Mf 165 spool valve

[Meallydave]

Hi all

Just wondering if anyone has done this or any thoughts.

I've got a standard mf 165 with the standard hydraulic auxiliary pipe for tipping a trailer.
I want to know if it is possible to be able to fit a spool valve onto the tractor and be able to work the lift and the spool at the same time? It would be to work an implement with a single acting ram.
The tractor already has a diverter valve with the 3 positions on it already from when it used to work a front loader if that makes any difference.

Ta

 

[MF-ANDY]

Hi all

Just wondering if anyone has done this or any thoughts.

I've got a standard mf 165 with the standard hydraulic auxiliary pipe for tipping a trailer.
I want to know if it is possible to be able to fit a spool valve onto the tractor and be able to work the lift and the spool at the same time? It would be to work an implement with a single acting ram.
The tractor already has a diverter valve with the 3 positions on it already from when it used to work a front loader if that makes any difference.

Ta

Unless it has am auxiliary pump you won't be able to work a spool valve and the linkage. You could feed a spool valve from the diverter valve but it will be spool valve or linkage, not both together. Look at the plate that the pto lever is on, Are the 2 fittings linked together by a small manifold. If yes then you have an auxiliary pump and you can feed a spool from it.

 

[Tomtrac]

When buckraking with same tractor and push offs came along we put two spools on and fed one to the port in front off the cross shaft
So one spool pushed the gate back and forward and the other lifted hydraulics up and down then just move selector valve across to go to normal hydraulics

 

[Meallydave]

OK thanks for that.

If I do fix up a spool for it, will the lift stay in the same place as soon as I switch the divertor from lift to spool or will the lift automatically raise /lower on its own accord?

 

[MF-ANDY]

If you feed the spool from ext 1 the link arms will raise and stay up because the lift cylinder will be topped up every time you use the spool valve just as it does now assuming you have your loader plumbed into no1 ports. If you feed your spool from ext 2 the link arms are theoretically locked but they will drop due to lift cylinder leakage.

 

[Barry7529]

When buckraking with same tractor and push offs came along we put two spools on and fed one to the port in front off the cross shaft
So one spool pushed the gate back and forward and the other lifted hydraulics up and down then just move selector valve across to go to normal hydraulics

Hi all

Just wondering if anyone has done this or any thoughts.

I've got a standard mf 165 with the standard hydraulic auxiliary pipe for tipping a trailer.
I want to know if it is possible to be able to fit a spool valve onto the tractor and be able to work the lift and the spool at the same time? It would be to work an implement with a single acting ram.
The tractor already has a diverter valve with the 3 positions on it already from when it used to work a front loader if that makes any difference.

Ta

You will need a 2 lever spool valve. First port need to be connected to the tipping pipe and the bung under the LHS lift arm. this will alow you to operate the lift. The second outlet ports can be used for your extra hydraulic function. The P and T ports on the valve are then connected to your 3way valve diverted valve on the tractor. There is a really nice joystick hydraulic valve on ebay for around 100 quid if u wanted to have it all on the one lever. I've done something similar on a massey 230 years ago. But I have added in an extra 12 volt diveter valve and I have the lift, single acting spool valve and a double acting spool valve all on the one lever. I was using it with a pushoff buckrake with an hydraulic top link

 

[aidan]

If you feed the spool from ext 1 the link arms will raise and stay up because the lift cylinder will be topped up every time you use the spool valve just as it does now assuming you have your loader plumbed into no1 ports. If you feed your spool from ext 2 the link arms are theoretically locked but they will drop due to lift cylinder leakage.

is there any way to solve this, going to be upgrading fertilizer spreader which will have hydraulic opening........... but our MF wont be mush use if the lifts are dropping after 5mins and keep having to flick diverter valve to lift the lift arms back up

do the 300series and 600 series have the same complaint.

I wouldn't mind having to upgrade the lift cylinder if it definitely solve the problem

 

[Lincs Lass]

is there any way to solve this, going to be upgrading fertilizer spreader which will have hydraulic opening........... but our MF wont be mush use if the lifts are dropping after 5mins and keep having to flick diverter valve to lift the lift arms back up

do the 300series and 600 series have the same complaint.

I wouldn't mind having to upgrade the lift cylinder if it definitely solve the problem

No ,300 and 600 had separate spool flow so you could use the arms as well as the spools at the same time

 

[aidan]

No ,300 and 600 had separate spool flow so you could use the arms as well as the spools at the same time

2 pumps ?

 

[Lincs Lass]

2 pumps ?

Believe so

 

[MF-ANDY]

300 and 600 series shouldn't drop. But they have separate systems for spools and linkage so the problem dosent arise

 

[Cowabunga]

If the 165 does not have Multi-Power then its hydraulics are archaic with limited versatility in this day and age. For a start it only has one hydraulic pump and secondly that pump only has a maximum output of 3.1 gallons per minute or 14 litres per minute. This is pathetic compared to even the most basic of modern farm tractors which one would expect to have separate linkage and auxiliary services, ideally with independent pumps, plus 60 litres/min or 13 imperial gallons/minute.

Using a simple hydraulic on-off on a Vicon VariSpreader, which has been common since the 1970’s indeed, is not practical on a six speed MF. On Multi-Power tractors the position is reversed because that has an independent pump for the auxiliary spool valves. The linkage pump can then hold the links at the desired height while the auxiliary pump actuates the vicon’s on/off completely separately. For other applications the flow of both pumps can be combined to both produce a high oil flow plus high system pressure [3000psi] . So the same model of tractor can, depending on how it was ordered new, could be extremely limiting or be one of the most versatile hydraulic system tractors available even compared to today’s latest models. For instance the 5400 and previous smaller 6200, 6100 and 3000 Series models were never as versatile until the 5400 introduced the dual pump models with the blue button that combined flows.

 

[aidan]

300 and 600 series shouldn't drop. But they have separate systems for spools and linkage so the problem dosent arise

If the 165 does not have Multi-Power then its hydraulics are archaic with limited versatility in this day and age. For a start it only has one hydraulic pump and secondly that pump only has a maximum output of 3.1 gallons per minute or 14 litres per minute. This is pathetic compared to even the most basic of modern farm tractors which one would expect to have separate linkage and auxiliary services, ideally with independent pumps, plus 60 litres/min or 13 imperial gallons/minute.

Using a simple hydraulic on-off on a Vicon VariSpreader, which has been common since the 1970’s indeed, is not practical on a six speed MF. On Multi-Power tractors the position is reversed because that has an independent pump for the auxiliary spool valves. The linkage pump can then hold the links at the desired height while the auxiliary pump actuates the vicon’s on/off completely separately. For other applications the flow of both pumps can be combined to both produce a high oil flow plus high system pressure [3000psi] . So the same model of tractor can, depending on how it was ordered new, could be extremely limiting or be one of the most versatile hydraulic system tractors available even compared to today’s latest models. For instance the 5400 and previous smaller 6200, 6100 and 3000 Series models were never as versatile until the 5400 introduced the dual pump models with the blue button that combined flows.

Its a 1979 168 I have its the 8 speed no mulitpower, within the last 150 made when I checked the serial number,

Is there any way of doing something to the hydraulics so the lifts will stay up.

 

[Sausage]

The piston which actuated the link arms is sealed by a piston ring, rather than a more normal hydraulic ram seal. Piston rings do not form a perfect seal, they just have a high resistance to leakage. Therefore you can not stop the arms dropping if either the diverted valve is selected to aux or the engine is not running, or even if the clutch is pressed through the second stage for long enough as this disengages the pump.

 

[Cowabunga]

Its a 1979 168 I have its the 8 speed no mulitpower, within the last 150 made when I checked the serial number,

Is there any way of doing something to the hydraulics so the lifts will stay up.

Yes, use chains or stays attached to the long pin behind the top link pivoting bracket joined to a lower anchor point on an implement or home made frame, or preferably an old T-bar auto hitch contraption as used on 35 and 65 tractors extended to an appropriate length.

I’ve mentioned for years that the basic Ferguson system with no auxiliary pump was no longer fit for purpose. Oddly the ones with MP and/or iPTO are more versatile and better than most new tractor hydraulics today. It was always worth getting the auxiliary pump system even though at the time there were mainly single acting rams on trailers to work with. The 3.1 gallons per minute on the basic tractors isn’t even enough these days to work a bale wrapper.

They carried on making the 100 series for at least a couple of years at Coventry after UK and European sales of them had ceased by the way. These were for export markets where they did not legally require Q cabs. MF re-introduced a mechanically similar but re-styled 100 series fitted with either a Duncan or, later, a GKN Q cab in the form of the 200 series. There was a 275 for export that was basically a 168 with a re-styled bonnet. Ursus also made the 275 and others under license. I had an Ursus ‘275’ for a few years and regret selling it even though the replacement, a NH skid steer, was far more useful for my farm and is still in front line use today.

 

[Cowabunga]

The piston which actuated the link arms is sealed by a piston ring, rather than a more normal hydraulic ram seal. Piston rings do not form a perfect seal, they just have a high resistance to leakage. Therefore you can not stop the arms dropping if either the diverted valve is selected to aux or the engine is not running, or even if the clutch is pressed through the second stage for long enough as this disengages the pump.

The 200 series [and Ursus] introduced a ‘zero leak’ lift ram that was way more leak resistant. The links on these stayed up for hours even with a heavy load on the arms. I wonder whether a later ram can be fitted to earlier tractors? They are not particularly expensive parts and are easily replaced.

 

[Sausage]

Yes, use chains or stays attached to the long pin behind the top link pivoting bracket joined to a lower anchor point on an implement or home made frame, or preferably an old T-bar auto hitch contraption as used on 35 and 65 tractors extended to an appropriate length.

I’ve mentioned for years that the basic Ferguson system with no auxiliary pump was no longer fit for purpose. Oddly the ones with MP and/or iPTO are more versatile and better than most new tractor hydraulics today. It was always worth getting the auxiliary pump system even though at the time there were mainly single acting rams on trailers to work with. The 3.1 gallons per minute on the basic tractors isn’t even enough these days to work a bale wrapper.

They carried on making the 100 series for at least a couple of years at Coventry after UK and European sales of them had ceased by the way. These were for export markets where they did not legally require Q cabs. MF re-introduced a mechanically similar but re-styled 100 series fitted with either a Duncan or, later, a GKN Q cab in the form of the 200 series. There was a 275 for export that was basically a 168 with a re-styled bonnet. Ursus also made the 275 and others under license. I had an Ursus ‘275’ for a few years and regret selling it even though the replacement, a NH skid steer, was far more useful for my farm and is still in front line use today.

i was under the impression that the hydraulic system in the 100,200,300,500 and 600 series were all basically the same, save for auxiliary pumps to make the tractor more versatile.

 

[aidan]

This looks like the original version https://www.malpasonline.co.uk/itm/Hydraulic-Cylinders-Rams/Hydraulic-Cylinder-Piston/42173 3 rings and piston rings

improved type ? https://www.malpasonline.co.uk/itm/Hydraulic-Cylinders-Rams/Hydraulic-Cylinder-Piston/41361

 

[Cowabunga]

i was under the impression that the hydraulic system in the 100,200,300,500 and 600 series were all basically the same, save for auxiliary pumps to make the tractor more versatile.

They are all basically the same but they were developed over time. The MkII or III Scotch Yolk pump used in the 600 series and 200 series had a significantly higher oil output for a start, at iirc 5.8 gallons per minute compared to 3.1 on the four cylinder 100 series.
The auxiliary pump was an option on all models until the 600 series and 300 series and may have remained an option later for export markets.

 

[Cowabunga]

Items matching 'lift ram' for Massey Ferguson / 290 (200 Series) | UK branded tractor spares

Search Results showing lift ram for Massey Ferguson / 290 (Agricultural Tractor - 200 Series)

www.malpasonline.co.uk

Look down the list and £200 will buy a new piston and cylinder of the zero-leak type. What’s not to like?
More of a faff to change but I wonder whether the later 5.8gpm Ferguson pump will easily fit the 165? For loader work it would transform the machine’s performance. I think the main issue with fitting the later pump is that they have 21 spline main shaft where the MkII has 10 spline. Whether other parts can be fitted to enable an economic conversion is a question to ask someone who has more practical experience than I.