Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Visit our tractor and agricultural equipment communities:
Ingersoll Forum
Case IH Forum
Combine Forum
Hay Forum
JCB Forum
John Deere Forum
Kubota Forum
Mahindra Forum
Massey Ferguson Talk
New Holland Forum
Valtra Forum
Yanmar Forum
Zetor Forum
Farming Forum
Forums
Bobcat Skidsteer Forums
General Bobcat Skidsteer Forum
630 - Repower
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Help Support SkidSteer Forum:
Message
<blockquote data-quote="peebeeaitch" data-source="post: 78458" data-attributes="member: 8318"><p><u>2014-09-08</u></p><p>During the research for which motor to buy, I quickly realized that this whole episode would cost a lot more and be a much bigger pain if I needed to drop the motor - I was therefore careful in making sure the B&S motor had a lower foot-to-crank height than the Wisconsin.</p><p>If anyone's ever tried getting accurate drawings of the Wisconsin, they'll empathise with me. I must have looked at dozens of line drawings, but nowhere do they show the distance (even inferred) from the level at which Bobcat mounted the engine to the centre of the crank. I decided I needed to measure:</p><p><img src="http://www.thesouthpole.co.za/bobcat/BloodSweatAndTears/2014-09-08_02.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></p><p>(This is the equivalent measurement I made on the B&S to confirm the measurement result and to double check the drawings - I made the same measurement on the Wisconsin).</p><p>This was all pasted into SolidWorks and voila:</p><p><img src="http://www.thesouthpole.co.za/bobcat/BloodSweatAndTears/2014-09-08_10.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></p><p>The four pads on top of the two plates represent the foot mount hole locations of the B&S. In all B&S manuals from 2010 the 35 HP Vanguard is shown, but in none of them the actual foot mount dimensions are given. I wrote to B&S to ask if they could provide the following dimensions:</p><p><img src="http://www.thesouthpole.co.za/bobcat/BloodSweatAndTears/2014-09-11_01.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></p><p>After backwards and forwardsing the customer services agent, this was the result:</p><p><img src="http://www.thesouthpole.co.za/bobcat/BloodSweatAndTears/2014-09-11_02.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></p><p>WHAT?????!!!!!!?!?!?!?! How can Briggs & Stratton, the makers of the Vanguard, not have drawings of their motor, or be prepared to release the foot mount locations, or not have a vernier caliper to run down to the warehouse and get the measurements. Absolutely incredible.</p><p>I made a tracing of the bottom of the motor, and made as many measurements as I could. I then drew this up in SolidWorks, and then had another (rare) brainwave. Looking through the B&S 2013 manual, it appears as if the 31 HP Vanguard and the 35 HP Vanguard share the same foot mount, and the foot mount drawings for the 31 HP are in the manual. So I modified my model to the 31 HP foot mount line drawings.</p><p>In the SolidWorks model shown above, one can see two stacked plates. Laser machines really don't like cutting holes < material thickness. As the hole diameter for the foot bolts is 9.5mm, the thickest material I wanted was 10mm. However, the model showed that the total packer thickness required was around 15.95mm - very close to 8mm x 2, or here in the US, 5/16" x 2. If I used 2x 5/16", it left me with a total packer error in thickness of 0.1mm, which I was prepared to ignore because of all of the other measurement inaccuracies.</p><p>This is the resulting plate:</p><p><img src="http://www.thesouthpole.co.za/bobcat/BloodSweatAndTears/2014-09-16_02.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></p><p>In the manual on the foot mount it indicates that the bolt holes in the block narrow from 3/8" at the bottom to something arbitrary at the top, so I accurately "reamed" the holes open to 3/8" using a 3/8" titanium coated Bosch drill bit and Hitachi cordless screwdriver.</p><p>I also noticed that though there are 8 mounting holes, the groups of two are so closely spaced that it is impossible to get two nuts onto the two adjacent bolts, so I decided to only use 4 bolts.</p><p>Here is the plate aligned with the motor:</p><p><img src="http://www.thesouthpole.co.za/bobcat/BloodSweatAndTears/2014-09-15_07.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></p><p>In the picture one can see a wave in the top leg of the plate. This is a scrap plate that shifted when the plate moved on the laser table. The holes are accurate though because the laser machine first cuts the holes, then the outline. The two plates I intended to use for the job didn't have this defect.</p><p>I dry fitted the motor and made sure that things at least appeared correct, without the plates welded in place. I then welded them and this is the result:</p><p><img src="http://www.thesouthpole.co.za/bobcat/BloodSweatAndTears/2014-09-16_01.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="peebeeaitch, post: 78458, member: 8318"] [U]2014-09-08[/U] During the research for which motor to buy, I quickly realized that this whole episode would cost a lot more and be a much bigger pain if I needed to drop the motor - I was therefore careful in making sure the B&S motor had a lower foot-to-crank height than the Wisconsin. If anyone's ever tried getting accurate drawings of the Wisconsin, they'll empathise with me. I must have looked at dozens of line drawings, but nowhere do they show the distance (even inferred) from the level at which Bobcat mounted the engine to the centre of the crank. I decided I needed to measure: [IMG]http://www.thesouthpole.co.za/bobcat/BloodSweatAndTears/2014-09-08_02.jpg[/IMG] (This is the equivalent measurement I made on the B&S to confirm the measurement result and to double check the drawings - I made the same measurement on the Wisconsin). This was all pasted into SolidWorks and voila: [IMG]http://www.thesouthpole.co.za/bobcat/BloodSweatAndTears/2014-09-08_10.jpg[/IMG] The four pads on top of the two plates represent the foot mount hole locations of the B&S. In all B&S manuals from 2010 the 35 HP Vanguard is shown, but in none of them the actual foot mount dimensions are given. I wrote to B&S to ask if they could provide the following dimensions: [IMG]http://www.thesouthpole.co.za/bobcat/BloodSweatAndTears/2014-09-11_01.jpg[/IMG] After backwards and forwardsing the customer services agent, this was the result: [IMG]http://www.thesouthpole.co.za/bobcat/BloodSweatAndTears/2014-09-11_02.jpg[/IMG] WHAT?????!!!!!!?!?!?!?! How can Briggs & Stratton, the makers of the Vanguard, not have drawings of their motor, or be prepared to release the foot mount locations, or not have a vernier caliper to run down to the warehouse and get the measurements. Absolutely incredible. I made a tracing of the bottom of the motor, and made as many measurements as I could. I then drew this up in SolidWorks, and then had another (rare) brainwave. Looking through the B&S 2013 manual, it appears as if the 31 HP Vanguard and the 35 HP Vanguard share the same foot mount, and the foot mount drawings for the 31 HP are in the manual. So I modified my model to the 31 HP foot mount line drawings. In the SolidWorks model shown above, one can see two stacked plates. Laser machines really don't like cutting holes < material thickness. As the hole diameter for the foot bolts is 9.5mm, the thickest material I wanted was 10mm. However, the model showed that the total packer thickness required was around 15.95mm - very close to 8mm x 2, or here in the US, 5/16” x 2. If I used 2x 5/16”, it left me with a total packer error in thickness of 0.1mm, which I was prepared to ignore because of all of the other measurement inaccuracies. This is the resulting plate: [IMG]http://www.thesouthpole.co.za/bobcat/BloodSweatAndTears/2014-09-16_02.jpg[/IMG] In the manual on the foot mount it indicates that the bolt holes in the block narrow from 3/8” at the bottom to something arbitrary at the top, so I accurately “reamed” the holes open to 3/8” using a 3/8” titanium coated Bosch drill bit and Hitachi cordless screwdriver. I also noticed that though there are 8 mounting holes, the groups of two are so closely spaced that it is impossible to get two nuts onto the two adjacent bolts, so I decided to only use 4 bolts. Here is the plate aligned with the motor: [IMG]http://www.thesouthpole.co.za/bobcat/BloodSweatAndTears/2014-09-15_07.jpg[/IMG] In the picture one can see a wave in the top leg of the plate. This is a scrap plate that shifted when the plate moved on the laser table. The holes are accurate though because the laser machine first cuts the holes, then the outline. The two plates I intended to use for the job didn't have this defect. I dry fitted the motor and made sure that things at least appeared correct, without the plates welded in place. I then welded them and this is the result: [IMG]http://www.thesouthpole.co.za/bobcat/BloodSweatAndTears/2014-09-16_01.jpg[/IMG] [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Bobcat Skidsteer Forums
General Bobcat Skidsteer Forum
630 - Repower
Top
