help than you'll know what to do with! :thumbup:
1 - 7 of 42 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Case Colt Ingersoll Tractors
A forum community dedicated to Colt, Case and Ingersoll tractors owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about performance, modifications, classifieds, troubleshooting, maintenance, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
