# 3 Point Log Splitters



## wdenton (Feb 22, 2012)

Hello,
I am looking at getting a log splitter for my Tractor (Ford 860 with a front loader)

I want to run the splitter off of the hydraulics that run the loader (not sure how yet but that will come later)

Anyone have any experience with the speedco 3 point splitters.
I am trying to compare this to the Wallenstein my inlaws have.

The Speedco is half the price so am I loosing that much in quality?


----------



## oldspark (Feb 22, 2012)

Do you have the remote hyd. fittings on your tractor?


----------



## wdenton (Feb 22, 2012)

I do not have the adapter plate installed to use the hydraulics in the tractor.
I do have  a vickers vane pump that runs off the front of the tractor plumbed to a resivoir and controls

Does that make sense?


----------



## Butcher (Feb 22, 2012)

Not familiar with Ford tractors. Does it have a power behond port on the tractors hyd. system? You could plumb it in there. I would add a cooler if you do as you could overheat your system. Another option would be a pto driven pump. With a big enough pump you can really make a splitter zing.


----------



## Stephen in SoKY (Feb 22, 2012)

How many GPM does your pump flow and at what pressure? Also, the valves that come with 3 point splitters are open center which should work with your remote pump, but you need to be certain. Closed center valves are more expensive than open. I love my 3 point splitter.

ETA: Re not having the adapter plate, I doubt your 860 would provide the flow or pressure you'd need anyway. Your existing rmote pump or a PTO pump and reservoir will probably be your best bet anyway. If the 860 pump were up to the task, they wouldn't put remote pumps on for FELs.


----------



## wdenton (Feb 22, 2012)

I believe it is 10 gpm

How do I tell if it is closed or open center?


----------



## Stephen in SoKY (Feb 22, 2012)

I'm flowing 16 GPM at 2250 PSI and my system is plenty fast for me, but some folks would get frustrated with it. There should be a plate on the auxilliary pump, look for an "O" or "C" in the model description. I'd bet it's open, but just wanted to mention if it's closed you're looking at a $150 valve replacement as new valves are rarely convertible these days. The existing auxiliary pump would save you considerable money as new PTO pumps and reservoirs aren't cheap. I'd get remotes in place on the aux pump and buy a splitter with the understanding I could return it if it doesn't work and see if you like it or not. A PTO pump will probably put you over the cost of a standalone splitter if your existing aux isn't enough for the splitter.


----------



## wkpoor (Feb 22, 2012)

I have a 3pt splitter that is part speeco and part custom fab. I discourage anyone from trying to power one off the tractor pump. Remember you will only make decent flow with the tractor at full rpm. That is a complete waste of fuel and alot of noise for no reason. A PTO is totally the way to go. You will get great cycle times with engine just off idle. A good well thought 3pt rig can be worlds better than a stand alone but it will cost more so know that up front. The Prince pump is 400.00 and some change right off the bat and then there is the reservoir. Just the QD fittings off the pump alone cost me 250.00. All total I have 1800.00 in my unit but I have 4 sec cycle time, adjustable working height, and can tow up to 10K behind it from the built in receiver. I would never go back to a stand alone IMO.


----------



## Butcher (Feb 23, 2012)

wkpoor said:
			
		

> I have a 3pt splitter that is part speeco and part custom fab. I discourage anyone from trying to power one off the tractor pump. Remember you will only make decent flow with the tractor at full rpm. That is a complete waste of fuel and alot of noise for no reason. A PTO is totally the way to go. You will get great cycle times with engine just off idle. A good well thought 3pt rig can be worlds better than a stand alone but it will cost more so know that up front. The Prince pump is 400.00 and some change right off the bat and then there is the reservoir. Just the QD fittings off the pump alone cost me 250.00. All total I have 1800.00 in my unit but I have 4 sec cycle time, adjustable working height, and can tow up to 10K behind it from the built in receiver. I would never go back to a stand alone IMO.



+1. 
I know alot of guys running a 3pt splitter on old H and M Farmalls (way less ponies than the 560 ferd) that our really happy with them.There are alott of good used pto pumps for sale out there if a guy takes the time to look and knows what he's looking at some good deals are available. I thought about making 1 for my 1750 Oliver but I usually have a 7' snowblower hangin off the back of it when I want to split wood.


----------



## wkpoor (Feb 23, 2012)

Butcher said:
			
		

> wkpoor said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Old tractors are so cheap these days just buy one dedicated to a splitter. I but my H for 475.00. I do use the splitter on my JD 5400 diesel though because it burns free fuel.


----------



## Butcher (Feb 23, 2012)

wkpoor said:
			
		

> Butcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Must be a regonal thing cuz here in my neck of the woods a decent H will still bring a grand. I sold my 49 H 10 years ago for $800 and it was getting pretty ragged. Woulda cost more to overhaul than what it was worth to me.


----------



## Ken45 (Feb 23, 2012)

What kind of cycle times you get with a PTO pump is going to depend very much on the particular pump, what rpm it was designed for and what the splitter needs.

I have the Timberwolf TW3HD pto powered splitter and I need to run the tractor at a minimum of 1500 rpm to get any decent cycle times (not fast cycle times, just moderate).  I haven't measured it but I would guess that at idle cycle time would be 45-60 seconds.

Ken


----------



## Butcher (Feb 23, 2012)

With alittle time and creativity this could be the way to go.


----------



## wkpoor (Feb 23, 2012)

Ken45 said:
			
		

> What kind of cycle times you get with a PTO pump is going to depend very much on the particular pump, what rpm it was designed for and what the splitter needs.
> 
> I have the Timberwolf TW3HD pto powered splitter and I need to run the tractor at a minimum of 1500 rpm to get any decent cycle times (not fast cycle times, just moderate).  I haven't measured it but I would guess that at idle cycle time would be 45-60 seconds.
> 
> Ken


 I looked up your splitter. Very nice indeed. Same Prince pump as I suspected. Thats really about the only one out there. I typically run at 1500 but get awsome speed at that rpm. I see in the specs you have a 5" cylinder and that is what is killing your cycle times. I thought they made one with a 4" like mine and their specs agree with my results. I'm sure I'm faster than 10secs even at 1/2 pto rpm which is still way faster than most stand alones.


----------



## Ken45 (Feb 23, 2012)

wkpoor said:
			
		

> I looked up your splitter. Very nice indeed. Same Prince pump as I suspected. Thats really about the only one out there. I typically run at 1500 but get awsome speed at that rpm. I see in the specs you have a 5" cylinder and that is what is killing your cycle times. I thought they made one with a 4" like mine and their specs agree with my results. I'm sure I'm faster than 10secs even at 1/2 pto rpm which is still way faster than most stand alones.



Good point, I had not thought about that.  The TW3 has a smaller cylinder, the HD model has the larger cylinder.  The HD model is beefier of course and comes with the 4 way wedge, which I wanted.  

Funny thing, I run mine on a Kubota M5040 (50 hp) and that tractor barely notices the splitter.   I tried it one day with my B2710 (27hp) and when the cylinder hit the stop, it killed the engine immediately, even at 2000 rpm.  

Ken


----------



## wkpoor (Feb 23, 2012)

Ken45 said:
			
		

> wkpoor said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Smaller compacts are rated on engine hp not pto and farm tractors are rated only pto hp. Marketing never tells you that. So its possible you 50hp tractor is actually 65 engine hp and your 27hp is actually less than 20pto. My 5400 is about 75 engine hp and there is no way to tell that pump is on there even at max gpm and pressure. You can google the hydraulic formula for hp vs pressure and flow. I'll bet you find the 2710 is marginal. I ran mine on an AllisCA 26 pto hp and it opened the governors when I hit a hard spot.


----------



## MasterMech (Feb 23, 2012)

wdenton said:
			
		

> Hello,
> I am looking at getting a log splitter for my Tractor ( with a front loader)
> 
> I want to run the splitter off of the hydraulics that run the loader (not sure how yet but that will come later)
> ...



With a Ford 860 I think wkpoor and Butcher are right to discourage you from doing this.  The best way to run a splitter from the tractor pump, assuming your tractor had a big honkin' pump on it, would be via a Power Beyond kit or similar.  Using a remote connection with a valve on the tractor will generate extra heat and restrict flow.  Those connections are not designed for constant flow rather for intermittent use.  Go with one that has a big PTO pump or order the splitter less pump (if possible) and buy your own.  Running the splitter from the 860's hydraulics would just overheat the hyd system and most likely result in an unacceptably slow cycle time.


----------



## Ken45 (Feb 23, 2012)

Oh yes, I am aware of engine HP vs. PTO HP and what they are for the two different tractors, I just didn't bother looking it up.  IIRC the M5040 is around 46 pto and the B2710 is around 21.   I was still surprised to see the 2710 stopped dead like it hit a brick wall just from the end of the cylinder travel.  I've had the bigger tractors slowly stall out a couple of times over the years when the cutter scalps but I've never seen any tractor stall so quickly as the 2710 did with the splitter. 

It is especially interesting that Timberwolf doesn't spec any hp requirements for the splitter.  I would sure hate to buy one and find out that my only tractor was woefully inadequate!

Ken


----------



## SolarAndWood (Feb 23, 2012)

I split a lot of wood with my 30 hp/8.6 gpm Ford.  I put Ts in the lines to the loader with valves.  i.e. you are either in loader mode or splitter mode depending on valve position.  Not an ideal splitting solution from a noise and productivity standpoint but got a lot of work done and used very little fuel.  And I had all of $125 into it.


----------



## wkpoor (Feb 23, 2012)

Ken45 said:
			
		

> Oh yes, I am aware of engine HP vs. PTO HP and what they are for the two different tractors, I just didn't bother looking it up.  IIRC the M5040 is around 46 pto and the B2710 is around 21.   I was still surprised to see the 2710 stopped dead like it hit a brick wall just from the end of the cylinder travel.  I've had the bigger tractors slowly stall out a couple of times over the years when the cutter scalps but I've never seen any tractor stall so quickly as the 2710 did with the splitter.
> 
> It is especially interesting that Timberwolf doesn't spec any hp requirements for the splitter.  I would sure hate to buy one and find out that my only tractor was woefully inadequate!
> 
> Ken


Is the 2710 turbo'd. I've seen the smaller unturbo'd diesels fall flat on their face when they run out of power and same size gas will just keep chugging down. I'm surprised the 5040 has less pto power than the advertised 50hp. It must fall into the compact category. I can see the hydraulic demand being great enough to do what you say. If the relief is set above what the tractor can power it would be a brick wall. I have yet to hook anything to the 5400 pto that I can tell its on there.


----------



## Ken45 (Feb 23, 2012)

wkpoor said:
			
		

> Is the 2710 turbo'd. I've seen the smaller unturbo'd diesels fall flat on their face when they run out of power and same size gas will just keep chugging down. I'm surprised the 5040 has less pto power than the advertised 50hp. It must fall into the compact category.



???  The M5040 is rated at 50.5 hp engine, 45 pto so there is no false advertising there.  It's a "utility class" tractor, not a compact.

The 2710 is not turbo, it's 12 or 13 years old.   Actually I didn't try the splitter with it running at max rpm, the way it killed it a 2000 rpm I didn't abuse it by repeating that at  WOT.

Ken


----------



## wkpoor (Feb 23, 2012)

> The M5040 is rated at 50.5 hp engine, 45 pto so there is no false advertising there.


False may be a little harsh but clearly they are rating that tractor on the engine so the numbers look better which is the marketing trick they have used for yrs with compacts and yes utilities. It doesn't make for apples to apples comparisons since forever and a day the standard was pto. I mean look we have 26 hp lawn mowers which we know can't be even close to your 2710 or an old Allis CA rated at 26hp. I would classify my JD as utility but its rated on the pto. I would say the 5040 is 45hp tractor not 50 cause that number is meaningless.


----------



## Ken45 (Feb 23, 2012)

All model numbers are meaningless without an interpretative table to pinpoint what they individually mean.  Sure, it's all marketing, I recognize that.  I have no idea what a JD5208 has for specs, nor an IH 5404 or an AC WD45.

Ken


----------



## MasterMech (Feb 23, 2012)

wkpoor said:
			
		

> > The M5040 is rated at 50.5 hp engine, 45 pto so there is no false advertising there.
> 
> 
> False may be a little harsh but clearly they are rating that tractor on the engine so the numbers look better which is the marketing trick they have used for yrs with compacts and yes utilities. It doesn't make for apples to apples comparisons since forever and a day the standard was pto. I mean look we have 26 hp lawn mowers which we know can't be even close to your 2710 or an old Allis CA rated at 26hp. I would classify my JD as utility but its rated on the pto. I would say the 5040 is 45hp tractor not 50 cause that number is meaningless.



IMO there is nothing wrong with advertising engine hp so long as PTO HP is also listed.  Hell, way back when, tractors were advertised with three ratings! Gross, Belt and Drawbar! 

FWIW: Kubota has been caught "rounding up" their HP numbers before.  Not egregiously but still....   Comparison was made with two machines on two separate, calibrated PTO dynos.  Kubota was at about 42.7 HP (45 advertised) and the Deere it was running against was making 47+ (also advertised 45HP) .  There is/was video of the test somewhere on the internet at some point  but I haven't seen it around for awhile.  I was lucky enough to witness the test in person! (Test was aprox. 5 years ago IIRC)


----------



## SolarAndWood (Feb 23, 2012)

Are you guys suggesting that the OP needs to have his tractor dyno tested before he tries to use it to split wood?


----------



## wkpoor (Feb 23, 2012)

> IMO there is nothing wrong with advertising engine hp so long as PTO HP is also listed.  Hell, way back when, tractors were advertised with three ratings! Gross, Belt and Drawbar!
> 
> FWIW: Kubota has been caught â€œrounding upâ€ their HP numbers before.  Not egregiously but stillâ€¦.  Comparison was made with two machines on two separate, calibrated PTO dynos.  Kubota was at about 42.7 HP (45 advertised) and the Deere it was running against was making 47+ (also advertised 45HP) .  There is/was video of the test somewhere on the internet at some point but I havenâ€™t seen it around for awhile.  I was lucky enough to witness the test in person! (Test was aprox. 5 years ago IIRC)


Beyound marketing engine hp #s mean nothing. Its not even on the Nebraska test. The 2 numbers that  have always been used are pto and drawbar. I realize most compacts and utilities didn't get the test but the whole reason for the Nebraska test was so mfgs couldn't make bogus claims. For sh*ts and giggles I looked up my 5400 vs the m5040. The specs on the M5040 says PTO 45 (claimed) and on the JD 5400 it says 60 (claimed) 62.56 (tested). I'm not comparing tractors I'm only pointing out a tractor that has been tested and referred to as such is the real deal. Throwing out what may be a paper number on engine hp doesn't inform the buyer as to what the tractor is really capable of when called upon to do work.


----------



## wkpoor (Feb 23, 2012)

SolarAndWood said:
			
		

> Are you guys suggesting that the OP needs to have his tractor dyno tested before he tries to use it to split wood?


This thread has been seriously derailed and no, no one is suggesting  anything of the such. You would have to have followed it closely to see how we got here. Surprised the mods haven't shut it down yet.


----------



## RowCropRenegade (Feb 24, 2012)

My dad GAVE me his 3 pt splitter that goes on the back of my IH 574 tractor.  It rans off the rear remote.  Closed center hydraulics.  I never use it.   Takes too long to hook it up and burns way more fuel that a huskee pull behind.  I've considered converting it to go on my JD333 to split monster trunk pieces.

I'd advise against running the 3 pt on the Vickers vane pump.  Blew my vickers up on my Oliver 550, about 700 bucks for a new one.  I would suggest going the PTO route if you are deadset on a tractor 3 pt splitter.

Good luck!


----------

