MF880S loader...

[24/7 farming]

Could anyone confirm if the ram in the pic is the correct one for the 880 loader (with the metal bar attached to the cylinder as a spacer and then a fatter cylinder). The loader i have here has a much narrower cylinder (with the spacer inside to limit tip) and it has very poor crowning force, if I lift an ibc of water it will slowly start tipping forward, the rams have new seals but I think there is a certain amount of wear in the cylinder along wit the narrower diameter which is all adding up to the problem. We also have an adaptor on the front which i suppose puts the weight a bit further out

A very long shot but would anyone have specs for this ram!?, can't imagine it being an off the shelf one so probably have to get a pair made up

 

[Ts 59]

That loader looks the same as our 815 loader, Rams are longer than 880 I think. I've an 880s loader lying in the briars il put tape on them tomorrow if I get a chance.

 

[DKnD]

Not sure on the differences between an 880s v an 880, but on our 880 the metal bar you mention is about half the length going by looks

 

[Ts 59]

Measured a ram its 20 inch from pin to end of cylinder, 3 inch external and rod is a bit less than 1 1/4 inch . Any other measurements just ask. The boom/ Rams are in my "it will be useful someday" pile, would sell it but suspect I'm a bit far away.

 

[24/7 farming]

cheers for the feedback folks, I think the 880s is just a shorter 880 loader, which should only mean a difference in the lifting rams.

@Ts 59 is your ram the same as in the pic by @DKnD ?, would one of you mind measuring the length of the 'narrower' bit at the pin end, I think it would only be a matter of me getting rams made up with a bit of 2 1/4" solid bar welded onto the required 3" ram so should not be hard to source. the diameter of the cylinder on my loader is under 2 1/4 inch for its entire length and the rod is a similar 1 1/4 inch so I suspect I am losing a fair bit of crowning force with the narrower cylinder.

 

[Mur Huwcun]

Has your link got two holes there? What happens if you move the rod end to the highest hole? That shoukd give you a much better geometry for crowd power but may compromise tipping angle

 

[24/7 farming]

Has your link got two holes there? What happens if you move the rod end to the highest hole? That shoukd give you a much better geometry for crowd power but may compromise tipping angle

It ends up loosing too much crowning back angle as the rods does not retract fully into the cylinder (also as the linkage to the headstock is connected at the very top of the bracket the slight movement between the holes moves the top something like 4inches or more from memory), I have a bigger problem though in that I think one of the cylinders is damaged internally as it is eating seals for fun at the minute, so I am going to get as close as I can to the original ones made, I intend to get the new rams made to fit the top holes too though which should improve the situation further.

(anybody know if there is a simple rod length to cylinder length ratio available... i.e. how much space is lost inside the cylinder??!), my efforts to date...

 

[24/7 farming]

turns out after a bit of real life measuring getting a ram that will work in the top hole is going to restrict movements too much (particularly tipping angles with our current bucket and muck fork) so going to stick with working from the bottom hole, which shouldn't really be a problem as it has been 'nearly' sufficient for everything we done up till now, and having the bigger cylinder should make all the difference.

if there is anyone looking at this that has a bit of experience with hydraulic cylinders perhaps you could advise if what I am aiming for will work?, I'm struggling to figure out how much of the cylinder is lost top and bottom, i.e. is a 400mm cylinder sufficient to allow for 320mm stroke when allowing for rod seals and piston seals etc (even 300mm will suffice and that allows 50mm each end so should be sufficient??!)

Going to ring MF parts supplier tomorrow to see if they have any info on the ram used.. cant see it being an off the shelf part anymore!, so failing that will head to the local engineering crowd to see if they can make them up!

 

[Ts 59]

cheers for the feedback folks, I think the 880s is just a shorter 880 loader, which should only mean a difference in the lifting rams.

@Ts 59 is your ram the same as in the pic by @DKnD ?, would one of you mind measuring the length of the 'narrower' bit at the pin end, I think it would only be a matter of me getting rams made up with a bit of 2 1/4" solid bar welded onto the required 3" ram so should not be hard to source. the diameter of the cylinder on my loader is under 2 1/4 inch for its entire length and the rod is a similar 1 1/4 inch so I suspect I am losing a fair bit of crowning force with the narrower cylinder.

Narrow bit is 4 inches long . One of the reasons it's now in the briars is that everything was a bit worn and it wouldn't crowd back enough. Cleaning a shed out with Rams crowded right back muck fork prongs were flat on the floor.

 

[24/7 farming]

Narrow bit is 4 inches long . One of the reasons it's now in the briars is that everything was a bit worn and it wouldn't crowd back enough. Cleaning a shed out with Rams crowded right back muck fork prongs were flat on the floor.

Cheers for that, I had attempted shorter but it wasn't working but 4" is what was needed, ours is similar with slackness!, we've moded the angle of the brackets on the fork and bucket to give better throw back (loader ain't gonna be replaced anytime soon for all we do with it), but that did limit the tip angle a bit so have to be careful with getting this right. Cheers for the info, hopefully get the ball rolling on these tomorrow [emoji106]