Green Tractor Talk banner

Adding additional SCV's to JD 4720

16282 Views 27 Replies 5 Participants Last post by  Furu
I have searched the archives and find nothing that quite addresses my issue described below. Something similar on a JD 3720 mod but from the discussion it is plumbed much differently from the 4720.

I have a 2007 JD 4720 with power beyond and the standard dual SCV.
I want to add some additional SCV's. I know that I can put on the 3rd SCV kit (LVB25513) and the 4th and 5th SCV electric diverter kit (LVB26077) and get three rear SCV's out of the mod.

My question is with the power beyond has anyone put on a spooler valve on the power beyond hydraulics to get the extra control valves that way. They would have to be open valves similar to what is on the backhoe. If a bank of open hydraulic valves were plumbed into the output of the power beyond and returned the same way it seems that could be a viable method of gaining what I am looking for. It may not be viable economically or technically versus the JD kits but if doable would leave the front end SCV usable at the same time.

Any ideas or experience in this area.
1 - 10 of 28 Posts
Welcome to DT!

I have done exactly what you propose on my 4110, plumbed a OC valve into the PB perfectly. Just make sure the valve and hoses are rated for the correct flow (heading to bed, not gonna look it up now)

I can get more specific later...but it sounds like you know the basics already.
OK, Steve-here you go. You did not mention if you had a cabbed machine, so I will assume you don't.

You machine flows 12 GPM to the PB line, so a good valve would be this two spool valve (Unless you want/need more?)

I suggest getting the valve, and then fabricating the mounts before you buy any hoses. Once the valve is mounted you will need to get two 1/2" hoses and the proper QD's to be able to plug it into the PB lines. You will NOT use the return port that the backhoe plugs into since that bypasses the 3PH, but rather the one that's used when you remove the backhoe. You should have one Male and one Female QD.

Then, you can add QD's directly to the work ports on the valve with various fittings rather than extending them with hoses to keep everything simple and compact, this is how I did mine and it works quite well. Some pictures are in this web album:

If you tell me what you need the extra remotes for, I may be able to help better.
See less See more
  • Like
Reactions: 1
Good stuff Steve, sounds like you have a good idea of what you want and need-that sometimes is half of the battle won right there, and with the wife wanting it that's often the other half! Let me know when you get closer and I can get more specific and detailed if you need it.
If you can tell me where your 2 spool mount holes are I should be able to determine a rough estimate of the mount holes for the 4 spool. Of course I could just buy it, but if it does not fit I would rather know that in advance thus my questions on the mount hole location.
My valve is smaller than the one I suggested since my system only flows 5 GPM. Attached below is a .pdf from Prince I found that has all the specs you will need.

Did you evaluate the Prince SV compact stackable control valves for your implementation (Catalog Pg 18)? It looks as if they could be assembled in whatever combination and added to later if needed. Price would be $10-$20 more than the same size monoblock valves but would allow growth if space allowed and needs required.
Yes, I did...many times. But for me space was at a absolute premium and they where to big. If you can fit them it's a great option. Did you factor in the inlet and outlet sections in your price comparison?


Unfortunately right now I see no option other than relocating the couplers with the corresponding hose issue. That might let me move the valves somewhere else but I like the idea of having them on the right ROP as I look back at an implement. Does anyone know how expensive/difficult it would be to make short steel hydraulic lines of 6-8" max to go from the valves to a coupler plate a short distance away?
Ideas are welcome
Well, no one can ever accuse you of not planning and thinking your projects through! Nice research!

It is not hard to make steel hardlines, you can braze fittings on or get "swagelocks" that require no brazing. Matt (mjncad) has some experience with this, hopefully he will comment shortly. One major concern is vibration though, they need to be well supported or they will crack/fail.

Another option: Split the 4 circuits up so that two have QD's directly on the valve (like mine) and the other two are satellite mounted elsewhere on a bracket. You can probably get away with using small 1/4" hose since your implements don't need much flow and it's much easier to route than 3/8" hose.
After reviewing kenndyd's tutorial on making hydraulic hoses I was thinking that maybe a satellite location for the couplers is not the end of the world. With a 5" radius bending capability on SAE 100R2AT 3/8 inch hose, it might be possible to accomplish without creating a rat's nest. I reviewed the numbers and think that 1/4 inch hose flow rate would be very restrictive. The 3/8 inch will work well however.
The "restriction" of 1/4" hoses can be an advantage. Small cylinders can move VERY fast with lots of flow, like on a grapple the cylinders are usually 2"x8", and pumping 10+ GPM into them can make them slam open or closed-often flow restrictors are used anyway to control the speed.

Most implements used on your 3PH are likely not to need the full flow from your tractor, short of a HPHD (hydraulic post whole digger). Not trying to convince you or change your mind-I just want to give you options.

The problem is the reusable hose fittings that I find on Discount Hydraulics site are either JIC or NPTF and I would rather go ORB (can be adapted however). The other is the cost starts to go up with the reusable fittings quite rapidly. ($9.25 for NPT, and $13.58, and $21.50 for the JIC; each and 8 hoses would required 16 total)
Yes, they are pricey, and they are a little longer than crimp-on's also meaning you cant start making a turn as soon. My personal favorite fitting is the JIC since there is no sealant or O-rings. And they are easy to adjust the direction. ORB's are my next favorite, but you will find limited styles (straight, 45*, 90*) for hoses since they are mostly used on valve, blocks, and manifold. It's common practice to put a ORB-JIC adapter on the valve then continue the plumbing with JIC fittings.

NPT's should be outlawed (especially for hydraulics), they just plain suck!

I did look at a Gold Value Parts catalog and they have pre-fab 2-wire hydraulic hose lengths that are rather inexpensive and short. (12 inch, $7.34 and 15 inches, $8.24) They all seem to be NPT male fittings but can be adapted to ORB with adapters HSA3 NPT straight ORB ($2.58) and HSA13 NPT 90 degree ORB ($6.23). Total cost of $16.15 for a 12 inch 3/8" hose with ORB on both ends. Need 8 of them.

Problem is I know nothing about the quality of Gold Value Parts. Does anyone know anything about them. The New Holland dealer is a dealer in the area.
Never heard of them...

I think I may have to fab a wooden mockup of the plan and see if I can fit the components the way I want to. The old Form, Fit, and Function before I get too serious and start ordering parts.
Making wooden or heavy cardboard parts first is a great way to make brackets and such.
See less See more
Matt posted a little more info on the steel lines/fittings here:
Welcome to GTT Matt!

What are you referring to when you say not to plumb to the return port the backhoe uses? Is this the one just below the drivers right, rockshaft arm and part of the PB kit? I don't have a backhoe to reference and the above comment on the backhoe return makes me go hmmmmm...:unknown: These things are too expensive to risk screwing up when knowledgeable help is a question away!

If I'm OK using the transmission return port that's available after the PB installation, does anyone know what the standard is for the 3/8" QD? It doesn't mate to a spare 3/8" ag interchange QD I have and I'll need to know when I get hoses around. The QD is on the tractor miles from my house, so measuring with the calipers is a stretch.

Thanks for all the help!
If I remember correctly without reading everything again, the OP wanted a "plug-in" solution when the backhoe was removed. So we discussed plumbing the new valve stack in just like the backhoe does but NOT using the return that bypasses the 3PH like the backhoe does.

If you don't have the backhoe, and you are basically permantly mounting your valve then you certainly can plumb the new valve in with the IN, OUT, and PB ports in the "normal" fashion.

The QD's are ISO-A IIRC like these: and the "AG Style". I thought the larger tractors used 1/2" however and not 3/8".
Your welcome Matt, start a new thread for you project when you get some pics:bye:
The first is since I have fabricated a mount that is probably way over-engineered I have lots of real estate to work with. How much separation do you recommend between the female QD's on the tractor side (They are satellited from the valve) and will be on a plate that extends the width between the ROPS. I have seen references to complaining about how close JD puts them but I don't want to spread them too much. Current design is 2.5 inches horizontal separation between each bank and 4.75 inches vertical between the A and B QD's. Dimensions are center to center. I am ready to cut the holes but am now second guessing my QD separation placement. Any recommendations?
Your spacing sounds good to me. Mine are very close together because they are mounted directly to the valve but they are still workable. I can only suggest you make a test peice from cardboard or thin plywood and see it it feels to you.

Second question. My original design did not have a PB sleeve in the Wolverine SV and went from the output of the SV back to the return of the PB. Reading MattF's posts on his installation on a 4720 he hooked up to his PB and plumbed the SV to both the JD PB return via the added Wolverine PB sleeve and then to the sump via the output of the SV. Did not understand why he did that and there were several posts that said you MUST plumb it that way. In addition as Kenny knows there is an individual on another site that is very vocal but often confuses the matter more than helps, that is adamant that you must always put a PB sleeve in a remote SV to return to both the PB return and to the sump separately. Which is correct or which is better?
Ah, my buddy JJ...the main reason I stopped posting in the hydraulics forum at TBN.:thumbsdown:

Anyway, here is my story: It is always better to use a PB sleeve and plumb a separate tank return IF possible, and on your machine it is indeed easy and possible. On the small tractors like mine, there just is not a place to return the fluid to so we plumb the new valve's in without it. That is where we argue over there-he always talks about valves blowing up but...:boredom:
1 - 10 of 28 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.